ANTI-MORTONUS OR AN APOLOGY In defence of the Church of Rome. AGAINST The Grand Imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham. Whereto is added in the Chapter XXXIII. An Answer to his late Sermon printed, and preached before his Majesty in the Cathedral Church of the same City. Narraverunt mihi iniqui fabulationes: sed non ut lex tua? Psal. 118. vers. 85. Dubit abimus nos cius Ecclesiae condere gremio, quae ab Apostolica Sede per successiones Episcoporum, frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus, culmen Authoritatis obtinnit? Cui nolle Primas dare, vel summae profecto impietatis est, vel praecipitis arrogantiae. S. August. de vtil. cred. cap. 17. Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XL. S. Bernardus serm. 64. in Cantica, in id Cant. 2.15. Capite nobis vulpes paruulas quae demoliuntur vineas. SI iuxta allegoriam, Ecclesias Vineas, Vulpes Haereses, vel potius Haereticos ipsos intelligamus, planus est sensus, ut Haeretici capiantur etc. Capiantur dico, non Armis, sed Argumentis, quibus refellantur Errores eorum: ipsi verò, fi fieri potest, reconcilientur Catholicae, revocentur ad veram Fidem. Haec est enim voluntas eius, qui vult omnes saluos fieri, & ad agnitionem Veritatis venire etc. Quod si reverti noluerint, non propterea se nihil egisse putet, qui Haereticum vicit & convicit; Haereses confutavit; Verisimilia à Vero clarè aperteque distinxit; prava dogmata planâ & irrefragabili ratione prava esse monstravit etc. Cepit, qui talia operatus est, Vulpem, etsi non ad salutem illi: & cepit eam Sponso, & Sponsae, quamuis aliter. Nam etsi Haereticus non surrexit de faece, Ecclesia tamen confirmatur in Fide: & quidem de profectibus Sponsae, Sponsus sine dubio gratulatur. TO DOCTOR MORTON BISHOP OF DURHAM. My Lord, WITHOUT endangering the least suspicion of Compliment, I believe I may crave your pardon for this Dedication: And as others use in modesty, of necessity I must suspect my Boldness. But Truth which I here vindicate from Imposture, disdains to shadow itself in Ceremony, most resplendent in its naked lustre. And forced by that, I address this Work to you, who have hitherto with so much art endeavoured to cloud it. I know the pride of human judgement slights all the threaten of hereafter punishment, when confession of mistake is required: And often by the opiniated, Obstinacy in error is esteemed Resolution: which makes me in some degree despair that fruit, these labours otherwise might have hereafter gathered. Moreover your Lo. ● is so glorious in your Challenge, and your Grand Imposture proclaims itself so invincible, that jealous of my own inability, I feared I might repent my courage, if I entertained the Combat. But from my Weakness I drew Confidence, and called to memory, how small an arm confounded the proud boast of the huge Philistian; and by how childish a weapon he was hurled down to what he built on, earth; and forced to acknowledge himself dust, and vanity. Take not therefore your own height by the Eminency of that Title you bear, or Reputation of your much learning, which is your Gild, not Ornament. Nor measure me by my humble Vocation, for I have vowed to be ambitious of no higher; or by the obscurity of my Name, since I can easily forgive the present Age, if it know me not; and Posterity, if it forget, I was. Neither had I now entered into this public Quarrel, had not your bold defiance to all of my profession provoked me to discover how little integrity there is, where it is most vaunted. At first, a pious Curiosity laboured only my own Satisfaction: That it now appears abroad, is the Charity I own my Country: And that it swells to this Volume, is the fault of your many, and I fear, too wilful mistakes. Consider, my Lord, how many souls are embarked with yours; for whose wrack at the last day you must stand accountant. And though a pleasing gale hath blown gently on you, yet no wind but drives you on towards judgement. There the sincerity of action, not the fallacy of language shall prevail: there no enforced Argument, false Citation, or cunning Distinction shall be able to justify Untruth. There heresy shall stand confounded, and they who maintained it (racked by their own Consciences) cry out; Behold where the Saints are enthroned in glory, raised thither by Humility, & Obedience to the authority of that Church, which if Truth itself speak truth, is Infallible; by resignation of theirs to the divine will, and cooperating to the merits of the great Mediator: But we mad men made a mockery of their wisdom; & to take the blemish from our lose behaviour, discredited the value of good works: We presumptuous in the vanity of Wit, opposed the divine Truth; and to destroy the Monarchy of S. Peter & his Successors, proclaimed liberty to every Rebellious Doctrine: We listened to the suggestions of a private Spirit; and seduced by that, contemned a long received, and universal Verity: and therefore justly now is our portion darkness, and our inheritance eternal fire. I doubt not but the holy Spirit often whispers these thoughts into your soul: but Pride keeps the gate of the hart fast shut. Moreover if we look not straight on heaven, without squinting on temporal respects; considering your fat revenue, and your Lordship, I may well be thought to invite you to your loss. But who, that hath regard to Safety, despiseth not the flatteries of Wealth, and Honour, when he meditates on the Treasures of the Eternal? And why should I utterly despair, though you have erred wilfully, that the Almighty Mercy may reclaim you; if ignorantly, that when you here find how much your judgement hath betrayed you, you will penitently submit, and make much satisfaction by your great example? S. Augustine thought it no dishonour to his judgement, to be overcome by Truth, and rather than lose a Soul, forsook an Heresy; which, as all others, had an age to flourish in. Nor is his Humility, a scandal to his Learning, or was his Change, Inconstancy: whose Volumes carry that reputation, that even Sectaries, who want his virtue for Obedience, endeavour to wrest his doctrine, for Defence. Here may your Lo? learn instruction: whom to accompany in an humble Conversion, will be more safety and glory, then to persever obstinate in a proud mistake. If the cunning, and art of your many Writings enamour you, throw away the unhappy dotage, though in them Hope flatters you, that your memory may hereafter live. Safer far, to have no Name with the succeeding Age, then to preserve it in the infamy of a spurious Issue. And believe it, when the Soul wilfully embraceth Error, it commits the worst Adultery; whatever is engendered by such conceptions, being both illegitimate, and monstruous. Look upon the opinions of them, who live severed (if they can be said to live who are dead to grace) from the Unity of the Church; and confess, how little constant Error is to itself. That Innocency from Lust, which so many of your Writers affirm impossible to preserve, your own single, and (I hope) incorrupt life hath approved possible: for unless you will endanger yourself to a Censure in the high Commission, you must acknowledge, flesh and blood may be kept in order, by the spirit. But what discovers the bodies of all Churches, which oppose the Catholic, most misshapen is the division among yourselves; now and ever so apparent, that I dare confidently aver, were there a Council called of all those you reckon yours, his Holiness might suspend his Censure, each one of you prepared to pronounce the other, Heretic. And for your Lo.p, though reputed most Orthodoxal, unless you quit that most reverend Title, which is your honour to make good, I suspect, you would by the Mayor voice be condemned, without the guilt of any other crime: though Truth and all Antiquity teach us, that Episcopal dignity hath ever been most eminent, and necessary in the Church, and aught to be held in veneration, where lawfully conferred, not usurped. But I fear, I keep no good time, when I strike on this harsh string: I will not therefore further afflict your ear. Let me only entreat, and if possible, prevail with your Lo.p, to cast up the account of those many years you have numbered here on earth. And if you have provided a Marble hereafter to enclose your dust, look not on the flattering Epitaph, which betrays the Reader: but listen to the silent sad Oratory, in which it pleads to you your condition. It tells you, that every path of life, how crooked soever in man's purposes, leads straight to death: That all the pomp of wealth, and honour (for acquisition of which he doubts not often to stake a Soul) is but an evening shadow, soon to be lost in an everlasting darkness: That youth doth oftentimes break promise, when it proposeth length of life; but that age is frantic, if it hope long to hold out against the assault of death. It therefore imports your Lo.p, who oppressed with years bow downward to the grave, seriously to look inward, & turn your sight from those vanities which have hitherto bewitched you. For pardon me, if to pride & vanity I ascribe a long continuance in error: and that I want credulity to think, an able Scholar can believe Untruth, though for the designs of his own Ambition, he obtrude it to the world. May your Lop. take, courage, and gain an entire Conquest over Sense, by subscribing to that Church, in which only is safety, and which your many unlucky Labours have slandered, not injured. So signal a Conversion will add● joy, and triumph to the Angels; and make me, who have been hitherto your Adversary, not Enemy, hereafter, Your true Admirer, and humble Servant. I. S. TO THE READER. GOOD READER, The Author of the Grand Imposture, in his first Epistle dedicated to his Majesty, sets only forth in general the heads of that doctrine he afterwards endeavours (though unluckily) to make good. But Error without appearance of proof, confutes itself: And it would anticipate the design of my study, if here I should labour thy satisfaction; since the whole ensuing Treatise discovers every of his mistakes in particular, which at the first entrance to his Book, he affirms in gross. Yet could I wish, that only truth should dare to approach the throne of Majesty; and that a conscience guilty of deceit, should not be able to pretend the confidence of the innocent: for the falsest doctrine may easily win belief upon the Laity, whom either much business diverts from the search of truth, or an unwillingness to be disturbed, encourageth to follow that easy path, they from their infancy have beaten; especially when it appears in public assevered by them who have their large stipend, and high honour, only on condition to be sincere in what they teach. But however he may flatter himself that his Reader will never arrive to patience enough, to travail beyond his Epistles, or that his authority will be sufficient, though his proofs are defective; I hope he will find his comfort to have betrayed him: for the business which here we controvert, being of value far beyond the whole world beside, I mean the soul of man, and the Church, in which only that can expect safety; I doubt not (good Reader) but thou wilt be so charitable to thyself, as to read, distinguish, and then reject error, how plausible soever it may appear to sense: Nor, though his reputation may have gained heretofore much upon thee, wilt thou believe, that Truth is by covenant bound to christian all the abortives of his Opinion. And whereas in his second Epistle, directed to all Romish Priests, whether jesuits or others, he seems by a Rhethoricall figure, to hear them censuring his charging the Church of Rome with Imposture, the bold assumption, or rather impudent, and impious presumption of an Heretic; I cannot but commend the judgement he instructs them to pronounce: for how could the wit of justice invent a more proper, or severer? Or to speak more truly, how could Mercy use a gentler? And though in that single word, Heretic, all Impiety is comprehended; yet how can he deserve any other sentence, who hath dared to defame thy innocency, O thou Immaculate Spouse of our great Redeemer? Who hath termed thy doctrine, which threw down the Statues of the Heathens, and rooted up all false worship, Idolatrous, Sacrilegious? Thy doctrine, which planted the faith of Christ with the blood of Martyrs, and tied up the common enemy of man, Satanical, and Antichristian? Thy doctrine, which is the only safety of the soul, Execrable, and Pernicious? which teacheth the true adoration of God, Blasphemous & Impious? which never varied in the least article from the truth, Schismatical, and Heretical? But how fare unable are these weak calumnies to wound thy strength, which hath triumphed over all the opposition of heresy, and hell? Thou art built upon a Rock of Diamond, which yields the brightest lustre, when impure slander raifeth the blackest night: A Rock, which never moved since Christ designed it, as a foundation for his greatest work on earth: A rock, against which her many Adversaries have battered with continual tempests, but still ended in froth, and noise. But all these fowl aspersions might be interpreted the wild expressions of an extravagant zeal, and perhaps challenge that pity we throw away upon the frantic. Neither can any man be enraged with such infamous language, who considers, it is that spirit, which possessed the first professors of this pretended reformation; who created a Religion in contempt of jurisdiction. And as every where they derogated from the spiritual, so spared they not the temporal, where fear of punishment restrained not their tongues to modesty. But what even amazeth my Understanding, is, that so well practised a man in controversy, so jealous of honour, and such a pretender to integrity, should fall into that deceitful, and, I may say, fatal crime of the writers of his Coat, false citation, and misinterpretation of Authors. What injury hath he done the dead, whose souls are blessed in heaven, and whose ashes are reverenced on earth, to make them defend a doctrine, in opposition to which they emptied every vein in their most (acred bodies? What cruelty to the living, by a pretended obedience to the authority of the primitive times, to enforce them to believe the errors of the present? Doth he hope, his Volumes shall fall only into the hands of the ignorant, or else of the negligent, so far, that any doctrine shall posse for currant, which his fancy hath been pleased to coin? Did he intrust others to make scrutiny into Authors for his purpose, & so adventure his reputation to the world, on an uncertain, and perhaps unfaithful evidence? Or did he believe, according to the rule of the worst Statesmen, any allegation how injurious soever, most just, if it served the advancement of his design? For certainly he hath given the world an example of such a courage, that no good Writer will ever follow, in daring thus to be disproved by any Reader, who hath the benefit of a Library, and the patience to compare truth with falsehood. For without giving credit to the testimonies I here allege, if any man will search into the Authors themselves, he shall find them mangled, as that (*) Procrustes apud Plutarch, in Theseo. Tyrant did his guests (who with most barbarous torment shortened or lengthened their bodies, according to the proportion of his bed:) No man writes short of his sense, but is extended on the rack: no man beyond, but is mutilated without mercy. This discovery of his unhappy practice I wish may beget his conversion, not confusion. But should he be so enamoured on his error, as not to be removed by the most forcible Arguments of Truth; I hope (Reader) in thee to reap some fruit of my labour. The Almighty in distribution of his benefits, will not be directed by humane judgement. Let his divine wisdom therefore bestow the fruit of my study, where, & on whom he pleaseth: for to his glory I must consecrate that, with whatsoever I am. Only (Curious Reader) I must beg thy pardon, that in endeavouring to write business, I have neglected language, which like that music Poets ascribe to the Sirens, hath been often treacherous to the hearer. Elegancy of speech is a gift, in which the wicked share equally with the good: and the most sacred tongue that ever spoke, disdained to adulterate truth with any fallacy of an artificial Phrase. The policy of some Republikes hath expelled their Orators, as subjects whom the power of eloquence rendered formidable; the multitude being easy to receive any impression through the ear; and Oratory being a weapon as sharp to destroy, as defend the State. Nor do I value the cunning of language worthy the industry of the serious: It may be of consequence, where well directed; but truth needs not borrow any ornament of language, to make itself more amiable. That which I aim at, is thy satisfaction; and that the Church of God, which is on earth no other, but the Roman, may shine unclouded in the sight of men, as it hath ever been most pure in the eye of God. And that all mankind whom error hath misled, may reunite themselves into her faith; guided by which, the innocent can only hope for perseurance to glory, and the repentant a way to mercy. An Addition. COurteous Reader, I had almost forgotten to advertise thee, that whereas Doctor Morton hath made two Editions of his Grand Imposture; the Edition which I shall cite in this Apology, is the second, revised, and supplied, and printed at London by George Miller, for Robert Milbourne. 1628. A table of the Chapters and Sections of this Book. CHAP. I. General principles premised for the better understanding of this Apology. Pag. 1. The importance of the subject. Sect. 1. ib. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholic Church, and in what sense. Sect. 2. pag. 4. That in the language of antiquity the Catholic Church, and the Roman Church, were two names signifying one and the same thing. Sect. 3. pag. 7. That whosoever is out of the Roman Church, is out of the state of salvation. Sect. 4. pag. 13. CHAP. II. Of Doctor Mortons' manner of alleging Authors in general. pag. 27. CHAP. III. Whether the (now) Roman Church, hath composed a new Creed. pag. 36. CHAP. IU. Whether the (now) Roman Church have added any new Articles to the Creed of the Apostles. pag. 38. CHAP. V. That the word Roman, is no depravation, but a true declaration of the article of the Catholic Church. pag. 40. Doctor morton's first Argument against the precedent doctrine answered. Sect. 1. ibid. His second Argument answered. Sect. 2. pag. 43. His third Argument answered. Sect. 3. pag. 52. His fourth Argument answered. Sect. 4. pag. 54. His fifth Argument answered. Sect. 5. pag. 56. His sixth Argument answered. Sect. 6. pag. 58. His seaventh Argument answered. Sect. 7. pag. 59 His eight Argument answered. Sect 8. pag. 60. CHAP. VI That the Roman Church is the Head and mother of all Churches. pag. 61. CHAP. VII. S. Peter's primacy defended. pag. 72. CHAP. VIII. Abuses and wrongs offered by Doctor Morton to the ancient Fathers and other Catholic writers. pag. 81. CHAP. IX. S. Peter exercised his authority, and jurisdiction of supreme Pastor and Governor, over the other Apostles, and over the whole Church. pag. 88 CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons' Arguments against the former doctrine, answered. pag. 93. CHAP. XI. Sleights and falsifications of Doctor Morton to shift of the testimonies of ancient Fathers teaching S. Peter's supremacy. pag. 107. CHAP. XII. The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of faith proved to be infallible. pag. 117. Our first Argument. Sect. 1. pag. ibid. Our second Argument. Sect. 2.125. S. Paul's subjection to S. Peter, and his acknowledgement thereof. Sect. 3. pag. 132. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton answered. Sect. 4. pag. 140. Privileges granted to other of the Apostles, and not to S. Peter, objected by Doctor Morton. Sect. 5. pag. 143. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church. Sect. 6. pag. 152. Why S. Paul did not entitle his Epistles, Catholic Epistles. Sect. 7. pag. 159. Other Arguments out of S. Paul, and other Catholic Authors answered. Sect. 8. pag. 162. CHAP. XIII. Whether S. john the Evangelist conceived himself subject to the Roman Church. pag. 166. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether S. john surviving S. Peter, were subject to the B. of Rome, S. Peter's Successor. Sect. 2. pag. 173. CHAP. XIV. Why the Epistles of S. james, john, and jude are entitled Catholic Epistles. pag. 177. Of the name Catholic. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the title of Vicar of Christ belong to the Pope, and in what sense. Sect. 2. pag. 180. Whether S. Paul reckoning the Ecclesiastical orders, gave the Pope any place among them. Sect. 3. pag. 182. Doctor morton's railing against the Inquisition. Sect. 4. pag. 187. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word Catholic: & the judgement of divers Fathers, objected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church. pag. 195. That the word Catholic proves the Roman Church to be the true Church. Sect. 1. ibid. The judgement of S. Hierome concerning the Church Catholic. Sect. 2. pag. 198. The judgement of S. Gregory concerning the Supremacy of the B. of Rome, and his title of universal Bishop. Sect. 3. pag. 201. S. Dionyse his judgement concerning the supremacy of the Roman Church. Sect. 4. pag. 302. S. Ignatius his judgement of the Roman Church. Sect. 5. p. 303. S. Irenaeus his judgement of the Roman Church. Sect. 6. p. 304. Tertullian his judgement of the Roman Church. Sect. 7. pag. 308. Vincentius Lyrinensis his judgement of the Roman Church. Sect. 8. pag. 311. Other observations of Doctor Morton out of Antiquity, answered. Sect. 9 pag. 312. CHAP. XVI. The judgement of the Council of Nice, concerning the authority of the B. and Church of Rome. pag. 313. Doctor Mortons' objections against the precedent doctrine, answered. Sect. 1. pag. 318. CHAP. XVII. The second general Council held at Constantinople, believed the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome. pag. 324. By what authority this Council was called. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and jurisdiction, or of Order only. Sect. 2. pag. 328. Whether the names of Brother, Colleague, and Fellow-Minister, which the Pope giveth to other Bishops, and they to him, argue them to be of equal Authority, and jurisdiction with him. Sect. 3. pag. 330. A frivolous cavil of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine, answered. Sect. 4. pag. 335. Of the Decree of this second Council general made in favour of the Archbishop of Constantinople. Sect. 5. pag. 336. That no Canon of any Council can be of force, until it be confirmed by the See Apostolic. Sect. 6. pag. 338. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force. Sect. 7. pag. 340. CHAP. XVIII. The third Council general, being the first of Ephesus, believed the supreme authority and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome over all Bishops. pag. 343. Of the deposition and condemnation of Nestorius, by the command of Pope Celestine: and whether the style of ancient Popes were to command. Sect. 1. ibid. The Council of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of john Patriarch of Antioch. Sect. 2. pag. 351. Of the Ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus, treated in the Council of Ephesus. Sect. 3. pag. 352. Whether it may be gathered out of the Council of Ephesus, that the authority of the Pope is above a general Council. Sect. 4. pag. 353. CHAP. XIX. The Council of Chalcedon believed the supreme authority of the B. of Rome. pag. 355. That Leo Pope called the Council of Chalcedon by his authority, and presided in it by his Legates. Sect. 1. ibid. That the Council of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus, & restored Theodoret. Sect. 2. pag. 356. Whether the title of Universal Bishop, which the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Pope, argue in him no more but a general care of the good of the Church, such as belongs to every Bishop, and to every Christian. Sect. 3. pag. 360. Whether the Council of Chalcedon did give to the B. of Constantinople privileges equal with the B. of Rome. Sect. 4. pag. 362. Falsifications and untruths of Doctor Morton discovered, & his Arguments answered. Sect. 5. pag. 367. CHAP. XX. The fifth Council general believed the supreme authority of the Bishop & Church of Rome. p. 375. Doctor Mortons' ignorance, and contradictions concerning this Council. Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons' ignorance further discovered, and his falsifying of Binius. Sect. 2. pag. 377. Of the matter treated in the fifth general Council. Sect. 3. pag. 381. Doctor Mortons' gloss upon the word Obedience. Sect. 4. pag. 383. CHAP. XXI. Of the sixth general Council. pag. 385. That it acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the fixth Council condemned Honoriu Pope as an Heretic. Sect. 2. pag. 387. CHAP. XXII. Of the seaventh and eight general Counsels: pag. 391. That these two Counsels acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop and Church of Rome. Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor Mortons' ignorance concerning the eight general Council. Sect. 2. pag. 392. Whether the eight general Council condemned the Saturday-fast allowed by the Roman Church. Sect. 3. pag. 394. CHAP. XXIII. Doctor Morton defendeth the heretical custom of the Asian Bishops. pag. 397. CHAP. XXIV. Doctor Morton in opposition to the Roman Church defendeth the heretical Doctrine of Rebaptization. pag. 402. CHAP. XXU. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton out of S. Cyprian, answered. pag. 408. CHAP. XXVI. The Counsels of Carthage and Milevis acknowledged the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome. pag. 411. CHAP. XXVII. Appeals to Rome proved out of the African Council which was the sixth of Carthage. p. 419. The state of the question. Sect. 1. ibid. That the Nicen Canons were more than twenty in number. And that the Canons concerning appeals to Rome, were true Canons of the Nicen Council. Sect. 2. pag. 421. Whether, if there had been no Canon for appeals to Rome in the Council of Nice, it had been forgery in Pope Zosimus, to allege a Canon of the Sardican Council, for a Canon of Nice. Sect. 3. pag. 426. Untruths and falsifications of D. Morton discovered, and his objections answered. Sect. 4. pag. 429. Whether this Controversy of appeals wrought in the Africans, any separation of Communion from the Roman Church. Sect. 5. pag. 437. CHAP. XXVIII. Whether the Britan's and Scots, not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church, were for that cause separated from her communion. p. 450. CHAP. XXIX. Of the great reverence of ancient Christian Emperors, and Kings, to the Pope. pag. 454. CHAP. XXX. Whether Christian Emperors have invested themselves in Ecclesiastical affairs. pag. 461. Constantine the Great invested not himself in Ecclesiastical causes. Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor morton's second Example of Theodosius, examined. Sect. 2. pag. 469. Doctor morton's third instance of Theodosius the younger and Honorius, examined. Sect. 3. pag. 471. Doctor morton's fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian, examined. Sect. 4. pag. 473. Doctor morton's fifth instance of justinian, examined. Sect. 5. pag. 475. CHAP. XXXI. Of the authority, and place of Emperors in Counsels. pag. 480. CHAP. XXXII. Whether Popes have challenged civil subjection from Emperors and Kings, Christian and Heathen. pag. 483. Doctor morton's first Argument out of Innocent the third examined. Sect. 1. ibid. Doctor morton's second Argument out of Hieremy the Prophet, examined. Sect. 2. pag. 486. Doctor morton's third Argument out of the examples of divers Popes, examined. Sect. 3. pag. 490. Doctor Morton contradicteth himself. Sect. 4. pag. 494. CHAP. XXXIII. Doctor Mortons' late Sermon preached in the Cathedral Church of Durham, answered. pag. 495. The sense of S. Paul's words which Doctor Morton took for his text, declared. Sect. 1. pag. 496. Ancient Popes objected, and falfified by Doctor Morton. Sect. 2 pag. 501. Other Fathers and Catholic authors objected by Doctor Morton. Sect. 3. pag. 507. Doctor Morton slandereth Vrban Pope, and with him all Catholics. Sect. 4. pag. 510. Doctor Morton objecteth the Bull of Maundy-thursday. Sect. 5. pag. 512. Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answered. Sect. 6. pag. 514. The same matter prosecuted. Sect. 7. pag. 517. CHAP. XXXIV. Doctor Mortons' doctrine condemneth the Saints and Martyrs of God. pag. 522. S. Policarpe objected by Doctor Morton. Sect. 1. ibid. S. Cyprian objected by Doctor Morton. Sect. 2. pag. 523. S. Athanasius objected by Doctor Morton. Sect. 3. pag. 525. S. Basils' belief of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proved, and Doctor Mortons' objections answered. Sect. 4. pag. 528. Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope. Sect. 5. p. 533. S. Hieroms judgement concerning the necessity of union with the Church of Rome, and subjection to the Bishop thereof. Sect. 6. pag. 536. S. Ambrose his judgement concerning the necessity of Union and subjection to the Bishop and Church of Rome. Sect. 7. pag. 545. S. Augustine's judgement concerning the necessity of Union, with the Church of Rome, and subjection to the Bishop thereof. Sect. 8 pag. 552. S. Hilary B. of Aries acknowledged himself subject to the B. of Rome. Sect. 9 pag. 558. CHAP. XXXV. Of titles attributed to the Pope. p. 561. CHAP. XXXVI. The nullity of Doctor Mortons' answers to the testimonies of ancient Fathers discovered. pa. 571. Some of his answers examined. Sect. 1. ibid. Others of Doctor Mortons' answers to the Ancient Fathers, examined. Sect. 2. pag. 574, Doctor Mortons' answer to the testimony of Acacius examined. Sect. 3. pag. 577. Doctor Mortons' answer to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted. Sect. 4. pag. 581. Doctor Morton in his answer to Optatus contradicteth himself. Sect. 5. pag. 582. Other untruths of Doctor Morton discovered, & his cavilling against the title of Holiness given to the Pope. Sect. 6. pag. 583. CHAP. XXXVII. Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes. pag. 587. Of the Epistles of Pope's living within the first 300. years after Christ. Sect. 1. pag. 588. The nullity of Doctor Mortons' answers to the testimonies of Popes, that lived in the second 300. years after Christ. Sect. 2. pag. 592. CHAP. XXXVIII. The universal jurisdiction of the B. of Rome proved by the exercise of his authority over other Bishops. pag. 600. The Pope's universal authority proved by the institution & confirmation of Bishops: And of the use and signification of the Pall, or mantle granted to Archbishops. Sect. 1. p. 601. A shift of Doctor Morton rejected. Sect. 2. pag. 604. The Pope's power of instituting and confirming Bishops, proved by examples. Sect. 3 pag. 605. The Pope's power of deposing Bishops without a Council proved by examples. Sect. 4. pag. 608. The Pope's power of restoring Bishops without a Council Sect. 5.. pag. 611. Doctor Morton to Cross the Pope's authority in restoring Bishops deposed, takes part with the Arians, and justifies their impious proceed against S. Athanasius, & other Catholic Bishops. Sect. 6. pag. 612. Other passages of Doctor Morton examined. Sect. 7. pa. 618. Doctor Mortons' ignorance concerning excommunication. And of Heretics excommunicating the Pope. Sect. 8. p. 621. Adrian and Nicolas Popes objected by Doctor Morton. Sect. 9 pag. 623. Of the deposition of Flavianns' Patriarch of Antioch. Sect. 10. pag. 624. Doctor Morton in defence of his doctrine chargeth ancient Bishops which exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their own jurisdiction. Sect. 11. pag. 631. CHAP. XXXIX. Of Appeals to Rome decreed in the Council of Sardica. pag. 635. Whether the Council of Sardica were a general Council. Sect. 1. ibid. Other objections of Doctor Morton against Appeals to Rome, answered. Sect. 2. pag. 637. Examples of innocent Appellants. Sect. 3. pag. 638. Doctor Mortons' ignorance concerning the antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote nations. Sect. 4. pag. 639. That S. Athanasius appealed to julius' Pope, and Theodoret to Leo, as to absolute judges: and that by their authority both of them were restored to their Churches. Sect. 5. p. 641. That S. Chrysoftome appealed to Innocentius Pope, as to an absolute judge, and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople. Sect. 6. pag. 643. That Flavianus appealed to Leo Pope, as to an absolute judge. Sect. 7. pag. 648. Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope, in his right of Appeals. Sect. 8. pag. 650. The rest of Doctor Mortons' Arguments against Appeals to Rome. Sect. 9 pag. 653. CHAP. XL. Whether the Eastern Churches be at this day accordant in Communion with Protestants. pag. 654. The state of the question. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Grecians of the primitive and successive times agreed in Faith and Communion, with the Bishop and Church of Rome, and particularly at the Council of Florence. Sect. 2. pag. 655. That many of the Grecians at this day are of the Roman Communion, and profess subjection to the B. of Rome. Sect. 3. pag. 662. Of the Egyptians. Sect. 4. pag. 663. Of the Aethiopians. Sect. 5. pag. 664. Of the Armenians. Sect. 6. pag. 665. Of the Russians. Sect. 7. pag. 666. Of the Aslyrians. Sect. 8. ibid. Of the Antiochians. Sect. 9 pag. 668. Of the Africans. Sect. 10 pag. 669. Of the Asians. Sect. 11. ibid. CHAP. XXXXI. That in the forenamed countries there are no Christians that agree in faith & Communion with Protestants. pag. 669. The Grecians, which are not of the Roman communion are absolute Heretics. And Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholic Authors to excuse them. Sect. 1. pag. 670. Of the Lutherans of Germany, writing to Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople to be admitted into the communion of the Greek Church: and his answer to them. Sect. 2. pag. 674. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople produced by Doctor Morton, to prove that he dissented from the Roman Church, examined. Sect. 3. pag. 678. The Egyptians, Aethiopians, Armenians, Russians, Melchites, Africans, and Asians, which call themselves Christians, and be not of the Roman communion, are absolute Heretics. Sect. 4. pag. 679. CHAP. XXXXII. Doctor Mortons' plea for his Protestant Church. pag. 683. The small extent of the Protestant Church proveth her not to be the Catholic Church. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Protestant Church be free from error in doctrine. Sect. 2. pag. 686. Doctor Mortons' pretended purity of manners, in his Protestant Church. ect. 3. pag. 687. That Protestants by Schism have divided themselves from the Catholic Church. Sect. 4. pag. 688. CHAP. XXXXIII. Of the Head of the Roman Church compared to the body thereof. pag. 691. Whether it be matter of faith, that the Pope is above a Council. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether it be matter of faith, that this individual 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 headless. Sect. 3. pag. 693. Whether the Roman Church have at any time a false Head. Sect. 4. pag. 696. Whether the Roman Church at any time be divided into many Heads. Sect. 5. pag. 700. Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed. Sect. 6. pag. 702. Of the Council of Constance, defining a Council to be above the Pope. Sect. 7. pag. 704. The same matter prosecuted, out of the Council of Basil. Sect. 8. pag. 706. Doctor Mortons' instances of France and England to prove the no-necessity of Union with the Church of Rome. Sect. 9 pag. 709. CHAP. XXXXIV. Whether Luther & his followers had any just cause to separate themselves from the Roman Church. pag. 711. Whether any Protestants have held that the Catholic Church, before Luther's fall, was wholly extinguished. Sect. 1. ibid. Whether the Catholic Church assembled in a general Council may err in her definitions of faith. Sect. 2. p. 714. Whether Protestants hold the Church of Christ to be invisible. Sect. 3. pag. 720. What causes may suffice to departed from the communion of a particular Church. Sect. 4. pag. 725. Of Luther's excommunication, and his conference with the Devil. Sect. 5. pag. 731. Whether the Roman Church be as subject to Errors, as any other Church. Sect. 6. pag. 735. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophecy, that the Church of Rome shall fall from the faith. Sect. 7. pag. 740. Whether Luther were justly excommunicated. Sect. 8. p. 741. Of the first occasion of Luther's revolt from the Church. And that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences, falsifieth sundry Authors. Sect. 9 pag. 744. The causes given by Doctor Morton in excuse of Luther's departure from the Roman Church. Sect. 10. pag. 749. Whether Protestants had any professors of their faith before Luther. Sect. 11. pag. 751. That all changes of faith have been noted in the persons, times, and places of their beginnings. Sect. 12. pag. 757. The lineal succession of Bishops in the See of Rome, is a true and certain mark of the Catholic Church. Sect. 13. pag. 760. Of the conformity of Protestants and Donatists, in their separation from the Catholic Church. Sect. 14. pag. 763. That the faith of the (now) Roman Church is acknowledged by Protestants to be sufficient for salvation. Sect. 15. pag. 765. CHAP. I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES PREMISED for the better understanding of the ensuing Apology. SECT. I. The importance of the Subject. THOUGH there be many questions in Religion controverted between Protestants and us, yet none more important, or more necessary to be known, then that of the Church. Protestants agree with us so far, as to believe that there is. & shall be to the end of the world extant on earth One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which is the (a) 1. Tim. 3.15. Pillar and touchstone of truth; which all men that will not be as Heathens, and Publicans, must hear and (b) Math. 18.17. obey; which is the second Eve framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ, whom whosoever will not acknowledge to be his Mother, cannot have him to be his (c) S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father. She is the mystical body of our (d) Ephes. 5.23. Lord, out of which (saith 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 receive the wages of everlasting life. She the Ark of No (g) S. Hiero. ep. 57 S. Gaudent tract. 2. de lect. Euang. in which whosoever is not, or out of which whosoever departeth, shall perish. She is the wellspring of truth, (h) Lactant. 4 diuin iustit. ●. vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2. ad Thessaly. the House of faith, the Temple of God, in which men's prayers are heard, and their sacrifices accepted; all other congregations being Synagogues of Satan & denns of Devils. She is the garden of God (i) Cant. 4.12.13.15. in which whosoever groweth not, is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked up, and cast into hell fire. Finally she is the kingdom of Christ (k) 2. Reg 7.12 1 Paralip. 17.11. Psal 44.7. Luc. 1.33 Colos●. 1.13. in which whosoever is not, is none of Christ's people Whosoever (saith (l) Eb. 152. add popul. fact. Donas. & cont. ep Parmen l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine) is divided from the Catholic Church, although he think himself to liu● never so laudably, for this only crime that he is divided from the unity of Christ, the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeritus an heretical (m) Serm. super gestis cum Emerito post med. Bishop; He cannot have salvation, but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Church he may have all things but salvation: he may have honour he may have Sacraments, he may sing Alleluia he may answer Amen he may have the Gospel, he may have and preach belief in the name of the Father, and the Son & the holy Ghost: but salvation he can find no where, but in the Catholic Church. Wherefore since the salvation of our souls cannot be had out of the Catholic Church, it is most necessary for every man to inquire and learn, which, and where is that Temple of God, that kingdom of Christ, that store-house of truth, and that second Eve our spiritual Mother, that knowing her, & resorting to her, he may be cherished in her lap, and nourished at her breasts with the milk of her wholesome Doctrine. The belief of all Catholics is, that these foresaid a●tributs agree to the Roman Church, and to no other congregation in the world; and that therefore she alone is the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which whosoever is, may, & in which whosoever is not, cannot be saved. Upon this our Doctrine you pass a censure suitable to your modesty, Videlicet, that it is False. Imposterous Scandalous, Schismatical, Heretical, Blasphemous; every way Damnable, (n) Pag. 5.182.419. Presumgtuous, (o) Pag. 336. Impious, (p) Pag 95. Execrable, (q) Pag 127. Damnably heretical, (r) Pag 91. Pernicious, Antichristian, (s) Pag 99 Sacrilegious, (t) Pag. 336. Satanical, Idolatrous (u) Pag. 387. This is your censure; and to make it good, you writ a large volume, which you entitle, The Grand Imposture of the (now) Roman Church; but mistake yourself in the name, for the book is, & aught to have been entitled, The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, against the Roman Church of this and all former ages, for upon due examination such he will find it to be, that shall please to pass his Eye over the ensuing Apology: and I doubt not, but after the perusal thereof, he will rest convinced, that those monstrous Titles wherewith you slander our Doctrine, most fitly agree to your own, delivered in your Grand Imposture. But before I come to join issue with you concerning the particulars, it will not be amiss, to examine briefly in general, whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of God's Church (whom you acknowledge to have lived upon earth in the true faith, and now to be most glorious Saints in heaven) were of your belief concerning the Roman Church, or of ours: for they being lights of the world (x) Math. 5.15. whom God hath raised in all ages, and placed on the candlestick of his Church, to enlighten our ways, and deliver unto us the true sense and meaning of his holy word, that we may not be like children wavering and carried away with every blast of heretical (y) Ephef. 4.14. Doctrine, I suppose, that as there is no wiseman, who will not desire to be ranked among them in the next world, and to stand with them at the later day: so there is none, that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church, and a professor of the same faith, which brought them to that happiness, especially knowing (as we do) that there is burr one Church in which, and one faith by which men may be saved: for to think that so many men so eminently learned, and that used so great means both of study and prayer, to attain to the knowledge of truth, and of the right way to heaven, have all erred, not living in the true Church which leads to salvation, but in an erring Synagogue, that leads to everlasting ruin and damnation, is a conceit that I think no Christian (and I am sure no prudent man) can harbour in his breast; which yet he must do, that will credit your Doctrine, as the ensuing proofs will declare. SECT. II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholic Church, and in what sense? ALthough the Name of Catholic Church, whether we regard the etymology, or the most proper and usual acception of the word Catholic, signify not any particular Church, but the Universal spread over the whole world, yet withal it is true, that every particular Church may in some sense be called Catholic: for as every particular Orthodox man hath the denomination of a Catholic man, because he professeth the Catholic faith, and is a member of the Universal Church: so for the same reason, and in the same sense, both the particular Church of Rome, and all others orthodoxal, may be called Catholic Churches. In this sense, the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus, (z) Euseb. l. 4. histor. c. 14. address their Epistle, To the Church of God at Philomelium, and to all other the holy & Catholic Churches throughout the world. In the same sense Constantine (a) In Apolog. 2. Atha●asij. the Emperor calleth the Church of Athanasius, The Catholic Church of Alexandria, by reason of the Catholic faith, which it preserved entire, whiles many other Churches of Egypt were infected with Arianisme. And so likewise (b) Cont. ep. Fund. c 4. S. Augustine (with whom agree (c) Epist. 1. Pacianus, and cyril of Jerusalem) (d) Cateches. 18. saith, that if a stranger come into a City infected with Heresy, and inquire for the Catholic Church, even the Heretics themselves will not direct him to any Church of theirs, but to a Church in which Catholics meet to serve God. In this sense, as other particular Churches, so also the Roman (even as she is a particular Church limited to the Diocese of Rome) may have the name of A Catholic Church. But when we say, No man can be saved, that is not a member of the Roman Church, we speak not of the Roman Church in this sense (for Catholics of other Dioceses may be saved, aswell as of the Roman) but by the Roman Church we understand the Universal Church, comprehending both that of the Roman Diocese, and all other particular Churches that profess subjection to her, follow her Doctrine, and embrace her communion: for all these by adherence to her, and union with her, make one mystical body of Christ, and one holy Catholic, or universal Church, of which she is the Head, and the rest members. For the better understanding of this, we are to consider several dignities united in the person of the Bishop of Rome. He is Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch, and Pope. As he is Bishop, his jurisdiction is confined to the City of Rome, and other towns within her territories, of which the Roman Diocese consisteth. As he is Archbishop, he hath subject unto him some few others, the chiefest of which, is the Bishop of Ostia. As he is Patriarch, the extent of his authority is over all the Western, or Latin Church. And finally as he is Pope, that is to say the Successor of S. Peter, and the chief Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ upon earth, he is the supreme Pastor & Governor of the whole Church of God, which is universally spread over the face of the earth, wheresoever the name of Christ is known; which therefore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholic Church. In regard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome, he is rightly styled Bishop of the Universal, or Catholic Church; to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people, by the institution of Christ, own subjection and obedience. And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops, so the particular Church of the Roman Diocese, is the head and Mother of all Churches. Now, that not only the particular Church of the Roman Diocese, but also the whole body of the Catholic or universal Church consisting of the Roman as head, and the rest as members, is likewise rightly and in a true and proper sense styled the Roman Church. I prove out of S. Augustine, saying (e) De percato orig. l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians, not only the Counsels of Bishops, and the See Apostolic, but also, universam Romanam Ecclesiam, the whole Roman Church, and the Roman Empire were most justly incensed: where by the Roman Church he understands the universal, or Catholic Church spread over the world, as by the Roman Empire he understands the Empire of the Romans spread over the world. And the same I prove by examples. For when we speak of the jewish people, or the jewish Church, we understand not the tribe of juda only, but all the rest of the tribes, that were joined therewith. S. john Baptist was of the tribe of Levi; S. Paul of the tribe of Benjamin; and that holy widow Anna, mentioned by S. Luke (d) Cap. 2.36. of the tribe of Aser: and yet they all are rightly called jews, parts of the jewish people, and members of the jewish Church, by reason of their adherence to, and communion with the principal tribe, which was that of juda. Likewise under the name of the Greek Church, are not comprehended the natural Greeks only; for the Muscovites and Russians, though they be of a different nation, and have their service in a different tongue, are yet esteemed, and said to be of the Greek Church, because they embrace her Doctrine, and communion. And what more usual to Protestants themselves, then to call Catholics in what part of the world soever they live, Romanists? And lastly to confirm this manner of speech with secular, aswell as with Ecclesiastical examples, who knoweth not, that according to the phrase of all writers, by the name of the Roman Empire, is not understood the City and territories of Rome only, but also whatsoever other Provinces subject to the Roman Emperors, though never so distant from Rome? And so in like manner, when we say, that out of the Roman Church there is no hope of salvation, by the Roman Church we understand not the particular Diocese of Rome, but all the Churches of the world, which make one Catholic or universal Church, of which the Roman is head, and the rest members subject to her. And because the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops, the particular Church of the Roman Diocese is the mother and mistress of all Churches: In regard whereof she may in a sense not improper, be called the Catholic Church: as in a fleet of Galleys the chief Galley which hath command over the rest, though it be a particular Galley, is called the General: and in an army of men, though the chief commander be a particular man, and as a Captain have a particular company of his own, yet he is rightly called the General. And as none can be a Soldier of that fleet of Galleys, unless he be in the chief Galley, or in some of the rest subordinate to her; nor a soldier of that Army, unless he be of the General's particular company, or of some of the rest subject to him: so none can be a member of the Catholic Church, unless he be of the particular Church of Rome, or of some other, subject to her. And from hence it is, that albeit every Orthodox Church may be called a Catholic Church, and every Orthodox man a Catholic man, yet this denomination agreeth to the Bishop and Church of Rome causally and originally, and to other men and Church's participatively. In regard whereof S. Cyprim (*) L. 4. ep. 8. falls the Roman Church The root and Mother of the Catholic Church, and the original of Sacerdotal unity: from whence also it followeth, that as every particular person that is in communion with the Church of Rome, is rightly styled Catholic: so all others, that are not of her communion, are Schismatiks, or Heretics. SECT. III. That in the language of Antiquity, The Catholic Church, and the Roman Church, were two names signifying one, and the same thing. IT hath ever been the constant belief of all Orthodox Fathers and people, aswell of the primitive, as of the successive ages since Christ, that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church as hath been declared; and that out of her there is no hope of salvation. The whole scope of your Grand Imposture, is, to impugn this truth: and the whole drift and subject of this Apology shall be to maintain & defend the same truth. And that the reader may have some little taste or prelibation of what shall be more largely proved in the ensuing Chapters, I have thought good to set down in the frontispiece of this work, the belief of some of the most famous and renowned Fathers of God's Church, not in mine, but in their own clear express and unanswerable words. First therefore Tertullian speaking of Martion, who had presented a great sum of money to the Church of Rome, saith (*) Cont. Marcio. l. 4. c. 4. Martion gave his money to the Catholic Church, which rejected both it and him, when he fell into heresy. The same appeareth by that ancient learned Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa S. Cyprian (a) L. 4. ep. 2. who expresseth to Antonianus, how great joy he conceived to understand, that forsaking the Novatians, he wholly agreed with the Catholic Church, adhering to Cornelius Pope. And again: (b) Ibid. You writ (saith he to Antonianus) that I would send a copy of your letters to Cornelius, to the end he might understand, that you communicate with him, that is to say, with the Catholic Church. And speaking to Cornelius himself, (c) L. 4. ep. 8. and calling the Roman Church, The root and original of the Catholic Church, he saith: It seemed good to us, that letters should be sent to all our Colleagues at Rome, that they should firmly embrace your communion, that is to say, the unity and charity of the Catholic Church. Hereby it appears, that in S. Cyprians language and belief, to communicate with the Roman Church, and to communicate with the Catholic Church, was one and the self same thing. And the same appeareth by those Africans whom Novatus had seduced to forsake Cornelius the true P●pe, and adhere to Novatian the Antipope: for perceauing that by falling from Cornelius, they were fallen from the Catholic Church, and become schismatics, they acknowledged their error, and made their recantation in these words, reported and commended by S. Cyprian: (d) Ep. 46. We acknowledge Cornelius to be Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church, chosen by Almighty God, and our Lord jesus Christ. We confess our error we have been seduced: we have been circumvented by perfidiousness & captious loquacity: for although we did seem to have communication with a man (Novatian the Antipope) that was a Schismatic, and an heretic, yet our mind was always sincere in the Church: for we are not ignorant that there is one God, and one Lord Christ, whom we have confessed, and one holy Ghost, and that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church. In these words S. Cyprian (as you see) together with those his Africans, calleth the Bishop of the Roman Church the Bishop of the Catholic Church, and p●ofesseth, that to be divided from him, is to be divided from the Catholic Church. The same appears by Cornelius himself, who speaking of Novatus, that had set up Novatian an Antipope in opposition to him, saith: (e) Apud Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 35. Novatus forsooth would have us to think, that he had forgotten there aught to be but one Bishop in the Catholic Church; where by the Catholic Church he understands the Roman Church, as the head and Mother of all others. The same appears by S. Ambrose (f) De obitu fratris Satyri. , who reporting, how his holy Brother Satyrus in his return out of Africa, being cast by shipwreck on the Island of Sardinia, which he knew to be infected with the Schism of the Luciferians, and desiring to communicate with none but Catholics, called for the Bishop of that place, and enquired of him, whether he agreed with the Catholic Bishops, that is (saith S. Ambrose) with the Roman Church. And S. Augustine having alleged a sentence of S. Ambrose to confute julian the Pelagian heretic, saith: (g) L. 1. cont. julia. Pelag. c. 2. Here is Ambrose of Milan, whom thy Master Pelagius so highly commended, as to say, that in his books chief the Roman faith doth shine, so, that his very enemy durst not reprehend his faith, and most pure interpretation of Scripture. Who seethe not that S. Augustine here by the Roman faith, understands the Catholic faith? And therefore speaking again of the great constancy of the same Saint, of his labours, and dangers for the Catholic faith he saith: (h) Cont. julian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. The Roman world doubteth not to magnify them with him; where again by the Roman world he understandeth all the Catholics of the world. The same was the belief of S. Hierome: (i) Apol. advers. Ruffin. l. 1. What faith (saith he) doth Ruffinus call his faith? That which the Roman Church holds, or that which is contained in origen's books? if he answer that which the Roman Church holds, then are we Catholics. The same appears by the Epistle of Theodosius the Emperor to Acatius Bishop of Berone, and other his Colleagues, to whom he saith: (k) In Synod. Ephes. to. 5. c. 10. It becometh your Holiness to ask these things of God earnestly, and by manifest tokens to show yourselves approved Priests of the Roman Religion. The same appears by Palladius, (l) In vita Chrysostomi. who writeth of Theodorus Tyanaeus, that he fortified his Bishopric with a wall of piety, by persevering till the end of his life in the communion of the faithful Romans, of whom Paul giveth testimony, saying, your faith is renowned throughout the whole world. The same appears by what Victor of Tunes reporteth of Vitalianus a Scythian (m) In Anastas. namely, that he took arms against Anastasius the Emperor, and would never promise peace unto him, but upon condition that he should unite all the Churches of the East to the Roman: which plainly showeth that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholic Church, as the Head and centre of Catholic Communion, and Mother of all Churches. The same appears by john Patriarch of Constantinople, who abjuring the memory of Acatius, said to Hormisdas' Pope: (n) Epist. ad Hormisd. We hope to be in one communion with you declared by the See Apostolic, in which there is the integrity of Christian Religion, and perfect solidity; and we promise not to recite hereafter in the sacred mysteries, the names of those that have separated themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, that agree not in all things with the See Apostolic. And not unlike to this is the profession of faith which justinian the Emperor sent to Agapetus Pope. The same appears by (o) Ep. ad Agapet. apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 417.420. S. Augustine, testifying, (p) Ep. 157. that the Heresy of Pelagius and Celestius by means of the vigilancy of two Episcopal Counsels, hath been condemned in the extent of the whole world, by the Reverend Prelates of the Apostolic See, yea even by two of them, Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus. And that S. Augustine by the See Apostolic understands the Catholic Church, Possidius speaking of the same subject declareth, (q) In vita Aug. c. 18. calling the sentence pronounced by these Popes, Ecclesiae Catholicae iudicium. The judgement of the Catholic Church Innocentius (saith he) and Zozimus in their several times, censuring the Pelagians, and cutting them of from the members of the Church, by their letters addressed to the African Churches of the East and West, commanded them to be anathematised, and avoided by all Catholics: and the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholic Church pronounced against them, condemned them also by his laws, ordaining that they should be ranked among Heretics. The same appears by Gelasius (r) In decret. de Scriptor. apocryph. an African borne, and (it is thought) a Disciple of S. Augustine, testifying, that the holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church hath not been preferred before other Churches by any Synodical constitutions, but hath obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, saying, Thou art Peter etc. The same appears by S. Prosper S. Augustine's second soul, saying: (s) L. de promise. & praedict. Dei part. 4. c. 5 The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the City of Rome, where they taught the doctrine of Christ our Lord: they delivered it to their Successors peaceable and free from division: the Christian that communicates with this general Church, is a Catholic: but if he be separated from it, he is an Heretic and Antichrist. The same appears by the testimony of those two famous Doctors of the African Church S. Fulgentius and Primasius, with other their fellow-Bishops 220. in number, who being banished by the Arian King Trasamundus out of Africa into Sardinia, writ from thence a Synodical Epistle to the Catholics of Africa, in which they exhort them for the avoiding of Pelagianism to read the books of S. Augustine, of which (say they) (t) Extat in Bibliotheca Patr. edit. Colon. to. 6. part. 1. pag. 152. Hormisdas of blessed memory, a glorious Bishop of the Apostolic See, made mention with great commendation of Catholic praise, in the Epistle which he writ in answer to the Consultation of Possessor our holy brother, and fellow-Bishop. His words are these: What the Roman Church, that is the Catholic Church holds, and observes concerning freewill and the grace of God, may be fully known out of divers books of blessed Augustine, & chief those which he writ to Prosper & Hilary. These their words convince that not only in the belief of that ancient and holy Pope Hormisdas, but also of all the Catholic Bishops of Africa, the Roman Church and the Catholic Church, the Roman faith and the Catholic faith, were Synonima's betokening one and the same thing. The same appears by S. Gregory the Great, who setteth down the form of abjuration which all Bishops returning from Schism to the Unity of the Catholic Church were to make, expressing it in these words: (u) L. 1. epist. 30. I Bishop of N. having discerned the trap of division wherein I was caught, am returned by God's grace with my pure and free will to the Unity of the See Apostolic: and I vow and promise, that I will never return to Schism, but always remain in the Unity of the Catholic Church, and in the communion of the Bishop of Rome. This profession showeth, that as now it is, so than it was held to be no less than open Schism to be divided from the Roman Church. And the like profession made by Nicolas the first of that name, was afterwards sent by Adrian the second to the eight Council general, and being read in the first Action, was approved and praised by all the Fathers thereof. (x) Act. 1. apud Bin. to. 3.881.913. & Can. pag. 199. The same appears by the testimony which Venerable Bede gives of Oswin King of Northumberland, who by means of a famous disputation held between Colman a Scottish Abbot, and Wilfrid a learned Priest of the Britan's for the decision of certain points of Religion, wherein the Britan's and Scots at that time disagreed, was converted to the Roman Church: and thereupon with the advice of Egbert king of Kent sent Wigandus a Priest to Rome to be ordained Archbishop there, to the end that returning he might ordain Bishops throughout all Britain: for (saith Bede) Oswin though brought up by the Scots, (y) L. 3. hist. Angl. c. 29. had rightly understood, that the Roman Church is the Catholic and Apostolic Church. These testimonies sufficiently prove, that the most holy and learned Fathers, as also the Orthodox Christians of former ages did believe that the Roman Church was the Catholic Church, and that to be divided from the Roman Church was to be no Catholic but a Schismatic. And that it may appear how like you that deny this truth are to the Arian Heretics, it will not be amiss to show that they knew Catholic and Roman to be all one: and that because they would not grace Catholics with the name of Catholics, they called them Romans, or Romanists, as at this day you call us, showing yourselves 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 jocundus an Arian speaking to king Theodoricus, said: Thou mayest make an end of Armogastus with divers afflictions: for if thou put him to death by the sword, the Romanists will proclaim him a Martyr. And of another Martyr he reporteth (a) Ibid. that being questioned by the Arians concerning his faith, he professed himself to be a Catholic, 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 solicit a peace, they said: Si Catholicus est, & Romanus, if he be a Catholic, 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 said: 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 again he reporteth this speech of one Arian to ●n (d) Ibid. c. 361 other: If thou wilt but hearken to my Counsel, we will this day make ourselves merry, laughing heartily at this Romish Priest. And speaking of the Arians that were in France: (e) Ibid. c. 79. what think you (said one of them) will these Romanists now say? And what think you now Doctor Morton, what will you say? Do not these testimonies convince, that in the language and belief of antiquity Catholic and Roman did signify the same Church, the same faith, and the same Orthodoxal people? Or what may we think 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 Schismatical, heretical, temerarious, impious, sacrilegious, Antichristian &c. SECT. iv That whosoever is out of the Roman Church, is out of the state of Salvation. THis truth is evidently deduced (out of the premises already proved) by this syllogistical argument. Whosoever is out of the Catholic Church, is out of the state of Salvation. This mayor Proposition you grant, and it hath been already proved. (f) Hoc cap. sect. 1. But whosoever is out of the Roman Church, is out of the Catholic Church. This also hath been (g) Hoc cap. sect. 3. and shall be throughout this whole Apology effectually proved. The consequent then is evident in Barbara. Ergo, whosoever is out of the Roman Church, is out of the state of Salvation. But yet in further confirmation of this consequent, it will not be amiss to hear the ancient Fathers themselves speak and testify the truth thereof in their own language. For so teacheth that ancient and learned Bishop S. Irenaeus who lived soon after the Apostles and was Disciple to their Disciples. He prescribing a certain rule to know and distinguish the Catholic Church from the conventicles of Heretics, saith (h) L. 3. c. 3. that, All Churches and all the faithful from all places must necessarily agree with the Roman Church by reason of her more powerful principality, that is by reason of the sovereignty of the See Apostolic, and the never-interrupted succession of Bishops in that See: which succession (saith he) is (i) Ibid. a convincing demonstration, that the same faith which was preached by the Apostles, is still conserved in that Church; and therefore, (k) L. 4. c. 43. that all such as withdraw themselves from this principal succession, we ought (saith he) to hold them as Heretics of a perverse judgement, or as Schismatics and selfe-liking presumptuous fellows. And as S. Irenęus alleged this never interrupted succession of twelve Bishops until his time in the Roman Church, as in the head Church of the world, which therefore he calleth the principal succession; if (I say) he alleged this against the heretics of those primitive times, as a convincing demonstration to prove that they having departed from the Roman Church, in which that principal succession was to be found, had thereby departed from the Catholic Church, and forsaken true faith delivered by the Apostles: far greater reason had Tertullian, (l) De praescrip. Eusebius, (m) L. 5. hist. c. 6. S. Epiphanius, (n) Haeres. 27. S. Jerome, (o) Dial. count. 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 Heretics of their times to convince them to be such. And (q) Ep. 165. & Psal contra part, Donati. ●f divers of these Fathers as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, S. Epiphanius, Optatus, and S. Augustine have reckoned up by name all the Bishops of the Roman Church against the Heretics of their times; we may now justly reckon a ●ar greater number of them continued until these our days ●gainst Protestants, to prove them to be out of the true Church, in which only this never interrupted succession is to be found, and wish them, (as S. Augustine (r) Psal. contra part. Donati. did the Donatists) not to lie cut of from this succession, that being ●he Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail ●ot. So teacheth S. Cyprian saying: (s) L. 1. ep. 8. There is one God, and ●ne Christ. & one chair built upon Peter, out of which whosoever gathereth, scattereth, that is, maketh a Schism in the Church, ●s the Novatians did, against whom he writeth. And why did he rejoice (t) L. 4. ep. ●. to hear that Antonianus communicated with Cornelius Pope, but because (as there he expresseth) to be in his Communion was to be in the communion of the Catholic Church? And writing to Cornelius himself he calls the Chair of S. Peter (u) L. 4. ep. 8. the root and Mother of the Catholic Church, and (x) L. 1. ep. 3. the principal chair from whence sacerdotal Unity is derived: from whence he inferreth, that whosoever departeth from that (y) L. de unit. Ecclesiae. See, holds not the faith, nor is in the Church. So teacheth ancient Pacianus (z) Ep. 2. : for Novatian (as S. Cyprian affirmeth) having made himself an adulterous and contrary Head to Cornelius the lawful Pope, and thereby separated himself from the Roman Church, Pacianus for that very cause pronounceth him to have died out of the state of salvation. Although (saith be) Novatian hath been put to death, yet he hath not bone crowned. And why not? because he was out of the peace of the Church, out of concord, out of that Mother whereof whosoever will be a Martyr, must be a portion. So teacheth Optatus that learned Bishop of Milevis in Africa, when writing against Parmenianus the Donatist, he (a) L. 2. cont. part. Parmen. saith; Thou canst not deny out that thou knowest the Episcopal chair to have been first set up in Rome for Peter, in which seat was placed the Head of all the Apostles, Peter; from whence he hath been also called Cephas, to the end that in this only chair Unity might be preserved to all, lest the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair, and that he should be a Schismatic and a sinner, that would against the only chair set up another. And again showing the Donatists to be Schismatics, and out of the state of salvation, because they opposed the Roman Church, he (b) Ibid. saith: From whence is it, that you attempt to usurp to yourselves the Keys of the kingdom, you that fight against the chair of Peter by your bold and sacrilegious presumption? Thus writ Optatus 1200. years since: and by his argument we may now prove Protestants to be Schismatics, no less than he did the Donatists. So teacheth S. Ambrose, (c) De obitu Satyri. professing, that to communicate with Catholic Bishops, and to communicate with the Roman Church is all one. And writing to Siricius Pope, and acknowledging all those to be Heretics whom the Roman Church condemneth as such, he saith: (d) L. 10. ep. 81. Whom your Holiness hath condemned, know that we also hold them condemned, according to your judgement. So teacheth S. Hierome, who writing against Lucifer the Schismatical Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia, and the Luciferians his followers, that boasted themselves to be the true Church saith to Lucifer: (e) Epist. 8. I could dry up all the rivers of thy arguments with the only sunshine of the Church: but because we have now reasoned long, I will in few words declare plainly unto thee my judgement, which is, that we are to remain in that Church, which being founded by the Apostles, dureth until this day. And else where declaring what Church he meaneth, he adviseth Demetrias that if she will avoid the snares of Heretics, she hold fast the faith of Innocentius Pope, son and successor in the Apostolical chair to Anastasius, who had broken the pestilent head, and stopped the hissing mouths of that Hydra, which attempted to pollute and corrupt the simplicity of the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle. And again: writing to D●masus Pope he saith: (f) Ep. 57 I am joined in communion with your Blessedness, that is to say, with Peter's Chair: I know the Church is built upon that Rock, whosoever is not in the Ark shall perish at the coming of the flood; he that eats the lamb out of this house, is profane: whosoever gathers not with you, scatters, that is to say, whosoever is not of Christ, is of Antichrist. So teacheth S. Basill. In very deed (saith he in a letter to the (g) Ep. 69. per Sabin. Diac. Pope) that which was given by our Lord to thy piety, is worthy of that most excellent voice, which proclaimed thee blessed, to wit, that thou mayest discern betwixt that which is counterfeit, & that which is lawful and pure, and that without any diminution thou mayst preach the faith of our Ancestors. It is then certain in S. Basils' belief, that the assurance which Christ gave to S. Peter that the gates of hell (which are errors and Heresies) should never prevail against the Roman Church, was not made to S. Peter in his own person only, nor only for his time, but in him to all his Successors; and to them in him is granted that admirable privilege of preaching the faith of Christ pure, and without any diminution. So teacheth S. Maximus, alias (h) In ep. ad Orientales apud S. Tho. in Opuse. 1. prope fin. Maximianus. All the bounds of the earth that have received our Lord sincerely, and all Catholics throughout the whole earth that confess the true faith, look upon the Church of the Romans as upon a Sun, and shall receive from her the light of the Catholic and Apostolic faith: and not without cause: for Peter is the first that is read to have made a perfect confession of the faith, our Lord revealing it unto him, Math. 16. When he said: Thou art Christ the son of the living God: whereupon our Lord said unto him, I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not. And (i) Ibid. again: We profess the Universal Church to be framed and founded upon the rock of Peter's confession according to the sentence of our Saviour, in which Church it is necessary to remain for the salvation of our Souls, and to yield obedience to her, keeping her faith and confession. So teacheth S. Augustine: who among the Arguments which held him in the Catholic Church, reckoneth the succession of Bishops in the Roman See even from S. Peter until his time: I am kept (saith (k) L. eont. epist. Funda. c. 4. he) in the Church by the succession of Priests from the very See of Peter the Apostle, to whom our Saviour after his resurrectien committed his sheep to be fed, even to the present Bishop. And exhorting the Donatists, which bragged that they also had Bishops, he (l) Epist. 165. saith: If the order & Succession of Bishops be to be observed, how much more assuredly & safely indeed do we begin our account from S. Peter himself, unto whom as he represents the whole Church, our Lord said. Math. 16. upon this Rock I will build my Church? for Linus succeeded to Peter, Cletus to Linus: and having reckoned up all the Popes unto Anastasius, who then sat in S. Peter's chair, he concludeth against the Donatists: In this order of succession there is not any one Donatist to be found: to which we may add, no, nor yet any Protestant. Since therefore the Church, in which there is a continued Succession of Bishops from S. Peter, cannot be the Protestant Church (which hath no such succession) but the Roman; it followeth that S Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church: and therefore he grieved to see the Donatists lie cut off from her, as branches from the vine. Be ye ingraffed on the Vine (saith he to the (m) Psal. contra part. Donati. Donatists: It is a grief to us to see you so lie cut of: number the Priests even from the See of Peter, and consider in that rank of Fathers, who succeeded whom: That is the Rock which the proud gates of hell overcome not. And as in these words S. Augustine showeth the miserable estate of those then that are divided from the Roman Church, so on the contrary he declareth the happiness, and security of all, that are in communion which her, when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage, who had been condemned by a numerous Council of Donatist Bishops in Africa, he saith: (n) Ep. 162. Cecilianus might have contemned the conspiring multitude of his enemies, because he knew himself to be united by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soveraygnty of the See Apostolic hath always flourished, and to other countries', from whence the Gospel came first into Africa. So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama, a familiar friend to S. Augustine, whose life he writ; and therein reporteth (o) Cap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians, the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholic Church pronounced against them obeyed it, & condemning also by his laws, ordained that they should be ranked among heretics. By which it appears, that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholic Church; & her judgement in matters of faith to be infallible, and that the Emperors by their laws seconded her judgement, comdemning as Heretics those whom she had condemned. So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, explicating those words of our (p) Math. 16. Saviour; Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. According to this promise of our Lord (saith (q) Apud S. Thom. in Caten. ad cap. 16. Math. he) ●he Apostolical Church of Peter persevereth in her Bishop's pure & free from all seduction & circumvention, above all Prelates & bishops, & above all Primats of Churches and people, most perfect in the faith and authority of Peter. And whereas other Churches have been stained with the errors of some, she alone remains established firmly & unconquerably, silencing and stopping the mouths of all Heretics: & we upon necessity of salvation neither deceived nor drunk with the wine of pride, together which her confess, and preach the form of truth, and of holy Apostolical tradition. And (r) Apud S. Thom. Opusc. 1. again: Let us remain as members in our head the Apostolical throne of the Bishops of Rome, from which it is our part to inquire, what we ought to believe, and what to hold. And lastly; It is (saith the Angelical (s) Ibid. Doctor) proved necessary for salvation, to yield obedience to the Bishop of Rome: for Cyril saith in his book of Treasures: Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ, let us as his sheep hear his voice, remaining in the Church of Peter, and let us not be puffed up with the wind of pride lest peradventure the crooked serpent for our contention cast us out, as long since he cast Eve out of Paradyse. So teacheth S. Peter, for his golden eloquence surnamed Chrysologus, exhorting Eutyches the Archheretic, to leave his heresy, and learn the true faith from the Church of (t) Epist. ad Eutych. Rome. We exhort thee Reverend Brother to lend an obedient ear to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome, for as much as the Blessed Peter who life's and rules in his own seat, exhibits the true faith to those that seek it. So teacheth (u) L. de promise. & prodict. Dei part. 4. c. 5. S. Prosper: The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the City of Rome, where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord, and delivered it to their Successors A Christian communicating with this general Church is a Catholic: but if he be separated from it, he is an heretic, and Antichrist. So teacheth Arnobius (x) In psal. 106. explicating the necessity of remaining in the Roman Church in these few, but effectual words: He that goeth out from the Church of Peter, perisheth for thirst. Whereupon Erasmus saith, (y) Praefat. instruct. Comment. in Psalterium. Arnobius seems to yield this honour to the Roman Church, that whosoever is out of her, is out of the Catholic Church. So teacheth john an ancient Patriarch of Constantinople, (z) In ep. ad Orientales. who making profession of his faith to Hormisdas' (a) In ep ad Hormisd. Pope, acknowledged, that in the See Apostolic the Catholic Religion is always conserved inviolable: and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolic, are out of the communion of the Catholic Church. So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church, who together which other Bishops his Colleagues made this answer to Peter a Deacon that had been sent out of the (b) L. de incarnate. & great c. 11. East: The Roman Church enlightened with the words of the two great lights Peter & Paul, as with radiant beams, and honoured with their bodies, and which is also the top of the world, without hesitation believes so to justice, and doubts not to Confess so to salvation. So he, teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the faith of the Roman Church. Again a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor, reporteth that when Fulgentius going to the (c) Vita S. Fulgent. c 11. Extat in Biblioth. Pat. Edit. Colon. tom. 6. wilderness of Thebais, to fast, arrived at Syracuse, Eulalius Bishop of that City, dissuaded him with these words: Thou dost well in aspiring to greater perfection: but thou knowest that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that a perfidious dissension hath separated those Countries into which thou art travelling, from the communion of blessed Peter: wherefore, Son, return home, lest by seeking a more perfect life, thou run hazard of losing the true faith. By which it is evident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholic Church; and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine, were out of the true faith, and incapable of Salvation. So teacheth S. Leo, the first Pope of that name, for his admirable learning, wisdom, and sanctity surnamed The Great, who writing to the Bishops of Vienne, saith; (d) Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter, as from a certain Head, poureth his gifts upon the whole body of his Church, to the end that whosoever should be so bold, as to departed from the solidity of that See, might know himself to be no way partaker of the divine mysteries. And (e) Ibid. that, whosoever goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome, endeauoreth with most impious presumption to violate the most sacred strength of the Rock (Peter) framed by the hand of God. And speaking against Hilary Bishop of Arles, and all such as are refractory and disobedient to the Successors of Peter, and in them to Peter himself, he (f) Ibid. addeth: To whom whosoever thinketh the primacy to be denied, can no way diminish their authority, but puffed up with the spirit of pride, plungeth himself headlong into hell. And (g) Epist. 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voice of our Saviour upon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, as upon a rock is either Antichrist, or a Devil. All these say of so learned a Doctor, and so great a Saint, I wish the Protestant reader duly to consider. So teacheth the holy Council of Chalcedon (h) Act. 3. affirming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholic Church, and foundation of the true Faith. From whence it followeth, that whosoever buildeth not upon the foundation of Peter's See, is not in the Catholic Church, nor in the true faith, without which no man can be saved. So teacheth S. Gregory the Great, who writing to Bonifacius, (i) L. 3. ep. 41. saith: I admonish you that whiles you have time of life remaining, your soul be not found divided from the Church of blessed Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of Heaven were committed▪ and the power of binding and losing given, lest his favour be contemned here, he there exclude you from the entrance into life. So teacheth S. I sidore, a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seville, (k) Ep. ultima ad Eugenium Episcop. Toletanum. saying; that albeit the Episcopal dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholic Bishops, yet especially and by a fingular privilege it remaineth for ever to the Bishop of Rome, as to a Head higher than the rest of the members: whosoever therefore (saith he) yields not obedience reverently to him is separated from the head, and makes himself guilty of the schism of the Acephalists, that is of certain heretics, who acknowledged no one particular Head. And he adds, that the Church believes this as the Creed of S. Athanasius, and as an article of faith: and that whosoever believes it not cannot be saved. So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Divine of his age, & that writ learnedly against the Monothelites, pestilent Heretics, that held but one will and operation in Christ, and were anathematised in the sixth general Council. He among other Eulogies of the Roman Church hath (l) Epist. ad Marinum Diac. this: All the bounds of the earth, and whosoever in any place of the world, do confess Christ our Lord with a pure hart, and Orthodox faith, look upon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and faith attentively, as upon a Sun of everlasting light, receiving from her the shining light of spiritual, and holy Doctrines etc. For from the first coming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world have had from her their beginning, their only and surest foundation, against which the gates of hell shall no way prevail, according to the promise of our Saviour himself, that she should have the Keys of Orthodoxal faith and Confession, and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church, seeking true real and only piety; and contrariwise shut and stop every heretical mouth that speaks iniquity against heaven. So teacheth S. Aldelmus an ancient Bishop of the Scots, whom Venerable Bede highly commendeth for his eloquence, for his great knowledge of humane literature, of Scripture, and Ecclesiastical rites. Among other his works which Bede reckoneth, he writ an excellent book against the error of the Britan's, who at that time differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter. And of the same subject he writ an epistle to Geruntius, in which he showeth, the Britan's by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church, to be in error. (m) Epist. ad Gerunt. If (saith he) the keys of the heavenly kingdom were by Christ given to Peter, of whom the Poet saith: He is the Porter of heaven, that opens the gate to the stars, who is he that despising the principal statutes of that Church, and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be observed, can enter into the gate of heavenly paradise? And if Peter by a happy lot, and a peculiar privilege, deserved to receive the power & monarchy of binding both in heaven and earth, who refusing to observe the Roman rite of Easter, can think that he is not rather to be straight tied with in soluble bonds, than any way to be absolved? And the same he further proveth out of the privilege of not erring, granted to the Roman Church, when Christ promised to build his Church upon Peter as upon an impregnable rock. So teacheth Venerable Bede, (n) Homil. in die Apost. Petri & Pauli. saying: Therefore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true faith, and following him with true love, received specially the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the sovereignty of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand, that whosoever do any way separate themselves from the Unity of his faith and society, can neither be loosed from the bonds of their sins, nor come within the gate of the heavenly kingdom. And speaking of a conference held between Colmannus an Abbot, and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter, Colmannus defending the jewish rite, and Wilfridus the custom of the Roman Church, Wilfridus said: (o) Beda in histor. gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdain to follow the decrees of the See Apostolic, yea and of the universal Church, they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures, without all doubt you sin: for be it, that your Columba was a holy man, and of Christ, & likewise your Fathers; yet is their small number in a corner of a remote Island to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ? And having in proof of the Authority of the Roman Church alleged the words of Christ, promising to build his Church upon Peter, and to give him the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, Of win king that was present at the conference demanded of the disputants, whether both of them agreed in this, that those words of our Saviour were principally spoken to Peter, and whether the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to him? And they answering Yes; the king (p) Ibid. concluded: And I say to you that because Peter is that porter, I will not gainsay him; but so far forth as I know, and am able, I desire to obey his ordinances in all things, lest peradventure if I coming to the gates of the kingdom of heaven, there be none to open unto me, he being offended with me, that is known to keep the keys. So teacheth Aponius in his learned Commentary upon the Canticles (q) In Cant. lib. 2. saying: It is manifest to all the earth, where the pasture of wholesome doctrine was revealed to Peter: to wit, when Christ ask he answered; Thou art Christ the son of the living God etc. These pastures the jew sees not, nor the Gentle nor yet any heretic whatsoever: for they follow not that Pastor, whom Christ the Prince of Pastors hath left as his Vicar in the world. So teacheth Theodorus Studites a holy Abbot and very famous for his learning, and constancy in maintaining the Catholic faith against heretics, who with divers Regulars his Colleagues writing to Paschalis Pope, among other titles calls him, The (r) Ep, ad Paschalem Papam. chief Priest of Priests, Pastor of the sheep of Christ, Porter of the kingdom of heaven, and Rock of the faith, upon whom the Catholic Church is built. And the Roman Church, he (s) Ibid. calls? The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keys of faith, against whom the gates of hell, which are the nouthes of heretics, have never prevailed, nor shall ever prevail; the fountain of Orthodoxal truth, the quiet haven of the Universal Church against all heretical storms; the chosen City of refuge for salvation. And else where speaking of the Heretics of his time, he (t) Ep. ad Naucrat. saith: I protest here before God and man, they are divided from the body of Christ, and the supreme See, in which Christ hath deposited the keys of faith, against which the gates of hell, that is to say the unbridled mouths of heretics have never prevailed nor shall prevail even to the end of the world, according to the promise of our Lord, which cannot fail. And (u) In opere de cultu imag. again: So great is the faith of the Romans, that there is seen to be the impregnable rock of faith founded according to the promise of our Lord. These two later testimonies are set down and highly commended by that learned Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius, who addeth to them this verdict of his (x) In defence. Concil. Florent. c. 5. sect. 17. own: If that divine See believe not aright, Christ lies, when he saith; Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass; for in these words he promised his Church to be with her, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. So teacheth Rabanus, that learned Bishop of Mentz: (y) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Matth. Therefore Peter specially received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the Sovereignty of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand, that whosoever in any sort separate themselves from the unity of his faith and society, can neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins, nor enter into the gate of the kingdom of heaven. And the same power of the Roman Church to shut the gates of heaven against all those, that divide themselves from her communion, he expresseth again in a Poem which he writ in praise of the holy Cross, to Gregory the fourth of that name. The same teacheth Petrus (z) Baron. anno 105●. Damiani a Bishop of excellent learning and of a most holy and austere life, that lived six hundred years since, and was sent by Nicolas the second (together with S. Anselme Bishop of Luca) to Milan to extinguish the heresies of the Simonians, and Nicolaits, wherewith divers clergy men of that City being infected, to the end they might avoid the correction and censure of the Roman Church, pretended, that the Church of Ambrose was free, and not subject to the laws of the Pope of Rome: for the confutation of which error Petrus Damiani made a learned oration, in which he proved effectually the supreme authority granted by Christ to the Roman Church above all Churches, and that whosoever denies her authority, is an heretic. And this his Oration took so good effect, that those licentious Clergymen abandoning their heresy, submitted themselves to the Roman Church, with promise never to departed again from her Communion. So teacheth S. Bernard, who (a) In ep. ad Innocent. 2. writing against Schismatics giveth this rule to distinguish between them and catholics: Those that are of God, are united willingly to Innocentius (the true Pope): And he that stands out against him, either belongs to Antichrist, or is Antichrist himself. To omit the like testimonies of many other holy and learned Doctors, so writeth our famous Archbishop of Canterbury (b) De Eucharist. conc. Boreng. Lanfrancus, that lived almost six hundred years since, delivering his own and their Verdicts in these words, worthy to be noted: The Blessed Doctors, if not in the same words, yet in the same sense have unanimously taught in many places, that every man which dissenteth from the Roman and universal Church in Doctrine of faith, is an heretic. If therefore the Blessed Doctors, those (I say) whom Protestant's with us acknowledge to have lived and died in the true saith, and to have been members of the Catholic Church, and lights of the world, have all agreed in this; and these be their express Tenants, faithfully delivered in their own words, that whosoever is out of the Roman Church, is to beheld as an Heretic of perverse judgement, or as a Schismatic, and self-liking presumptuous man: That he which standeth out against the See of Rome, neither is in the Church, nor holds the true faith: That upon necessity of salvation we ought to remain as members in our Head the Apostolical throne of the Bishop of Rome: That if we imitate Christ, we are (as his sheep) to hear his voice, remaining in the Church of Peter: That he who opposeth the Chair of Peter, is a Schismatic, and a sinner: That he agrees not with the Catholic Church: That he is a profane person: That he gathereth not, but scattereth: That he is not of Christ, but of Antichrist: That he shall perish at the coming of the flood: That he perisheth for thirst: That a perfidious dissension hath separated him from the Communion of S. Peter: That he is an Heretic, and Antichrist: That he can no way be partaker of the divine mysteries: That he is either Antichrist, or a Devil: That in the next world he shall have the entrance of life shut unto him: That he is guilty of the heresy of the Acephalists: That he gainsayth S. Peter, the Porter of Heaven: That he cannot be admitted into the gate of heavenly paradise: That he is an Heretic, speaking iniquity against Heaven: That he cannot be loosed from the bonds of his sins: That he either belongs to Antichrist or is Antichrist himself. These be the very Tenants of the most famous Doctors, and Saints of God: These (M. Doctor) the censures which not I, but they inflict on your Doctrine. And now I desire to know with what conscience you tax this their and our doctrine as false, pernicious, impious, Schismatical, Heretical, scandalous, damnable, blasphemous, sacrilegious, Antichristian &c. Or with what title you go about to defend your own departure from the Roman Church, and to persuade others, that being out of her, they are in state of salvation? If you answer, that you have departed from the (now) Roman Church, because she hath departed from the true faith, which the Roman Church anciently professed, that's an excuse common to all heretics, and can no more justify you, than it could the Pelagians, the Donatists, or other ancient Heretics, who would never have departed from the Roman Church, but upon pretence that she had fallen from the true faith. And moreover it is absolutely false: for as the Father's censure, & condemn all that are out of the Roman Church, as incapable of salvation, so shall you hear them (c) Chap. 12. sect. 1. & 2. constantly affirm, and prove, that it is as impossible for the Roman Church to fall from that faith, which she once received from the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, as it is for the word of Christ to fail, or for Christ himself to be a liar. In proof of this truth, I might yet further insist by other most forcible arguments: but partly not to detain the reader, and partly because divers of them shall be touched in the current of this Apology, I will immediately pass to the examination of your Grand imposture, first in general, & then in particular. CHAP. II. Of Doctor Mortons' manner of alleging Authors in general. Num. 7 AMONG many unworthy sleights used in other your works, and particularly in this your Grand Imposture, one is, to mask Protestants with the names of Our Authors, and Our own men; and thereupon to urge against us their testimonies, as of Authors whose Doctrine we are bound to allow, and maintain: Whereas you know right well, that they are not our, but your men, and your own Protestant brethren, and that their works are in particular, and by name condemned and forbidden by the Roman Church. Of this you have been formerly (a) By M. Brierley in the Advertisement before his Protest. Apology. admonished; and yet notwithstanding, in this your Grand imposture, you hold on your wont course, as confidently, as if you never had been admonished of your unconscionable dealing therein. Of this, and other your like slights I thought fit to give the reader notice, that before hand, he might have some taste of your manner of writing in general, the particulars whereof will more clearly appear hereafter, in their due places. One of the Authors, whom in your former works you have urged against us, as a Catholic writer, is George Cassander, borne at Bruges in Flanders, and a pestilent heretic, as being infected not only with the errors of this age, and with an other peculiar to himself against the holy Ghost, but also with the old condemned heresy of Apelles, and others that lived afterwards under Zeno the Emperor, called Pacifiers; which heresy of his hath been learnedly confuted not only by joannes à Lovanio a Catholic Divine, but also by your Grand-Maister john Caluin, in a special book written against him. And for these his Heresies he is by name censured and condemned as an heretic primae (b) In indice lib. prohib. classis. Of all this you have been particularly admonished by a learned Antagonist of yours (c) F. Persons in his treatise tending to mitigation pag. 238. & seqq. , and since again by M. Brierley (d) Loco cit. , wishing you in your future writings not to urge against us the testimonies of Cassander, as being of an heretical and condemned Author. Who would not think this warning sufficient to stay the hand of any man, that hath regard (I will not say of honesty, but at least) of his own credit? And yet you without taking any notice at all of these Caveats, confidently urge in this your Grand imposture the testimonies of Cassander, not once (e) Pag. 135. h. 389. o 400. b. 410. q. but often, & not as of an Heretic, but as of a Catholic; nor as of a Grammarian (for he was no more) but as of a grave and learned Divine. Can this dealing be excused? With no less want of sincerity and conscience you allege against us Paulus Venetus (f) Pa. 382. m. a seditiour friar of Venice, burned a few years since at Rome for heresy; and divers others, whose works you know to be expressly and by name condemned by the Catholic Church: as 1. Nilus' a Bishop of Thessalonica (g) Pag. 333. l. , who besides his heretical Doctrine against the Holy Ghost (whom he holdeth not to proceed from the Son, but from the Father alone) was a professed enemy to the Roman Church, and writ two special Treatises against the Pope's supremacy, and Purgatory; and is therefore challenged for a Protestant by Illyricus, and rejected by Bellarmine, and all Catholic writers. 2. Faber (h) Pag. 77. b. , whose works are censured and condemned by the University of Paris, as Illyricus testifieth, and in regard thereof he is claimed by him for a Protestant. 3. Controversiae (i) Pag. 163. l. 382. m. memorabiles. 4. Acta Concilij (k) Pag. 34. q. 338. y. 382. m. Tridentini. 5. (l) Pag. 361. b. 382. k. 336. c. 388. l. Fasciculus rerum expetendarum, & fugiendarum. All which are works of Protestants deceitfully set forth without names of authors; and aswell they, as Nilus prohibited by the Church. A second sleight of yours is, to cite as Catholic authors divers others, who if they were not absolute heretics, yet were tainted with erroneous and heretical doctrines; whose books are therefore justly condemned and forbidden. As first Beno (m) Pa. 388. l. a feigned Cardinal, and a Schismatic, who to become gracious with that sacrilegious and dissolute Emperor Henry 4. unadvisedly and untruly uttered certain speeches in disgrace of Religion, and the Apostolic See. 2. Cornelius Agrippa (n) Pag. 85 u. 385. *. , who was no Divine, but a Lawyer, and a Magician from his youth, as he himself professeth. And though he was afterwards ashamed of what he writ in that kind, yet his other book De vanitate scientiarum (which is the work you cite) by the very title well showeth his arrogant presumption, and is justly condemned by the Church. 3. josephus Scaliger (o) Pag. 37. marg. fine. a man not unlike to Agrippa, and a condemned Author. 4. Franciscus Duarenus (p) Pag. 45. c. a lawyer, and (as the most eminent Cardinal Peron (q) Repliq. Chap. 34. pag. 270. advertised our late Sovereign K. james) a professed enemy to the Pope, and Church of Rome. 5. Nicolaus Augustus Thuanus (r) Pag. 85. x. 385. b. 389. u. 404. f. , an other French Lawyer, whom you call. Our noble Historian, whereas the whole course of his history showeth him to have been a Huguenot, or little better. Nor are you contented with citing him as a Catholic author, but to help out the matter, you falsify him most notoriously, as hereafter (s) Chap. 44. sect. 9 shall be proved. A third sleight is, to urge as Catholic authors, some, that are of suspected faith: as 1. Erasmus (t) Pag 208. , who albeit in the end he abandoned Luther, * 303. u. 306. a 381. g 380. f. g. and died Catholic, (as out of his own confession, and Osianders' testimony Brierley (u) Aduertism. before his Protest. Apol. hath proved) yet for some time he favoured Luther, & in regard thereof, is challenged by Doctor Humfroy, and Doctor Reynolds, for a man of your religion, and by john Fox Canonised for a Protestant Saint (x) Acts and Mon. pa. 402. Kalend. 22. Decemb. His rash and unadvised writings gave occasion to Lutherans and Zwinglians, to Father on him divers of their heretical Tenants, and therefore are generally reproved by Catholics, & (y) Ind. lib. prohib. condemned by the Church; which you could not be ignorant of, & therefore your persisting still to allege him against us as an approved Catholic author, is inexcusable. 2. To this class may be reduced others, who though Catholics, yet fell into some errors: as Beatus Rhenanus, Claudius Espencaus, Papyrius Massonius, joannes Ferus, and Gulielmus Barklaius: of which, the four first are prohibited by the Church; nor were you ignorant thereof: for speaking of Rhenanus, you say: (z) Pag. 101. Rhenanus writ so, whiles he had the use of his tongue, but since you have gagged him by your Index expurgatorius. By what authority then do you ungagge him, whom the Roman Church (which he acknowledged to be his Mother) hath so justly gagged? And though William Barkley be not registered in the Index as a condemned author (his book being set forth since the Index was made) yet Bellarmine (a) Tract. de potest. Papae adversely. Barclaium, in praesat. hath produced against his doctrine, the agreeing consent of the most learned Divines of Italy, France, Spain, England, and Scotland, as also the decrees of ancient Popes, and general Counsels; and therefore with great reason hath censured him, for that being no Divine, but a Lawyer, he presumed to write a book De potestate Papa in temporalibus, which containing divers errors, & being left imperfect at his death, was afterwards published without name of author, printer, or place of impression: for although some copies say it was printed at Mussipont, yet Bellarmine convinceth that to be an (b) Ibid. untruth, & john Barkeley son to William hath confessed the same, (c) In praef. Parenesis. giving notice to all men, that it was published in England by Protestants, and hath withal acknowledged his Father to have erred in that book, and retracted his own defence thereof. All this might have moved you to forbear the alleging of Barkeleys book against us. And so much the urge in this your Grand imposture, the very same passage of his, which your ancient Antagonist (d) F. Persons Treatise to mitigations, Chap. 6. pag. 202. here tofore shown you to have objected in an other treatise of yours corruptly against our common belief and practice, falsifying and sophisticating both his and our meaning. And the like abuse he showeth you to have offered to (e) Ibid. Tolosanus, whose testimony you yet again impertinently produce here against (f) Pag. 172. us. 3. And to this class may be reduced Polydore Virgil (g) Grand. Impost. pag. 46.97. e. 164. p. 382. ●. 386. c. who being a Catholic author, his Book De inventoribus rerum hath been enlarged and corrupted by heretics, and is for that cause prohibited. 4. Your fourth sleight is, to allege, and insist much on some writings of Aenae as Siluius, Cardinal Cusanus, and Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, which they set forth in their youth, but afterwards repent, and publicly retracted. Aenaeas Siluius that was afterwards Pope Pius the second, being in his younger years present at the Council of Basil, and Secretary thereof, writ a book exalting the authority of a Council, and depressing the authority of the Pope: which book is not only forbidden by the Church, but he himself also being more mature in years, more ripe in judgement, and more solidly learned, repenred the writing thereof; & when he came to be Pope, set forth a special bull to retract it: (h) Extat hac Bulla apud Binium to. 4. pag. 512. & seqq. in which among other words, he saith, In minoribus agentes etc. Whiles I was in minority, not yet entered into any holy orders, being present at Basil, among those, who made themselves a general Council, & said they represented the universal Church, I writ a small book of Dialogues etc. in which ignorantly (as Paul did) I persecuted the Roman and chief See. Wherefore I admonish in our Lord, that you give no credit to such former writings of mine, as do in any sort extenuate the Sovereign authority of the See Apostolic. And then having declared that he made not this change by his coming to the Popedom, but before he was either Pope, or Bishop, and set down the causes that moved him thereto, he addeth: Having considered all these things, I submitted myself to Pope Eugenius, saying with Hierome, I am joined in communion with the chayreof Peter, upon which I know the Church to be built: and I had at that time no other orders, but of Priesthood only, when I returned to the obedience of Eugenius. By this it appears, that when Bellarmine saith, (*) Lib. de Scriptor. in Aenea Silvio. he retracted his error in his old age, and being Pope, he speaketh only of the setting forth of the said Bull, to make his retractation publicly known to the whole world: but the error itself he recalled before he was either Pope or Bishop, as you have heard. And this discovereth your want of sincerity, who in divers places of your Grand Imposture alleging testimonies of Aeneas, to show his judgement concerning the Roman Church, conceal all those, in which his doctrine and belief is truly delivered, and set down (i) Pag. 91. d. 210. * .249. d. only such, as you could pick out of his former works written in his youth, forbidden by the Church, and retracted by himself: which dealing is no less impostetous, then if you should deliver as S. Augustins' doctrine, that, which in his Retractations he hath recalled. But you seek to lessen this Imposture, by adding an other to it: for lest peradventure your Reader might have notice of this retractation of Aeneas, and thereby discover your bad dealing, you cover it by insinuating that he made no such recantation, till he was Pope: for having cited a passage of his, you say: (k) Pag. 210. So Aeneas (out of Hierome), whilst he was Aeneas, and not as yet Pope of Rome himself: whereas it is a certain truth, and well known to yourself, that Aeneas retracted those his writings, even whilst he was Aeneas, and long before he was Pope of Rome himself. Having done this wrong to Aenaeas, you offer the like to Nocolaus Cusanus (l) Pag. 22 y. 29 f. 40. nu. 44. a. 93. l.c. 7. d. 107. d 12 i 163. m. 200. f. 179 i. 283. d. 287. l. 289. q. 301 f. 302. l. 366. d. who in his youth & before he was Cardinal, being also present at the Council of Basil, writ a book which he entitled Concordantia Catholica, seeking therein to exalt the authority of a Council above the Pope: but soon after perceiving the Council to grow into open schism against Eugenius then lawful Pope, he withdrew himself, and detesting their proceed, writ most grave and learned Epistles against them, and employed his best indeautors to extinguish that Schism, as it is to be seen in his epistle to Rodericus, where he fully expesseth his judgement concerning the supreme authority of the Pope & Church of Rome; as also in many other places of his works; and especially in his Epistle to the Bohemians, where he prescribeth to them and to all others an infallible rule to know whether they be in the true church, which is, to examine, whether they be united to the Chair of the Bishop of Rome by continual succession derived from S. Peter. If your meaning had been good, you would have alleged this, as the Doctrine of Cusanus, and not the contrary which he himself acknowledged to be false, and recanted: but your intention was to deceive: and no marvel, for such sleights are the firtest proofs for such Doctrine. No less want of sincerity is that, which you show in setting down, and descanting upon a passage of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester (m) Pag. 362. c. 390. q. , who in the beginning of King Henry's defection from the Church of Rome, being carried away with the stream of the time, and desiring to purchase the king's favour, writ a little book, De vera obedientia, and in it en deavored to prove the King's supremacy in spiritual things, and to justify his divorce from Q. Catherine, and his marriage with Anne Bolen: which book is forbidden by the Church, & he himself afterwards in the days of Queen Mary (who for his great wisdom and learning made him Lord Chancellor of England) condemned his own doing in a famous Sermon preached at Paul's Chrosse, which is mentioned by john Stow in his (*) Anno 2. Mariae. Chronicle. At this Sermon were present the King, and Queen, Cardinal Pole, the Pope's legate, the Ambassadors of the Emperor, of the french King, & other Princes, besides a marvellous great, learned, and noble auditory, as perhaps was ever at any sermon in England, either before, or since that tyme. He took for his text those words of the Apostle. (n) Rom 13.11. Hora estiam nos de somno surgere: It is high time now for us to awake from sleep. His discourse was to show, that since King Henry left the old trodden path of his Ancestots, breaking from the union of the Roman Church, they had run astray not without great strife and division among themselves, and that therefore it was now time to awake. In this sermon he likewise made a most humble & hearty accusation of himself for his fall, & consenting to king Henry's will in that book De vera obedientia, which he uttered with so great vehemency of spirit, and such abundance of tears, that he could not go forward, but was enforced divers times to make pauses. And how hearty those tears were, the event declared: for afterwards falling sick, and drawing near his end, he caused the passion of Christ to be read unto him, & coming to the denial of S. Peter, and how Christ having looked bacl upon him he went out and wept bitterly, the Bishop cried out, bidding them stay there, and see, whether his sweet Saviour would vouchsafe also to look upon him, and give him some part of Peter's tears: For (said he) Negavi cum Petro, exivi cum Petro, sed nondum flevi amarè cum Petro. I have devyed with Peter, I have gone out with Peter, but I have not yet wept bitterly with Peter. And by often repetition of those words, and as king God forgiveness with sighs and cries, he entertained himself, until floods of tears streaming from his eyes, he gave up the ghost. This answer was given to Sir Francis Hastings, (o) In the Wardword Encounter 4. pag. 41. & seqq. who objected against us Bishop Gardiner's book De vera obedientia, as you now do: nor do I think, that you were ignorant thereof. But howsoever you knew that before his death he repent himself of his fall, & recalled that book: for the passage which in this your Imposture you object out of it, you profess to take out of the English translation (p) Pag. 390. q. the author whereof being a Protestant, and of your strain in writing, both in his preface and in his marginal notes, throughout the book, raileth most imtemperatly against Bishop Gardiner, for recalling that Book, terming him. Doctor double-face, a weathercock that turneth ersy-uersy as the wind bloweth, an Antichristian Angel of Satan, a seducer, a hellhound of a false traitorous hart, a filthy traitor, a pernicious Papist, a knave, a doublefaced, perjured, impudent, traitorous, chattering Chancellor, that seeks to pull away the authority of the crown from the Queen, and her heirs for ever. And finally he gives his reader this mark, whereby he may know him to be, a double perjured traitorous Villain, because (saith he) in that book he affirmed that the Bishop of Rome's authority in England was against God's word, and now be iugleth to bring it in again. All these and other worse are the words of your modest Brother, whose style you seem to approve, by citing his translation of Bishop Gardiner's book against the Pope, and Church of Rome: but with what conscience, you can best judge, since the translator testifies that he retracted it, and the Church hath forbidden it, and the Bishop himself before, and at his death lamented the writing of it with so many and so hearty tears. Wherefore as it were a grand imposture to persuade men, that it is lawful for them to deny Christ, because S. Peter out of humane infirmity denied him; so it is for you to persuade your readers that it is lawful for them to deny the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome, because Bishop Gardiner out of frailty and other humane motives once denied it: for as S. Peter bewailed his fall, with many tears, so did Bishop Gardiner, his. Finally, and that which most of all showeth your lack of Conscience in producing divers of these authors as competent witnesses against us, is, that whereas in your former write you have objected the testimonies of Cassander, Nilus, Faber, Cornelius Agrippa. Erasmus, Aenaas Siluius, Cusanus, and Polydore Virgil; M. Brierley in the Advertisement prefixed before his Protestant Apology, hath given you in particular and by name special warning, not to object them in your future write against us, as being prohibited authors, whose testimonies are of no more authority with us, than your own Grand imposture, or then the testimonies of divers other Protestants, whom in the same work you allege against us. This may serve to give the reader a taste of your manner of writing in general, which how unfitting a man of your place, years, and learning it is, the ensuing Chapters will better declare. CHAP. III. Whether the (now) Roman Church hath composed a new Creed. Num. 8 YOUR first charge, is, (a) that the Roman Church in her Council of Trent, (q Pag. 3. & by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, set forth for the confirmation of the same Council hath composed a new Creed, consisting of more than twenty articles of the (now) Roman faith. These your words contain two untruths: for neither hath the Council of Trent composed any new Creed, nor is there mention of any such Creed, or articles in the bull of Pius, set forth for the confirmation of that Council. Among other Bulls of his commonly annexed to the Councell, there is extant a profession of the Catholic faith to be made by all Ecclesiastical persons, that have charge of souls, and by all Doctors and professors of whatsoever Artand faculty of learning: in which they oblige themselves by oath to observe all the decrees of the Council of Trent, and of all other Ecumenical, that have been held in the Church of God, and to anathematise all heresies condemned by them. This profession you are pleased to call a new Roman Creed, of more than twenty articles. But if that be a Creed, which consisteth of Articles, you that have composed and swear to a new belief, which yourselves call, The 39 articles, are chargeable with a new Creed of your divising. But that we call the bull of Pius the fourth, a Creed, or the profession of our faith contained in it, Articles, you cannot show: and therefore your terming it a new Creed is a silly conceit void of truth, and a fit foundation for a Grand Imposture. And no less untruly you charge us, with adding in our Creed to the article of the Catholic Church, the word, Roman. For that article of our Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church is set down without any such addition in all our Missals, Breviaries, Primers, and Catechisms. And that which most of all declareth your cavilling, is, that in this very profession of our faith set down in two different bulls of Pius the 4. the Creed used by the Roman Church is read without any addition of the word, Roman: It is true, that out of the Symbol of Creed, when we explicate which is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, we say, it is the Roman Church, which to be true, appeareth evidently by the testimonies of antiquity, out of which I have already proved, The Catholic Church, and the Roman Church to be terms convertible. CHAP. IU. Whether the (now) Roman Church have added any new articles to the Creed of the Apostles. Num. 9 YOU say, (a) Pag. 7. It is a doctrine acknowledged in our own schools, that the Church hath no power to create new articles of faith: & yet afterwards you set down as our doctrine (b) Pag. 383. out of Philiarchus, that the Church hath power to create new articles of faith, and that the contrary is one of Luther's Heresies. These two propositions of yours I know not well how to save from contradiction: that, I leave to you. In the thing itself, there is neither difficulty, nor difference of opinions among Catholics: for if by new articles of faith, you understand doctrines newly revealed, as none but God can be the author of divine revelation, so none but God can make articles of faith: and in this sense all Catholic Divines agree. But if by articles of faith, you understand not new revelations, but such Verities as are contained implicitly and virtually in the word of God, but not as yet explicitly declared unto us, so likewise all Catholic Divines agree, that the Church hath power to make articles of faith; that is, to explicate and declare unto us some verities of faith, which before were not so clearly delivered, nor universally received as such. So she hath declared the epistle to the Hebrews, and that of S. james to be canoicall: and (as our learned Roffensis hath well (c) Ad articul. 18. Lutheri. observed) there are many things of which no question was made in the primitive Church, which yet, doubts arising against them, are now accleared by the diligence of posterity. So in the first Council of Constantinople the holy Ghost was explicitly declared to proceed from the Father and the Son. So the three Creeds of Nice, of Constantinople, & S. Athanasius add by way of declaration, many Verities, which are not expressly but implicitly or virtually contained in the Creed of the Apostles. And so likewise neither the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Roman Church, nor the validity of Baptism ministered by heretics, were of necessary belief, until the Council of Nice had declared them to be such. In this sense the Canonical law (d) Gloss. in Extrau. d● Verb. signif. tit. 14. c. 4. expresseth, that the Church hath power to make articles of faith, to wit, by confirming and declaring them to the faithful. This power Luther denied to the Church; and Pope Leo the X. in his bull against him condemned him for it. But you to justify Luther, falsify Leo. Luther's assertion is this: (e) Apud Bin. to. 4. pag. 654. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articùlos fidei, imò nec leges morum, seu bonorum operum. It is certain, that it is no way in the power of the Church or the Pope, to appoint articles of faith, nor laws of manners, or good works. You, to justify Luther, and traduce the Pope for condemning this his assertion, leave out the later part of Luther's article, add novos in the midst, and omit prorsus, setting it down thus. (f) Pag. 383. Certum est (ait) non esse in manu Ecclesiae statuere novos asticulos fidei. Luther maintains as certain▪ that it is not in the power of the Church to ordain new articles of faith. You cut of the later part of his article▪ to conceal the impiety of his Doctrine, denying the Church all power of making laws, either to reform abuses, or refrain men from sin by the practice of good works. And so likewise your leaving out of prorsus, and putting in of novos, is to persuade your reader, that the Pope condemned Luther for denying the Church power to coin new articles of faith, that is, to broach new revelations; which is an untruth: for if Luther had said nothing else, Leo would not have condemned him. And to the same end you corrupt Philiarchus, who (say you) will h●ue us to take head of the heresies of Luther, teaching that the Church hath no power to create new articles of faith. That word (new) is an addition of your own to Philiarchus his text, as his Latin words in your margin convince: but what wonder, since your work is a Grand Imposture. CHAP. V That the word (Roman) is no depravation, but a true declaration of the article of the Catholic Church. TO declare which is the catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed, we say, it is the holy, Apostolic, Roman Church. Against this you (g) Pag. 8. 9 10. object, that the word (Roman) is no true exposition and declaration, but a notorious alteration and depravation of the article of the Catholic Church. This you prove with eight several arguments set down in so many sections. SECT. I. Your first Argument. YOUR first is, (h) Pag. 9 that because the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Divines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church, the word (Roman) which cannot be a declaration of the Catholic Church, as she is triumphant but only as she is militant, can no way be a declaration of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed. So you, forgetting yourself: for here you hold that the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church, and the militant: but else where contradicting your (i) Pag. 365. self, you define the Church properly Catholic set down in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant▪ videlicet, the multitude of Christian believers, whensoever, and wheresoever dispersed throughout the world; and, the congregation of Christians assembled in a general Synod, to be the representative body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholic. From whence it followeth against yourself, that the word (Roman) may be a true declaration of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed, which by your own definition, is the multitude of all Christian believers dispersed throughout the world; for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant (where the clear vision of the divine essence excludeth faith) but to the militant only, consisting of all Christian believers. And because true Christian belief is to be found, only in the Roman Church, it followeth, that the woro (Roman) is a true declaration of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed. 2. Be it, that the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed taken in her whole latitude, comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant; yet in your argument you mistake the state of the question: for when we declare the Catholic Church to be the Roman Church, we speak not of her taken in her whole latitude, but only as she is militant. And this you know right well: for whiles in this Imposture you so often rail at us, for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, out of which there is no hope of salvation, you sufficiently declare, that you know us to speak of the Catholic Church, as she is militant only: for she only is in hope of salvation; the triumphant already enjoyeth it. I conclude therefore, that your argument is grounded on a wilful mistake of the question; which as you cannot defend without contradicting yourself, so neither without wronging S. Augustine: for when he saith, that the Catholic Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant, he speaketh of her, taken in her whole latitude: but that the may, and even in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only, he expressly declareth in his explication of the same Creed, where teaching the Catechumenists which is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed, he (k) De Symb. ad Catechum. l. 1. c. 6. saith: We believe the Catholic Church: She is the holy Church, one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fight against all heresies: she may be opposed, but she cannot be overthrown. All heresies are gone eut from her, as unprofitable branches cut of from the Vine: but she remains in her root, in her Vine, in her charity; & the gates of hell shall never overcome her. In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to believe, that the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed, is the Church militant built upon S. Peter's Chair as upon a rock, against which the gates of hell can not prevail. And the same he declareth, when speaking to the Donatists, he denounceth unto them, that because they were out of the Roman Church, they were out of the Catholic Church and out of the state of Salvation. Be ye engrafted (saith (*) Psal count. part. Donati. ) he) on the Vine: It grieveth us to see you lie so cut of. Number the Priests, even from the See of Peter, and consider in that rank of Fathers who succeeded each other. That is the rock, which the proud gates of hell overcome not. That Church therefore in which there is a never interrupted succession of Bishops from S. Peter, is (in S. Augustine's belief) the Catholic Church. Do not you then abuse S. Augustine producing his authority to prove that the catholic church mentioned in the Creed, cannot be the Church militant, since he so expressly teacheth the contrary? yea, and not only that she is the militant Church, but in particular that she is the Roman Church, built upon S. Peter and his successors; and that whosoever is divided from her, is an unprofitable branch cut of from the Vine, which is Christ our Lord, and therefore no less devoid of spiritual life, than the dead branch is of natural. SECT. II. Your second argument. YOur second argument (l) Pag. 10. 1●.12. is grounded on a false principle, with is, that the Catholic Church in her essential state is invisible. We know, that the essential form of the Church which is, Faith, is invisible to corporal eyes. But the Church (as you (m) Pag. 36● confess) is the multitude of all Christian believers whensoever and whersoever dispersed throughout the world, and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a general Synod is the representative body thereof. Wherefore as it were ridiculous to affirm that a multitude of men joined in one Commonwealth, or the representative body thereof assembled in Parliament, is essentially invisible, because their souls are invisible, or that Christ living on earth was invisible, because his Divinity was invisible: so it is no less ridiculous to affirm that the Church in her essence is invisible, because faith is invisible: for faith is not the Church, but the essential form of the Church, as the soul of man is not man, but the essential form of man. Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soul: and by reason of his body he is visible; for according to the axiom of Philosophers, Actiones & passiones sunt suppositorum. And so likewise the Church consisteth essentially of the persons that believe, as of matter, and of faith, as of form; and by reason of her matter is visible, as man is by his body, and Christ by his humanity. Now whereas to prove, that the Church in her essential state is invisible, you allege the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed, (n) Pag 11. affirming, that the object of every article of that Symbol (from belief in God unto belief of life everlasting) is unto us invisible, and so far as it is believed, is without compass of sense, you speak untruly and ignorantly: for was not the nativity of Christ visible to corporal eyes? did he not visibly suffer in his body, when he was whipped, crowned with thorns, and buffeted? Was he not visibly crucified? Did he not visibly die? Was he not visibly buried? Did he not visibly ascend into heaven, the Astpoles beholding (o) Act. 1.9.10.11. him? And is he not to come again visibly to judge the quick & the dead? The example which you allege of S. Thomas, is against yourself: for not only the Divinity of Christ is the object of faith which S. Thomas believed, but also his humanity: and he that believeth not his humanity, aswell as his Divinity, is an heretic. To what end, I pray you, when the Apostles thought, that Christ after his resurrection appearing to them, was not a man, but a Spirit, did he show them his hands and (p) Luc. 24.39.40. side, and bid them feel, and see, that so they might believe him not to be a Spirit; because (said he) a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have? And to what end did he (q) joan. 20.27. bid Thomas put his finger and hand into his wounds, but that by feeling them he might believe the body he touched to be the same that he had seen suffer on the Cross? Nor do you bring any thing of moment to disprove this: for the definition of faith, which the Apostle gives, saying, (r) Heb. 11.1. Faith is an argument of things not appearing, is sufficiently verified in these objects. It sufficeth that faith be either of things wholly invisible, or else of things visible, apprehended under invifible conditions, & proprieties, as those are, under which we apprehend Christ when we believe him to be both man and God; and those, under which we apprehend the Scripture, when we say, it is the word of God; or the Church, when we believe her to be the spouse of Christ, the house of faith, the temple of God, the mansion of the holy Ghost, the gate of heaven, the treasuresse of spiritual graces. And who knoweth not, that the Sacrament of baptism, whether we consider the matter, which is water, or the form, which are words, is the object of sense? and the very essential definition of a Sacrament, is to be, A visible sign of iwisible (s) Magist in 4. d 1. S. Tho. 3. part q. 60. a 2. & 3. corp. grace: and yet to believe one Baptism in remission of sins, is an article of the Creed expressed in the Council of Gonstantinople. And this discovereth the weakness of your argument taken from the predestinate, to approve the invisibility of the Church: for though predestination be invisible, as faith is, yet neither the predestinate, nor the faithful are invisible; and therefore if I should grant for argument sake, that the Church consisteth of the predestinate only, it would not follow that she is invisible. But to prove her invisibility, you (t) Pag. 11. say: Divine Scripture in positine doctrine doth manifest thus much, in that speech of Christ to S. Peter, Mat 16.19. Upon this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; where the word, Church (by the judgement of S. Augustine, and the accordance of your own Doctors) doth signify, Only the number of predestinate. But let us see how you make good this your charge. Our Doctors which you name, are Caietan, Ferus, Stella, and Salmeron. But Stella in that place neither explicates those words of Christ, nor makes any mention of them, nor of S. Peter, nor of the Church; but speaks of particular men, proving out of other words of Christ recorded by S. Luke (u) Luc. 6.47.48.49. that they which have faith without good works, build their house upon lose earth, which therefore wanting foundation, by winds and storms of tentations is easily overthowne; whereas they that have both faith & good works, build upon a firm Rock, which is Christ: and from thence he inferreth, that your Lutheran Brethren teaching that faith cannot be without good works, build not on Christ the Rock, but upon sand. This is Stellas discourse, which to be imposterously alleged by you, to prove, that the Church consisteth only of predestinate, or that she is invisible, no man can deny. And no less imposterous is your objection out of Salmeron, who speaketh in the same sense that Stella doth; & is so far from teaching that the Church is invisible, that in the very same disputation which you (x) In 1. Timoth. 3. disp. 22. q. Porro. to. 15. object, he proveth that the house of God, which is his Church, is visible and conspicuous in her Head or governor, the Bishop of Rome; in her members, the faithful; in the word of God, which she is commanded to hear; in the profession of her faith, which she is commanded to make openly; and in her Sacraments, wherewith she is sanctified; all these being objects of sense. And (y) Tom. 7. tract. 6.12.38. ●e furthermore sheweth that the church in holy writ is compared to a field that hath wheat and cockle; to a floor that hath corn and chaff; to a net that contains good and bad fishes; to a vine that hath some branches bearing fruit, and some that bear none; to a body of which some members are living, and some dead; to a fold in which there are both sheep, & kids; to a great house in which there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and to the Ark of No, in which there were living creatures, both clean and unclean. And from these parables, as also out of other testimonies of holy Scripture, he inferreth against your Confession of Augusta, as also against the Pelagians, the Donatists, and all other sectaries, that the Catholic Church in this life consisteth both of good & bad, of predestinate & reprobate. I know not therefore, with what conscience you produce him as a patron of your Doctrine, so contrary to his own. Caietan and Ferus I have not seen: but I fear, you deal with them as you do with Stella and Salmeron. Besides, Ferus is a prohibited author. Your second objection is proposed in these (z) Pag. 11. sin. 12. words: The same may be said of the Church, as it is called the flock of Christ, joh. 10. My sheep hear my voice: where by Sheep, are only meant, the sanctified Elect of God, as the testimonies of your own jesuites, the judgement of S. Augustine, and S. chrysostom do confirm. This then is your argument. Suarez, Tolet, and Bellarmine (for those are the jesuites you name) S. chrysostom & S. Augustine, by sheep in the words of Christ objected, understand only the sanctified Elect of God. Ergo, the Church consisteth only of predestinate. An absurd consequence, and falsely fathered on these authors, who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ, is taken sometimes for the elect, and sometimes for the reprobate. In this text of S. john which you object, it is taken for the elect; for Christ speaks of those sheep, to whom he will give everlasting life, and which therefore no man shall pluck out of his (a) joan. 10.28. hand, as Suarez rightly (b) L. 3. the auxil. great. c. 16. ●●. 18. observeth: but other sheep there are, which the infernal wolf shall devour: such was judas; and such are all reprobate Christians. And if it were true, that by sheep in Scripture were understood the elect only, yet your consequence is false, and the Doctrine contained in it, heretical: and such it is held to be, by those very authors, which you allege to patronise it. Suarez showeth (*) De tripl. virt. Theol. part. 1. disp. 9 〈◊〉. 6. & seqq. that the Church is a fold, containing both sheep, and kids, that is, both predestinate, and reprobate, as Christ himself hath (c) Math. 25.33. declared. And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. john, he proveth, that some wolves are in the Church, and some sheep out of the Church: this (I say) he proveth out of the words of S. Augustine (whom you allege for the contrary) saying: (d) Tract. 45. in joan. According to prescience and predestination, how many sheep are without, and how many wolves within? how many live wantonly now, that will become Christians? how many blaspheme Christ, who shall believe in Christ etc. And how many praise God within, who will blaspheme him? are chaste, and will become wantoness? stand now, and will fall? And he concludeth, that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church, are reprobat, and the former though they be actually out of the Church, are predestinate. All this and much more to the same effect is alleged by Bellarmine (e) L. 3. de Eocles. c. 7. & 9 out of Scriptures, and Fathers. And the same is delivered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for the (f) Ad c. 10. joan. Aunotat. 16. contrary: for he saith, that as some who did not as yet believe were sheep, and elect, so contrarily, some, that did actually believe and were sheep, were notwithstanding reprobats, as judas. And lastly S. chrysostom is so far from holding with you, that the Church contains only the sanctified Elect of God, that he writeth (g) In Psal. 39 thus: The whole Church consisteth not of perfect men, but hath also those that give themselves to idleness and sloth, that lead easy and dissolute lives, and willingly serve their pleasures. And that in the net of the Apostles (which is the Church) are contained good and bad (h) Hom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes. Which Doctrine he like wise delivereth in other places of his works. I conclude therefore that you have wronged Suarez, Tolet, Bellarmine, S. Augustine, and chrysostom, fathering your false Doctrine on them. But you proceed, (i) Pag. 12. saying: A third Scripture we find, Rom. 1.9. where the Apostle saith. He that hath not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his, which showeth that none is truly a Christian, but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you, for you, for who ever is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptism, receiveth some gifts of the holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Christ. And as he is truly a man, that is borne of Adam by natural propagation, so is he truly a Christian, that is borne of Christ in Baptism by spiritual regeneration; for as thereby he receiveth faith, so he is enrolled in the number of Christians, and made a member of the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church. True it is, that all members of the Church are not alike: those that with faith have sanctifiing grace (which is the life of our souls) are living members: they that have faith without grace, are according to divers opinions termed diversely: some say, they are dead members: some, that (because they are dead) they are not members properly, but improperly or equivocally, and therefore rather to be called parts of the Church, than members. Others say, that they are neither members, nor parts, but as superfluous or corrupt humours in the body of man. These opinions though they differ in words, yet they agree in this, that faith being the essential form of the Church, all the faithful (be they Saints, or sinners, predestinate or reprobat) are contained in the precincts thereof, even as all, whether members, parts, or humours of man are contained in the body of man. And as for this different manner of speech, Turrecremata, Canus, and others cited by them, and here alleged by you out of Bellarmine (for out of him you took them) call sinners, parts of the Church, and not members, but only equivocally, because (as Suarez rightly (*) De trip. virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9 n. 12. observeth) by members, they understand only such parts as live; whereas the name of parts may also agree to those that live not. Wherefore they differ only in the names, understanding by parts the very same, that the holy Council of Trent and other Divines do by members. And doubtless this manner of speech used by the Council, is more proper, because sinners having faith, & hope, are not void of all motion of spiritual life: for as faith is the beginning of justification, so it uniteth the believer in some sort unto Christ. Nor doth Costerus (whom here you object) differ from this opinion: for that he denies not sinners to be dead parts, or members of the Church, he declareth, (k) Enchir i● contro. 6.2. prope fin. when speaking of the Bishops of Sardis, and Laodicea, that were reprehended, the one, that he was dead in Spirit, the other that he was nether cold nor boat, but lukewarm, wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked, he affirmeth that notwithstanding this, they were both still acknowledged to be Bishops, and heads of their Churches. And a little after, where he saith (l) Solut. ad▪ object. Haer●t. that sinners are in the Church, as humours in the body, he saith withal, that they are as withered bows on the tree. Wherefore unless you will have the Head to be no member of the body, and the withered bows no parts of the tree, you must confess, that your objecting of Costerus to prove, that sinners and reprobates are no parts of the Church, is a grand Imposture. And here by the way I must advertise you of a sleight which you often use, and it is; that when in the explication of any point of Doctrine, you find diversity of opinions among Catholic Divines, some speaking more probably, or properly, and others less; you conceal the former, and set down the latter (as here you do) calling it, the accordance of our own Doctors, and from thence frame arguments against us, as from a ground, which we are not to deny. But who seethe not this manner of arguing, to be fraududulent? For by denying that opinion, or manner of speech, as any Catholic may do, such arguments need no solutions, but of themselves fall to the ground. For example, I may refuse to allow the opinion of those Divines, which say, sinners are not members, but parts of the Church. I may also reject Costerus his manner of speech terming them superfluous humours; and thereby it will appear that your objecting these authors to prove that sinners are not members of the Church, is an argument of no force, especially since they differ not from other Divines (which hold wicked men and reprobats, to be members of the Church) really, but only in manner of speech, as hath been showed, To the testimonies of Scripture you add (m) Pag. 1●. some Fathers, who so expressly condemn your doctrine, that no man but yourself could be so inconsiderate, as to make them patrons of it. S. Ambrose teacheth, and proveth out of S. Paul (n) 1. Tim. 2.20. that, as in a great house there are some vessels of silver and gold, and some of wood and earth: so in the Church there are some good and perfect, signified by the silver and gold; and some bad and reprobate, signified by the vessels of wood and earth. And of this truth (saith he) I think no man to doubt. The same Doctrine he like wise expresseth in other his works. S. Augustine (whom in the second place you object) condemneth your Doctrine in these words. (o) Tract. 6. in joan. We confess▪ that in the Catholic Church there are both good and bad: the good are corn; the bad, chaff. The Church hath in her strong men, and weak; she hath just and injust. (p) Serm. 107. de temp. In the Church there are many reprobates mingled with the good; and both of them are gathered as into a net, and swim together in this world without difference, until they come to the shore, where the evil shall be severed from (q) De Civit. Deil. 18 c. 49. the good. With S. Augustine accordeth S. Bernard, proving out of the same parable of the Net containing good and bad fishes; that in the Church militant there are just men and sinners, elect and (r) Serm de convers. ad cleri●os c. 17. & eoist 11. reprobate. S. Gregory saith, (s) Hom. 11. in Euangel. That the holy Church on earth is rightly compared to ten Virgins, of which some are wise, and some foolish; because in her, the good are mingled with the wicked, the elect with the reprobate. These testimonies convince, that whereas you here confess (t) Pag. 13. your Doctrine in this point to be one of the Tenants, for which john hus was burned in the Council of Constance; you by making the Father's guilty of the same Tenet, do what you can, to cast them into the same fire with him, that so they may be burnt for heresy, as he was. The accusations you being against them, to prove, them guilty of john Husse his heresy, are: First because, S. Ambroses words (say you) are, (u) Pag. 12. All that are in the Church fight for Christ, intimating that the wicked fight against Christ. Why do you wrest S. Ambroses words to a false sense? his words are, Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia, Deo militant: which signify nothing else, but that all which are in the Church are God's soldiers, and fight under his colours. But all that fight under God's colours, fight not as good soldiers: many suffer themselves to be overcome, and lose that crown which no man shall gain, but he that overcometh. These are the reprobats, of whom it is true, that albeit for the present many of them be in god's camp, which is his Church, yet before their death they shall run away, as judas did, and be damned with him. Out of S. Augustins' work de Genesi ad literam c. 2. you object these words: (x) Pag. 12. The Catholic Church is so called, because it is in every part perfect. But S. Augustine in that place hath no such words. And you are very forgetful: for a little before you told (y) Pag. 9 us, out of S. Augustine, that, to hold the Catholic Church here upon earth to consist of them that are perfect, was the heresy of the Pelagians. And yet now speaking of the same Church, you set down, as S. Augustins' words, that the Catholic Church is so called, because it is in every part perfect: which is to make S. Augustine say, and unsay, as you do; but the truth is, that these later words are not his, but yours: and so the contradiction must rest upon you, not upon him. In like manner you say (z) Pag. 12. that the Church of Christ consisteth only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God. But else where, you tell us, (a) Pag 340. that the Egyptians, Aethiopians, Armenians, Russians, and others among whom there are some guilty of some fundament all heresies, are parts of the Catholic Church, and in state of salvation. And again both in this Grand Imposture (b) Pag. 330. , and in your Treatise of the kingdom of Israel in the Tract of the Church (c) Sect. 4. pag. 8. , your Tenet is, that those who profess jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the world, although they do indirectly by wickedness of life or heresy in doctrine, deny their own profession, yet are they to be accounted Christians, true members of the Church consist only of the predestinate, and sanctified elect of God, how can it be verified that heretics are true members of the Catholic Church; since it is the constant Doctrine of S. Augustine, and all the fathers, that heretics are wholly out of the Church, and neither sanctified nor predestinate, but miscreant reprobates, and out of the state of salvation. Your doctrine therefore is, that the Church consisteth of the sanctified and predestinate only; and yet withal, that it consisteth also of Arians and other heretics, who are damnable reprobates. Reconcile these two. Again you Protestants esteem yourselves to be all true members of the Church: & yet among you there are some drunkards, adulterers, usurers, and thiefs. If therefore you be all in the number of the sanctified, and elect of God, some of you be strange Saints. But to return to your objections out of S. Augustine, the other two testimonies which you (e) Pag. 12. lit. 0. bring, are nothing to your purpose: for he only saith, that the predestinate cannot be seduded, nor divided from the Church, which is true: for before the end of their life, they shall become members of God's Church, and persevere in her until death. But how proves this, that none but predestinate are in the Church? Nor doth it import, that he gives to the predestinate the name of Church: for that name sometimes doth not signify the universal Church, but a particular company of the faithful; as when we say: The Church of the Corinthians, or of the Ephesians: and when S. Paul (f) Rom. 16.3. saith, Salute Prisca and Aquila, and their domestical Church. And (g) 1. Cor. 16.19. again: Aquila and Prisca with their domestical Church salute you. In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Gregory, and S. Bernard, whom here you (h) Pag. 12. object: for they all give that name to the just and predestinate, by reason they are the principal parts of the Church. SECT. III. Your third Argument. You (i) Pag. 16. say: Though all agree in this (as yourselves confess) that without the Catholic Church there is no salvation, yet have you confessed two sorts of Christian professors, namely Excommunicates, and Catechumenists to be actually saved, albeit no members of your Roman Church. So you, inferring, that the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. Sir, you know, that Bellarmine (whom here you cite) expressly (k) L. 3 de Eccles. milit. c. 6. declareth, that when we say, none can be saved out of the Church, we speak only of such as neither are in the Church really, nor intentionally by desire, but that if they be in the Catholic Church, either really, or at least by desire (as Catechumenists, and some Excommunicats are) they may be saved. Which Doctrine both he, & other Catholic Divines approve. And it is so certain, that you know not how to disprove it, but by (l) Pag. 16. that as for being saved only by desire or vow of being in the Church, is but a wild and extravagant piece of learning, in the judgement of your own jesuit Suarez. Pardon me, Syr. This is not Suarez his censure, but an untruth of yours: for Suarez speaking of excommunicats, (m) De trio. virt. d. 9 sect. 1. n. 14. saith; that those Divines which hold them not to be in the Church really, but only by desire, differ not from him in the substance of their Doctrine, but only in manner of speech. Now, he defends, that both excommunicats & Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really: which also Valentia holdeth of (n) Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. §. 14. & 15. excommunicats: on whom therefore you (o) Pag. 15. marg lit. d. saying, that the Church Catholic is compared by S. Peter to the Ark of Noah: from whence you infer, that as in the time of the deluge, all which were within the ark, were saved, and all without it, were drowned (although they desired never so much to be admitted into the ark) so whosoever are essential members of the Catholic Church, cannot possibly perish; and contrarily, whosoever is not a real and vital member therein, cannot but perish. So you reason the matter, misunderstanding S. Peter: for he compares not the Ark of No to the Church, but to the Sacrament of Baptism, wherein your argument holdeth not: for though in the deluge, none were saved, but only they, which actually were in the ark, yet it is certain, that in the law of grace, some are saved, which never received the Sacrament of Baptism, as divers Martyrs, that were baptised in their own blood: & you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor, who died unbaptized. But admitting the ark of No to be a type of the Catholic Church (for so it is often taken by the ancient Fathers) yet your argument proves nothing: for similitudes hold not in all things. Wherefore I answer, with S. Augustine (q) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the ark perished in the deluge, and all perished that were out of the ark; yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholic Church represented by the ark: for ill Catholics notwithstanding they be in the Church, not only by desire, but corporally and really, perish, because they make bad use of their baptism: and contrarily, others that believe aright, and live accordingly, though they be not in the Church really, but only in hart and desire (as being yet unbaptized) are saved. From whence S. Augustine concludeth, that what is said of being in, or without the ark in order to salvation, is to be understood, of being in, or without the Church, cord, non corpore, that is to say, not corporally and really, but in hart and desire. Which Doctrine, as it is all Catholic Divines, so it is contrary to yours, and showeth your simplicity, in calling it, a wild and extravagant piece of learning. The things in which the Church is like to the ark (witness S. (r) Adverse. Lucifer. Hierome) are: that as the ark was visible, so is the Church: as in the ark there were Creatures clean, and unclean, so in the Church there are good and bad: and as in the ark, there were predestinate, and also Cham, a reprobate; so in the Church, there are both predestinate and reprobate. Wherefore this comparison which you have brought, of the ark, destroys your own doctrine. SECT. iv Your fourth Argument. YOur fourth Argument to prove the Roman Church not to be the Catholic Church, is (t) Pag. 17. because (say you) our Divines that speak more ingeniously, freely grant, that the Pontifical dignity, Roman (as it is Roman) is not from Divine authority, because only from the fact of Peter. And they that are more affectionate to the Roman See, although they attribute it to the institution of Christ, yet dare they not say, that this is to be believed upon certainty of faith, but only as a matter probable and conjectural. If you should argue thus: An Aethyopian (as he is black) is not a man, Ergo, an Aethyopian is not a man, your argument were a sophism; and so is that which here you make against the Roman Church: for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicative and formaliter, as he is black, yet he is a man, as he is a rational creature: so like wise, though it be no matter of faith, that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè, as Roman, is the Catholic Church, yet it is matter of faith, that S. Peter by divine institution was created supreme Pastor and Governor the whole Church, & that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors. And it is also matter of faith, that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome, and died there, and that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in his See, and supreme authority of Prince, and Governor of the whole Church of Christ: nor was this ever questioned by any but heretics. That which some Catholic writers dispute, is, whether S. Peter had any command from Christ, to place his See at Rome, and not to remove it from thence; or whether without any commandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See, out of his own free election, as he might have chosen Milan, or any other city? That he had such a command from Christ, is affirmed & learnedly proved by (u) De triplici virt. Theol. d. 10. sect. 3. n. 10. Suarez, (x) L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine, (y) Institut. mor. part. 2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Secunda sent. Azor, and by the greatest part of Catholic Divines, with many forcible testimonies of antiquity. According to this opinion (which is the more probable & pious, & learnedly proved by Suarez) it followeth, that the Roman Church, even as Roman, is by Divine institution the See of S. Peter, and his Successors; and that therefore it is not left free for them to remove their See from Rome, to any other place. But (to give you your greatest advantage) be it, that S. Peter received no such commandment from Christ, but that it was free for him to choose for his See, either Rome, or any other City; and that his successors may also freely transfer their See from Rome: Yet this affoards no help to your cause: for though according to this opinion it be no matter of faith, that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè, as Roman, be the Catholic Church, yet specificatiuè, and absolutely it is: for albeit S. Peter might have placed his See else where, yet it is matter of faith that de facto he placed his See at Rome; and that whiles his Successor continueth his See there, the Roman Church is de facto the Head & Mistress of all Churches, and that whosoever is not a member united to this Head, is out of the Catholic Church. This you should have disproved; but wilfully mistake the state of the question; and because it is not matter of faith, but of opinion, that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè, as Roman, is the Catholic Church; you infer that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of faith, but only of opinion, that she is the Catholic Church: which is as good a consequence, as that an Aethiopian absolutely is not a man, because formally, as black, he is not a man. With such arguments you delude ignorant Readers, that want learning to discern your sleights. SECT. V Your fifth Argument. YOur fifth argument to prove that the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church, (z) Pag. 18.19.20. is, because there was a Catholic Church, which had Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors blessed Saints of God, before the Roman Church was founded, yea and before the article of the Catholic Church was put into the tenor of the Creed, or the Apostolical Creed itself composed. All this though it be granted as true, is yet of no force against our Doctrine; which is, that S. Peter was ordained by Christ Pastor of his whole flock; and therefore Governor of the universal Church: from whence it followeth, that whatsoever Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, or other faithful lived in the Church of Christ, after S. Peter was made Head thereof, were members of the universal, or Catholic Church subject to Peter, though for a time there were no one particular Church which was head of all Churches, because S. Peter as yet had not made choice of any particular seat, as afterwards he did at Antioch: and therefore the Church of Antioch whiles he sat there, was the Head and Mother Church, to whom all other Churches were bound to profess union and obedience. In regard whereof, that Holy Pope Innocentius the first, greatly commended by S. Augustine, (a) Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc. Antioch. saith, that the See of Antioch had not given place to the See of Rome, but because what Antioch obtained only by the way, Rome obtained absolutely and finally. To which I add, that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remove his See from Rome to Milan, as S. Peter did from Antioch to Rome, not the Church of Rome, but that of Milan should be the Catholic Church, as the Head and Mother Church of the world. But because by the providence of God S. Peter fixed his seat, & left it to his Successors at Rome, whiles they continue it there, the Roman Church by reason of his See, is the Head, & Mother Church of the world, to which (saith (b) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus) all Churches, and all the faithful from every place are of necessity to agree, by reason of this her more powerful principality. I conclude therefore, that you ignorantly or wittingly mistake the state of the question: for the Roman Churches being, or not being the Catholic Church, as the Head and Mother Church of the world, no way dependeth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholic Church was put into the tenor of the Creed, but upon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apostles lived and died, and which he left to his Successors: for the Bishop of that See, being S. Peter's Successor, succeedeth him in his supreme authority; and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world, which dignity it hath ever enjoyed since S. Peter sat there, and shall enjoy whiles his Successor continueth there, which shall be to the end of the world. To have spoken to the purpose, you should have proved, that the Saints which departed this life, before the Roman Church was founded, were separated from the communion of S. Peter, and from the Church of which he was Head: which if they had been, they had no more been Saints, than you now are. SECT. VI Your sixth Argument. YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophism. All Catholic Divines accord, as in a matter of faith, that the Catholic or universal Church (c) Pag. 20.21.22. mentioned in the Apostles Creed, hath a prerogative of continuing in the true faith until the end of the world, according to Christ's promise made to S. Peter. Secondly, and that the Roman Church, whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seat at Rome, cannot fail in faith. But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandment of Christ, there to remain to the end of his life, and in his Successors to the end of the world, although it be a most pious and probable opinion, held by the greatest and best part of Divines, yet it is not express matter of Faith, because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition: and therefore some Divines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peter's See at Rome, was a thing proceeding merely from his own free will, and election; & consequently, that it is in the power of his Successors to transport it from Rome to Antioch, or any other City. In which case, as Rome should not then be the See of S. Peter, but Antioch: so neither should the Bishop of Rome be the supreme Governor of the whole Church, nor the Church of Rome the Catholic Church, as the Head and mistress of all others (as now she is) but Antioch: Nor should she then have any privilege of not erring in faith, as now Antioch hath not, since the removal of S. Peter's See from thence. But therefore to infer that the now Roman Church (against which you writ this Grand Imposture) being at this present the See of S. Peter, or whiles hereafter she shall remain the See of S. Peter, may err in faith, is to argue à sensu diviso ad sensum compositum, and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible, but never shall be, are already in being. If I should argue thus. It may possibly come to pass (though it be improbable) that the Metropolitan See of England may be removed from Canterbury to Carlisle: Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of England: were not this a sophism? And so is yours. Some of our Divines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother & Mistress of all Churches, and secureth her from all error in faith, may be removed from Rome, though there appear no likelihood thereof: Ergo (infer you) in the opinion of some of your Divines, the now Roman Church is not the Mistress and mother Church of the world, but may now fall from the faith, even whiles she is the See of S. Peter, no less, than she might, if his See were already removed from thence. Who seethe not this Argument to be sophistical? And to sophistry you join fraud: for, to prove that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by divine ordinance, but only by humane election, you (d) Pag. 21. allege Suarez (e) De trip. virt. Theol. disp. 10. sect. 3. n. 10. saying, that before the ascension of Christ, nothing appeareth of any such ordinance, either in Scripture, or from tradition. Here you break of, leaving out the rest of Suarez words, and concealing his Doctrine: for in the very same place both before and after these his words, which you cull out, he expressly affirmeth, that it is more pious, and probable, that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter, commanded him to place his See at Rome; which he ptoveth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers, and by other Arguments; all which you conceal, and cite him for the contrary opinion. The same abuse you offer to Valentia, Bellarmine, and Azor. For all these prove, with many testimonies of antiquity, and other forcible Arguments, that it is of Divine institution, holding it for certain, and the contrary opinion not to be safe, though not expressly the fide. SECT. VII. Your seaventh Argument. THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See canonically chosen, is Head of the universal Church, all Catholics believe, as undoubted matter of faith. But that this individual person, v. g. Vrban the Eight, is true Pope, and true Head of the Church, though the more probable opinion of Divines hold it also to be of faith, yet divers others defend, that it is only of moral certainty. You not knowing how to solve the arguments of the first opinion, otherwise then by railing against it, (f) Pag. 23. fine. & calling it, a jesuitical faith both grossly false & wickedly blasphemous, assume the second, as granted, which I, with the authors of the first opinion, do not grant, but deny. For the Church proposing unto us this individual man. Vrban the eight, as true Pope, it is not only morally, but absolutely, and infallibly certain, that in the person of urban the eight, are found all the conditions of true Baptism, Ordination, Election, and whatsoever else requisite for a true Pope, and true head of the Church: for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost, cannot err in proposing other Verities of faith; so nether in proposing this man to be the true head, and lawful governor of the universal Church wherefore our belief that this man is true Pope, is not humane, moral, and fallible; but divine, and infallible, unless you will question the authority of the holy Ghost, making it humane, and fallible. Yea even in the other opinion, though it be no matter of faith that this individual man is true Pope, yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theological conclusion so certain, that whosoever shall deny it, is worthy of flames. SECT. VIII. Your eight Argument. YOUR eight argument (g) Pag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you have said in the former sections, without any addition of new proofs, unless to prove your Doctrine be to rail against ours, calling it, new, false, scandalous, pernicious, heretical, blasphemous, and us perjured persons: all which being nothing but an empty froth of injurious words, deserve no other answer, but contempt. CHAP. VI The Roman Church is the Head and Mother of all Churches. IN this matter you wholly mistake the state of the question: for when we demand, which Church is the Head, the Mother, and Mistress of all Churches, the question is not, which Church was first founded? If you speak of priority of time, or antiquity, and call those Churches, Mothers of all such, as were founded after them, we grant that in this sense the Church of Jerusalem is the Mother Church of all Churches, and the Roman in the same sense a daughter both to the Church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, and all others that were founded before her. And in this sense the Bishops which had been present at the first Council of Constantinople call the Church of Jerusalem, the Mother of all other Churches (h) Theodor. l. 5. histor. c. 9 . But this is not the question: for you know, and set it down as our Doctrine, (i) Pag. 29. & 38. that the Roman Church is called the Mother Church of all Churches, because S. Peter was constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church. By which it appears, you know right well, that the mother-hood which we attribute to the Roman Church, is not priority of time, but of authority, and jurisdiction grounded on the supremacy of S. Peter: for as by reason of his transcendent authority over the whole flock of Christ, which is his Church, he was (and in his successors is) the Father and Head of all Bishops; so the Roman Church (in which saith S. Chrysologus (*) Epist. ad Eutych. Peter still liveth and governeth) is the Head and mother of all Churches, and unto which (saith S. (k) L. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus) all Churches are necessarily to agree, by reason of her more mighty Principality, that is to say, by reason of the sovereignty, and supreme authority of the See Apostolic. And in this sense, she is called by S. Irenaeus (l) Ibid. and Origen (m) Apud Euseb. l. 6. hist c. 12. . The most ancient Church: and by S. Cyprian (n) De simplicit. Praelat. , The Root, the fountain, and head of Episcopal power; and, The principal Church from whence Priestly unity began. (o) L. 1. ep. 3. . And from the same ground it is, that S. Maximus Martyr said (p) Spond. anno 657. n. 8. , All the Churches of Christians had their beginning from the holy Roman Church: and the Primates of Africa (q) Ep. ad Theod. Papam. that, all other Churches were to learn from her, as from their native fountain, what they ought to believe: and Innocentius the first in his Epistle (r) Epist. 9 highly commended by S. Augustine (s) Epist. 106. , that from the Roman Church other Churches as springs proceeding from their mother source, and running with the purity of their original, through the divers regions of the whole world, are to take what they ought to ordain. And the holy Council of Chalcedon, (t) Epist. ad Leonem. that the fountain and source of our religion is from the See Apostolic. And finally, for divers other respects the Roman Church is justly called, The most ancient Church, as Bozius learnedly proveth (*) Desig. Eccles. to. 1. l. 3. cap. 10. . To him I remit you. Wherefore the mother-hood of the Roman Church which we defend consisteth in her supreme authority, and jurisdiction over all other Churches. This you should disprove, which here you do not, but infer, that Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch, the British Church, & the Greek Church in general, are all Mothers to the Roman, because they were founded before her; which is a false consequent drawn out of a wilful mistake of the state of the question: for though the Church of Jerusalem was founded before that of Caesarea, yet who knoweth not, that (as the famous Council of Nice (*) Can. 7. hath declared, S. Hierome (†) Ep. 61. testifieth, and you here confess) the Church of Caesarea was the Metropolitan, or mother Church of all Palestine, and that both the Church of Jerusalem and all others of that province, were for above four hundred years subject to her. Again, who knoweth not, that the Bishops of Caesarea, of Jerusalem, and of all the East were subject to the Bishop of Antioch, as to their Patriarch, notwithstanding that the Church of Antioch was founded after some of the Eastern Churches? And who knoweth not that albeit the Church of Antioch was founded before that of Rome, it was nevertheless subject to the Church of Rome? for why else did Iwenal Bishop of Jerusalem say (u) In Concil. Ephes. Act. 4. in the presence of the whole Council of Ephesus, that the ancient custom, and Apostolical tradition was, that the Church of Antioch, is to be ruled, and judged by the Roman. Sir, a man of your reading aught to have known, that in the mysteries of Christ, the younger are preferred before the elder: Abel before Cain; jacob before Esau; judas before Reuben; David before Eliab; Solomon before Adonias? and so likewise of Christians, the Gentiles were preferred before the jews; the Latins before the Greeks', and the west before East: for as the Apostle saith, (x) 1. Cor. 15.46. that is natural which is first; and spiritual that which is afterward: and he that by his birthright shall exalt himself, as being the elder, shall by the right hand of God be humbled, that so the favours he bestoweth on his Church may be known to proceed from no other root, but his gracious vocation. So we see, among the Apostles, that although in the opinion of S. Epiphanius (y) Haeresi 51. (which is followed by Baronius (z) Anno 32. n. 23. , Lorinus (a) In ca 1. Act. 5.13. , Serarius (b) Tract. de Apost. , and many others) Andrew were elder than Peter, and (as S. Ambrose (c) In c. 12.2. ad Corinth. saith) followed Christ before Peter, yet Andrew received not the primacy, but Peter. And therefore though the Churches of Jerusalem, of Antioch, and others of the East, were founded before that of Rome, yet not they, but she obtained the primacy. Wherefore you produce in vain the testimonies of S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and S. Basil, affirming, that the Gospel was first preached at Jerusalem, and other parts of the East, and that from thence it came into the West: for this proveth, that the Church of Jerusalem and some others were founded before that of Rome, and therefore were mothers to her in antiquity, not in jurisdiction and authority. But S. chrysostom (say (d) Pag. 30. you) affirmeth, that S. james was the first that obtained a Bishopric, namely at Jerusalem. You ought to have added, that the same S. chrysostom likewise saith (e) In joan. Hom. ultima. that he was made Bishop of Jerusalem by S. Peter master of the whole world. If therefore james was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, that sufficiently showeth his authority over james, and the other Apostles. And what else did S. chrysostom signify, saying, that james was made Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, Master of the world, but that as much as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one See: so much did Peter surpass james in authority? which Euthymius hath also expressed in the same words with chrysostom. And no less effectually S. Bernard: The rest of the Apostles (saith he) (f) L. 2. de consid. c. 9 obtained each of them their peculiar flocks; james contented with Jerusalem, yields the universality to Peter. And S. Gregory: (g) L. 4. epist. 38. Peter surely is the chief member of the holy and Universal Church Paul, Andrew, john, what were they but heads of particular Dioceses? Impertinent therefore is your alleging of S. chrysostom, to prove that james was the first that obtained a Bishopric at Jerusalem: for both he and these other Fathers testify, that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church, and consequently also of Jerusalem, which was a part of the Church. And who knoweth not, that of all the Apostles, S. Peter first preached the Gospel to the jews, and also to the Gentiles; first in the East, and then in the West? and that by his authority he instituted the three Patriarkcall seats, of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, by which all other Churches of the world were governed? and that (as Bozius (h) De sign. Eccles. l. 4. c. 2. & 3. observeth) the whole world was converted by those, which either were sent by S. Peter, and his Successors in the Roman See, having their mission and authority from them; or else by such as were made Bishops by them whom S. Peter had ordained. And so likewise whereas here (i) Pag. 33. you make the Church of Caesarea mother to that of Rome, who knoweth not, that S. Peter founded that Church, and made Cornelius the Centurion Bishop thereof, which therefore remained subject to S. Peter's See? Impertinent likewise, and fraudulent is your objection (k) Pag. 34. out of Sozomene, (l) L. 3. c. 7. that the Eastern Greek Churches challenged this prerogative in their letters to Pope julius, that they came from the East, who first brought Christian Religion to Rome: for if they came from the East, their ordination and authority was from S. Peter. And again those letters were not of Orthodox Bishops, but of the Arians, assembled in their false Council at Antioch; who with an heretical pride stomached at the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, because (as Sozomene there reporteth) by the dignity and prerogative of his See, he had restored to their Church, Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, and other Catholic Bishops, whom they had deposed; and rebuked them sharply for their unjust proceed against them. But yet, their writing was more tolerable than yours: for though (to magnify themselves) they alleged, that the Doctors of Christian Religion came first from the East to Rome, yet withal they acknowledged, (m) Sozom. ibid. that the Roman Church obtained the prize of honour from them all, as having been from the beginning the Metropolitan of Religion: A truth, which you here conceal, and every where deny. But you tell us (n) Pag. 29. 30. , that Bellarmine groundeth the motherhood of the Roman Church on a false principle taken out of the counterfeit epistles of Anacletus, which is, that all the Apostles had their Episcopal ordination of Pastorship from Peter; which principle is denied by Azor and Suarez. Hear you speak untruly, and contradict yourself: for (as you confess) (o) Pag. 38. Bellarmine groundeth the monarchy of S. Peter upon those words of our Saviour Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church etc. And on the same passage, as also upon those other words john. 21. feed my lambs, feed my sheep, (by which Christ made him Pastor of his whole flock) not only Bellarmine, but all Catholics, with the ancient Fathers, ground their belief of the Monarchy of S. Peter, and of the universal authority and motherhood of the Roman Church. Wherefore Bellarmine here alleged by you out of those passages of Scripture, supposeth the supremacy of the Roman Church, as undoubted matter of faith; and from thence inferreth probably, as a singular privilege of S. Peter, that all the Apostles had their. Episcopal ordination from him, and proveth the same not only out of the epistle of Anacletus (which you are pleased (p) Pag. 29. & 34. to call counterfeit, and bastardly, grounding yourself on the testimony of Cusanus in a prohibited work, and which you know he himself hath retracted) but out of the express testimonies of S. Cyprian, of Innocentius the first in his epistles to the two Counsels of Carthage and Milevis, of julius the first, and Leo the Great; all which you imposterously conceal. This deduction of Bellarmine, though it follow probably, yet not so necessarily, that the authority of the Roman Church any way dependeth thereon. And therefore other learned Divines, and in particular Azor, and Suarez (who no less firmly believed the Roman Church to be the mother of all Churches, than Bellarmine did) are herein of a different opinion from him, holding that the Apostles were not ordained Bishops by Peter, but immediately by Christ himself, which (say you) (q) Pag. 29. & 31. they maintain upon the oracles of God, out of direct Scriptures, accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine, and many other Divines. And because you would have us believe, that in their opinion, none of the Apostles were ordained by Peter, you set down in a different letter these words, as theirs: (r) Pag. 30. mitio. Mathias had his ordination to the Bishopric which judas lost, not by the hands of Peter, but by lot immediately from God; and S. Paul, his, not by S. Peter, but by a voice from Heaven, even immediately from Christ. But your dealing is insufferable: for these words are not theirs, but feigned by yourself, and falsely fathered on them. And as the words are not theirs, so nether is the Doctrine: for when they say, The Apostles were ordained Bishops immediately by Christ, they speak not of Mathias, and Paul, but only of those twelve, which Christ called and conversed with in his life time, as Suarez expressly declareth; (s) De trip. virt. Theol. disp. 10 sect. 1. n. 7. proving withal, that both Mathias and Paul were not ordained Bishops immediately by Christ, but by the Apostles (s) their imposition of hands: which also (for as much as concerneth S. Paul) he confirmeth with the testimonies of S. chrysostom, and S. Leo. Again, whereas you say, they maintain that the Apostles were ordained Bishops immediately by Christ, out of direct Scriptures accompanied with the consent of S. Augustine, you cannot be excused from an untruth: for albeit Suarez in proof of his opinion allege the gloss upon those words of the Apostle, God placed in his Church, first, Apostles etc. yet he neither urgeth these words of S. Paul, nor any other text of Scripture to that purpose; nor any testimony of S. Augustine, saving one, out of the book of Questions of the old and new Testament, which you ought not to regard, because, when it is alleged against you, you reject it with contempt, (t) Pag. 50. marg. as heretical & contrary to S. Augustine: but because you conceive, that here it makes for your purpose, you will have it to be S. Augustine's. So inconstant and contradictorious are you to yourself. And I must here also advertise you of your absurd manner of arguing, whiles you frame a syllogism (u) Pag. 30. fin. 31. assuming for your Mayor proposition out of Bellarmine, that, all the other Apostles were ordained Bishops by S. Peter; and out of Suarez & Azor for your Minor, that all the other Apostles were not ordained by S. Peter; which being two contradictories, as there is no man so senseless, that will defend two opinions plainly contradictory: so there is no man so foolish, that will grant both the premises of this your syllogism; which yet he must do, that will allow your argument to be good. He that will defend Bellarmine's opinion, will deny your Minor: and he that will hold with Azor, and Suarez, will deny your Mayor: and so your consequent in both the opinions is false: for what else can a consequent be, that is inferred out of two premises contradictory to themselves. Moreover you say (x) Pag. 34. fine 35. The nation of Britain by our own accounts, received the Gospel (Cardinal Baronius and Suarez acknowledging thus much out of most ancient records) by the preaching of joseph of Arimathia in the 35. year of Christ, two years before Peter did found the Church of Antioch where he was seated, 7. years before he founded the Church of Rome: that is to say; in Britain was planted a Church nine years before there was any Church in Rome, and hereby so much her elder sister. So you, not without ignorance and falsehood: for you set down this acknowledgement in a different character, as the words of Baronius and Suarez, which yet are not theirs, nor of any of the other authors, whom you name, but your own fiction. They indeed acknowledge, that joseph of Arimathia came into Britain: but that his coming was the 35. year of Christ, before S. Peter founded either the Church of Rome, or of Antioch, is your addition falsely imposed on them. For though according to the computation of Baronius, Lazarus with his sisters Mary and Martha were driven out of Jerusalem in the 35. year of Christ, and together with joseph of Arimathia (by the providence of God) came to Marsils in France; yet nether Baronius nor Suarez, nor any one of the authors ancient or modern, which you object, saith, that joseph planted that year a Church in Britain. You name Gildas; but he neither mentioneth joseph of Arimathia, nor saith, that Christian religion was planted in Britain in the time of Tiberius Caesar, as you by misplacing his words, make him say, but speaketh of the great calamities and desolation of that Island, caused by the wars which the Romans made upon the Britain's, not in the time of Tiberius, nor of Caius (for in their times the Romans had no wars with the Britain's) but of Claudius; in the third year of whose Empire, those wars began, and continued 40. years together, until the time of Domitian. Interea etc. In the mean time (saith (y) In epist. de excidia Britan. c. 6. Gildas) that is, during those wars, there appeared, and imparted itself to this cold Island (more remote from the visible sun, than other Nations) that true and invisible sun, which in the time of Tiberius Caesar, had manifested himself (by the fame of his preaching and miracles) to the whole world; I mean, Christ vouchsafed to impart his precepts. Gildas then is wholly against you: for although he say, that in the time of Tiberius Caesar Christ manifested himself, and imparted his precepts to the world, yet he describeth the first planting of Christian Religion in Britain not in the time of Tiberius, but of the Roman wars in time of Claudius, by occasion whereof, there was continual going and coming from Rome to Britain: and as Christian Religion was then planted, & did daily increase in Rome, so from thence it was also kindled in Britain, especially there being many Britain's at that time inhabiting in Rome, some for their pleasure, some to fly the wars, and unquiet state of their own Country, and some taken by force and carried thither for hostages, as Caractacus King of the Silureses, and much Nobility with him, as Cornelius Tacitus reporteth (z) Annal. l. 12. . And from hence it is, that Holin shed (a) In descrip. Britan. to. 1. c. 9 and Cambden (b) In sua Britan. p. 162. Protestant historians affirm, that one Claudia Ruffina a noble British Lady (wife to Pudens the Senator, and the first hostess of S. Peter in Rome,) sent from thence divers books and messages to her friends in Britain, and was thereby a great help to their conversion. To which I add, that S. Peter being come to Rome in the second year of Claudius, to teach and convert the Western parts of the world, when all the jews were by public proclamation banished from Rome, he took that occasion to go into France, and preached the Gospel to the French; and from thence passing into Britain (as Metaphrastes (c) Apud Sur. die 23. jun. pag. 862. out of Greek antiquities recordeth) preached, founded Churches, and ordained Priests & Deacons there: which is also testified by that famous holy Pope Innocentius the first, saying; (d) In epist. ad Decen. The first Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the bordering Lands were founded by S. Peter, or by his Scholars, or successors. Which caused Guilielmus Eysengrenius (e) Cent. 1 p. 7. d. 8. to affime, that the first Christian Churches of England were founded by S. Peter. And finally S. Peter himself appearing to a holy man in the time of King Edward the Confessor, shown him how he had preached in England and the care he had of that Church, and Nation, as Alredus Rhievallis (f) Apud Sur. 5. januar. pag. 131. left written 500 years since. And from that care it proceeded, that as Dorotheus (g) In Synopsi. , Mirmanus (h) In the●●ro de convers. gent. pag. 4●. and Baronius (i) Martyrol. 15. Martij. out of the Greek martyrologue affirm, Aristobulus his disciple, and a known Christian in Rome, was sent by him into Britain, and there made Bishop. By all which it appears, that the British Church was not first founded by joseph of Arimathia, the 35. year of Christ in the reign of Tiberius, but by S. Peter in the time of Claudius, after he had founded the Church of Rome, & placed his seat there; and consequently that the Church of Rome is most truly and properly Mother of the Church of Britain, not only by reason of the second conversion of our nation by Fugatius and Damianus sent by Eleutherius the 13. Pope after S. Peter; and also of the third conversion by S. Augustine, and his companions, sent by S. Gregory the Great (whom therefore Bede calleth the Apostle of England) but also in respect of the first preaching, and founding of a Christian Church in this Island, it having been wrought by S. Peter his disciples, & other Roman Christians cooperating thereto. And so much the more if it be true, that S. Paul assisted S. Peter therein, going from Rome into Britain to preach, as Theodoret (k) In psal. 106. & l. 5. de curandis Graec. affect. , Sophronius (l) Serm. de Natali Apost. , Venantius Fortunatus (m) In carm. and others affirm. As for joseph of Arimathia his coming into England, I grant it to be true, though it be not affirmed by any ancient writer, but only by Capgravius, Polydore Virgil, & other late historians. Tradition is sufficient to confirm me in the belief thereof. Yet withal it is certain, that he came not the year of Christ 35. (as you without any proof at all suppose) but having come out of jury into France, with S. Mary Magdalen, and her company, after he had lived there sometime, and seen her great austerity of contemplative and solitary life, and rigour of penance which she used, went over into Britain, either sent by S. Peter, or by his own free election. And though it be likely that by preaching the Gospel, he increased the number of Christians in the British Church, yet the chief intention of his coming was, to begin that kind of solitary and heremitical life, which he had seen practised by S. Magdalene in France, as Cambden (n) In descrip. Brit. pa. 162. observeth. joseph (saith he) and his company did take upon them a solitary life: that with more tranquillity they might attend to holy learning, and with a severe kind of conversation exercise themselves to the bearing of Christ's Cross. From hence it followeth, that the Roman Church is Mother to that of Britain, not only by reason of the supereminent authority and power which she hath over her, aswell as over all other Churches of the world, but also in antiquity, she being planted before there was any Church at all in Britain; and most especially, because she begot, and founded the British Church. Wherefore with great reason K. Henry the eight confesseth, (o) Lib. de 7. Sacram. contra Luther. art. 2. that all the Churches of the faithful acknowledge and reverence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother. And our late Sovereign K. james of famous memory, in the Sum of the conference before his Majesty, affirmeth (p) Pag. 75. that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church, and consequently that as well the Church of Britain, as all others were her daughters; which right she being once possessed of, could never lose; unless you will make false the words of Christ, who promised that, the gates of hell (which are false and heretical Doctrines) shall never prevail against her. Lastly I will not omit to put you in mind of two other sleights. The one is, that whereas you know, all antiquity to have believed, and left expressed in their works, that the Roman Church is, The head and Mother of all Churches, and that it were not difficult (if needful) to set down their testimonies in their own words, you mention no other authority for our belief of that truth, but the late Council of Trent. The other is, that you run on in your own mistake, calling it in us, a mad point of genealogizing, to conclude, that Rome must be mother to those Daughters of S. Peter, which were begotten 7. years before she was borne, and which therefore you call (q) Pag. 31. & 36. Mothers, grandmothers, and Aunts to her. If by motherhood you understand, antiquity of time, though it were indeed a mad point of Genealogizing to call the Roman Church, Mother, in respect of any Church that was founded before her, yet in this very sense of Motherhood, it is false, that the Roman Church is a daughter to the British: for the British was founded after the Roman. But you know, that by Motherhood we understand superiority, and jurisdiction: and therefore as it were a mad manner of arguing to infer that Caesarea in Palestine is not Superior in jurisdiction and mother to the Church of Jerusalem, after which she was founded; so it is in you to infer, that the Roman Church is not superior in jurisdiction and Mother to all Churches, because she was founded after some of them. CHAP. VII. S. Peter's Primacy defended. TO prove that S. Peter was not of the now Roman faith concerning his own primacy, you (r) Pag. 38. & seqq. object those words of our Saviour Mat. 16. upon this Rock: for in them (say you) (s) Pag. 38. the faith of S. Peter did not conceive any Monarchical, or supreme jurisdiction promised unto himself by Christ. The native, obvious, and true sense of these words of Christ delivered by the agreeing consent of ancient Fathers, Counsels and all Orthodox writers, is, that Christ spoke them to Peter, & in reward of that admirable confession of his faith, whereby he proclaimed Christ to be The Son of the living God, made him an impregnable Rock, and promised to build his Church upon him, as upon a foundation so firm and immoveable, that the gates of hell (which are errors and heresies) should never prevail against it. This sense you cannot digest; & therefore seek to elude it by abusing and falsifying the Fathers, and other expositors. For the better understanding hereof, it is to be noted, that whereas you allege some Father's affirming, that the rock on which Christ promised to build his Church, is the faith and confession of Peter, and others saying, that it is Christ himself; these their expositions are no way contrary either in themselves, or to our Doctrine: for (as Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Pont. c. 10. §. Nemo dubitat. observeth) no man doubts, but that Christ is the chief foundation of the Church, and that so much may be gathered out of these his words: for if Peter be a secondary foundation supplying the place of Christ on earth, it followeth that Christ himself is the first and chief foundation, or as S. Augustine (u) In Psal. 86. , and S. Gregory (x) L. 28 Moral. c. 9 call him, Fundamentum fundamentorum, The foundation of foundations. Again, they are not to be understood of the person of Christ abstracting from the Confession of Peter, but including it, as the object confessed; nor of Peter's confession abstracting from Peter himself, but including him, as the person that confesseth. Wherefore the sense is, that Christ promised to build his Church upon himself confessed by Peter, or (which is all one) upon Peter confessing Christ, and for the confession he made of Christ. Which (to speak in the School language) is to say, that Christ built his Church causally upon Peter's confession and formally upon his person; because that excellent confession of Peter was the cause which moved Christ to choose Peter's person for the foundation of his Church. The confession of Peter (saith S. Hilary (y) Cau. 16. in Mathaeum. hath received a worthy reward: & declaring what reward it was, he addeth: O, in the title of a new name, happy foundation of the Church, and worthy stone of her edifice! O blessed Porter of Heaven etc. And again: (z) Lib. e. de Trim. This is he that in the silence of all the other Apostles, beyond the capacity of humane infirmity, acknowledging the son of God by the revelation of the Father, merited by the Confession of his faith a supereminent place. 2. S. Basil: (a) L. 2. Cont. Eunom. Because Peter excelled in faith he received the building of the Church on himself 3. S. Ambrose: (b) Serm. 47. Peter for his devotion is called a rock; and our Lord is called a Rock for his strength: he rightly deserveth to be a partaker in the name▪ that is partaker in the work: for Peter laid the foundation in the house. 4. S. Hierome: (c) In cap. 16. Math. Because thou Simon hast said to me, Thou art Christ the Son of God, I also say to thee, not with a vain or idle speech that hath no effect, for my saying is doing; therefore I say to thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. And again: (d) Ibid. He rewardeth the Apostle for the testimony he had given of him: Peter had said; Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. His true confession received a reward etc. 5. S. chrysostom (e) In psal. 50. : He●re, what he saith to Peter, that Pillar, that foundation; and therefore called Peter, as being made a Rock by faith. 6. Theophilact (f) Ad cap. 1●. Math. : Our Lord rewardeth Peter, bestowing on him a singular favour, which is, that he built his Church upon him. By these testimonies of Fathers it appears, that to say, Christ built his Church upon the confession of Peter, is not to deny, that he built it on the person of Peter, but to express the cause, for which he built it on his person: Even as when we say, The valour of a Captain got the victory, we say it not, to signify that his valour in abstracto got the victory without his person, but to express the means whereby he got it. And in like manner, when S. Hierome and S. Ambrose (g) Ep. 61. Ad Pamma. advers error. Io●n. Hierosol. S. Ambros. l. de fide resurrect. said, Not Peter, but his faith walked upon the waters, it was not to deny, that his person truly and formally walked on them, but to declare, that the cause which made him walk on them, was not the natural virtue or activity of his body, but the faith he had given to the words of Christ. And so likewise it is in our case: for as these two propositions, The faith of Peter walked on the waters, and, Peter walked on the waters, are both true, but in a different sense; for the faith of Peter walked on them causally, as being the cause why Peter walked: and the person of Peter walked on them truly, properly, and formally. So likewise are these two both jointly true, though in a different sense: The Church is built upon the person of Peter; and, The Church is built on the faith or confession of Peter; because the primacy of Peter's faith & confession was the cause which moved Christ to choose Peter for the foundation of his Church, rather than any of the other Apostles: & to that end he gave him the name and solidity of a Rock, that the gates of hell might never prevail against the Church built on him. In like manner when S. Augustine and other expositors teach, that Christ is the Rock or foundation on which the Church is built, their exposition differeth not from the former in substance, but only in manner of speech: for (as Salmeron (h) Tom. 4. part. 3. Tract. 2. and Suarez (i) Defence. fid. l. 3. c. 11. n. 11. have well observed) their meaning cannot be, that the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church for the future, is his own person, formally considered as in himself, both because on him, it was already built from the time of his incarnation; as also because he speaketh not to himself, but to Peter, saying, Thou art Peter etc. And therefore as when in the words immediately preceding, he called Peter by his own name Simon the Son of john, he spoke to Peter in particular; so likewise he did when immediately he added: and I say to thee, that thou art Peter (that is a Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church. And the same is yet made more evident by other profess which Bellarmine (k) L. 1 de Pont. c. 10. §. Primo pronomen. allegeth. Wherefore the sense is, that Christ promiseth to build his Church on himself, obiectively, that is to say, as confessed by Peter: which exposition differeth not from the former, and is expressly delivered by S. Ambrose (l) In c. 3.1. ad Cor. in these words: The true and approved sense is, that the Church is built by God upon Christ, but yet as confessed by Peter, and not by any other: which is as if it were said, upon thee confessing Christ, and upon the confession which Peter made of Christ, or upon Christ confessed by Peter. So S. Ambrose: and so also S. Augustine saying (m) L. 1. Retract. c. 21. : Afterwards I expounded thus, these words of our Lord, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, that it should be understood to be built upon him whom Peter confessed, saying, thou art Christ etc. And that by this exposition S. Augustine intendeth not to deny the Rock meant by Christ in those words, to be S. Peter, is a truth that may not be denied: both because in that very place he saith, that, This sense is celebrated by many in the verses of S. Ambrose saying, The Cock crowing, the Rock of the Church washed out his offence; as also, because he there affirmeth, that in other places of his works he had expounded those words not of Christ, but of Peter (as the rest of the Fathers do) which exposition he recalleth not, but leaveth to the reader's discretion, to choose which of the two, he liketh best. Let the reader chose (saith he) (n) Ibid. which of these two senses is the more probable. From whence it must needs follow, that albeit he doubted, whether of those two senses agreeth best to the words of Christ in that place, yet of the truth to the thing itself, to wit, that, Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church, he never doubted. If he had thought that to be a false sense, he had done very absurdly, in not recalling it, but leaving to the reader's choice, to follow either that, or the other: for it had been to leave it in his choice, to follow a true sense, or a false, an orthodox verity, or an heretical error: which though you do, yet none but such as you, will presume S. Augustine to have done. By this it appears, that all those testimonies of Fathers, Popes, and other authors, which you (to make a flourish) heap up in the four first Sections of your fourth Chapter, to prove that the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church, is not Peter, but the Confession of Peter, or Christ (for either of both will serve your turn, so that Peter be excluded) are impertinently alleged: for the meaning of them is, that the Church is not built upon Peter, merely, as he was a weak man, and abstracting from his confession of Christ; but upon him, as confessing Christ, and for his confession, and in reward thereof. And so likewise it is built upon Christ, not excluding Peter's confession, but upon him as confessed by Peter. All which is evident out of those very Fathers and expositors which you produce for the contrary: For they so fully, and so unanswerably avouch Peter to be the Rock on which Christ built his Church, and you so certainly know it to be true, that much against your will you are enforced upon the rack of truth to confess so much, though you do it mincingly, saying: (o) Pag 42. We may not dissemble thus much, that some Fathers do expound by Rock, Peter. You should have said, All Fathers, and all Counsels which treat of that subject, and all Catholic expositors. And I must entreat the reader here in prudence to consider, how unadvisedly you allege Catholic approved authors against this truth, which no understanding Protestant will in his judgement believe, that any of them ever denied, it being a main, and even the greatest point of difference between us and you, and which being decided the rest would easily follow. Wherefore it cannot be but that you wrong the Catholic authors which you cite in favour of your doctrine: and the like you do to the ancient Fathers. To examine every particular, were an endless labour, for your falsifications for the most part consist in a very few words, cut off, and dismembered from their contexture: whereas to show your finistrous dealing, the whole context must be set down, as it lieth. Yet some of them I will present to the reader's view, by which he may make conjecture of the rest. 1. You begin with Baronius, saying: (p) Pag 38. When Luther, Caluin, and others adventured to expound this of Christ, and of faith in him, as the Son of God, your two grand Cardinals oppose: What do they oppose? The one (say you, speaking of Baronius) opposeth his own passion, calling it impudent madness in Protestants to expound the Rock to signify Christ. So you, untruly, and sundry ways abusing Baronius: for in that very place (q) Anno 33. n. 19 & seqq. he expressly affirmeth Christ to be the Rock, on which the Church is built: and a little before (r) Anno 31. n. 24.25.26. he had professedly proved the same out of the Syriack, in which our Saviour spoke, and shown by the testimonies of Fathers, that as Christ is the primary Rock, or foundation, on which the Church is built, so he communicated to Peter his own name of a Rock, and the honour of being next to himself. the secondary and ministerial foundation in the structure of his Church. And as witnesses of this truth he allegeth Tertullian, S. Basil, S. Hierome, S. Leo, Hippolytus, Opiatus, expressly affirming, that the name of Cephas signifieth a Rock, and is the same that Petrus, or Petra: which he further proveth (s) Anno 33. out of the testimonies of S. Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, S. Epiphanius, S. Hilary, S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Cyril, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. chrysostom, S. Leo, and of the Council of Ephesus; all of them affirming, that Christ by Rock (on which he was to build his Church) understood S. Peter. And this they teach in as plain and effectual words, as either Baronius or any Catholic living at this day is able to express. And as Baronius citeth the words of these Fathers, so he might of the rest (for they were of the same belief) as likewise all the general Counsels; which to avoid prolixity he omitteth, but yet expresseth their doctrine in general, in these words: All the Ecclesiastical Orthodox writers that have lived since the aforesaid Fathers, al● the Synods that ever have been lawfully assembled in the hely Ghost, have no less constantly and ingeniously professed the same truth, to wit that Peter is by Christ our Lord made the foundation of the Church. By this it appears how untruly you say, that Barenius opposeth his own passion against the exposition of Protectants, denying Peter to be the Rock, on which the Church is built, since he confuteth it with the testimonies of all the Fathers, of all general Counsels, and of all Orthodox writers. You by saying. he opposeth his own passion, would persuade your readers, that he had nothing else to say against their exposition, but only to call it, Impudent madness. Whether he might not with reason have called it so, judge your for what else can it be, to deny that to be the true sense of our Saviour's words, which all Fathers & Counsels have professed to be the true and lawful sense of them? But you (to have a better colour of inveighing against Baronius) say, that he calls the exposition of Protestants Impudent madness, which is not true: for he hath not the word impudent: that's your addition to his text. 2. Having thus wronged Baronius, you pass to Bellarmine, saying, (t) Pag. 38. that he to prove Peter to be the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church, obtrudeth the consent of our own school, saying, that by Rock, it meant Peter, it is the common opinion of all Catholics: He saith so indeed: but saith he nothing else? doth he not prove it, out of twenty several passages of the new Testament, so expounded by the ancient Fathers? Doth he not prove it, out of the agreeing consent of the most famous Doctors aswell of the Greek, as of the Latin Church? If this be to obtrude the consent of our own school, than (your self being the judge) our school consisteth not only of all the Catholics of later ages, but of Christ, of his Apostles, of his Evangelists, and of the ancient Fathers of the Greek and Latin Chuurch: for all these Bellarmine allegeth. These we acknowledge to be our school, and from these masters we have learned our Doctrine. And yours being contrary to this, it is soon understood out of what school, & from what Master you, and your grand Tutors Luther and Caluin have learned it. 3. Having thus handled Baronius, and Bellarmine, you pass to Roffensis, our learned Bishop of Rochester, who in time of K. Henry the eight writ in defence of this Doctrine against Luther, and sealed what he writ with his blood. Of him you say: (u) Pag. 38. fin. p. 39 he approveth the same exposition (that Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built) saying: In this, truth triumpheth, as though it were as clear as the Sun; which sunne-shyne we Protestant's (alas aur blindness) cannot discern, but rather judge, that it hath been, and is mistaken by you for moonshine through some defect in your faculties of sight. So you taunting that learned Bishop, and with him all Catholics, telling us of his insultation: but not without imposture: for the insultation is not his, but Luther's; who though he bring nothing against this exposition (as Roffensis showeth) foolishly insulteth upon the Pope, the ancient Fathers, and all Catholics, for expounding Peter to be the Rock. Adeste huc etc. Come hither Pope (saith (x) Art. 25. Luther) and all you Papists, melt and cast all your studies into one, if perhaps ye be able to untie this knot. At least, this authority stands victorious, & triumphant against you. This insultation of Luther it is, which Roffensis justly retorteth on him. Thou (saith (y) Adart 25. Luthert. he to Luther) upbraydest these things to the Orthodox members of the Catholic Church: and I will return thee thine own words: Come hither Luther, with all thy Lutherans: cast all your studies into one; and yet you shall never evince but that Christ foretold truth when he said, he was to build his Church upon a Rock, namely Peter. This authority stands victorious against you, and triumpheth, and shall triumph over you. And how true this speech of Roffensis is, who knoweth not? for in other Bishoprics even in the greatest patriarchal seats, there have been many heretics, and not a few of them Arch-heretikes, as in the See of Jerusalem john the Origenist, Salustius, Arsenius, Heraclius, Hilarius. In the See of Antioch, Paulus Samosatenus, Eulalius, Euzoius, joannes, Domnus, Petrus Gnapheus, Macarius. In the See of Alexandria, Gregorius, Sergius Cappadox, Lucius, Dioscorus, Timotheus, AElurus, Moggus, and others. In the See of Constan●inople Macedonius, Acacius, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, A●astasius. Anthymus, Theodorus, and others. And who knoweth not, that the Churches founded by the other Apostles have been, and still are overwhelmed with Paganism, Turkism, and heresy? and that the Succession of Bishops hath failed in them; as of james, in Jerusalem; of Andrew, in Achaia; of john, in Asia; of Thomas, in India; of jude, in Persia; of Matthew, in AEthiopia; of Philip, in Phrygia; of Paul, in Greece? The Roman Church only is she, to whom (saith S. Cyprian (z) L. 1. ep. 3. ) misbelieve can have no access: she only hath ever remained free from all spot, and contagion of heresy, or other infidelity: and notwithstanding the outrageous persecutions of Pagan Emperors, the barbarous attempts of Saracens and Turks, and the furious assalts of all Heretics, she hath ever flourished, and still flourisheth: which evidently showeth, that she, and none else but she, with such other Churches, as by union with her make one universal Church, are the true Church of Christ, founded by him on S. Peter, as upon an impregnable Rock. against which the gates of hell shall never prevail. Upon this Rock (saith S. Hierome speaking (a) Ep. 57 of the Roman See) I know the Church to be built. She may be assaulted, she may be battered, but overcome she cannot be: sor she (saith (b) Psalm. contra part. Donati. S. Augustine) is that Rock. against which the gates of hell prevail not. And S. Leo the Great speaking of S. Peter and his See. pronounceth (c) Epist. 89. ; that, whosoever goeth about to violate the most sacred strength of the Rock (Peter) framed by the hand of God, or to infringe the power of the Roman Church is most impiously presumptuous: and that whosoever thinks the Principality to be denied to S. Peter's Successor, can no way diminish his dignity, but puffed with the spirit of pride, casts himself headlong into hell: and (d) Ep. 74. that, since the Universal Church by that principal Rock Christ, is made a Rock, and the most blessed Peter chief of the Apostles hath heard from the mouth of our Lord. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, when is he that dare oppose this invincibletruth, but either Antichrist or the Devil? I conclude therefore with Roffensis, that the authority of S. Peter's See grounded upon the promise of Christ, standeth death victorious, and triumphant against you, and shall so remain until the end of the world. CHAP. VIII. Abuses, and Wrongs offered by Doctor Morton to the ancient Fathers, and other Catholic writers. TO prove that Christ, by the Rock, on which he promised to build his Church understood not S. Peter, you object the ancient Fathers. And first (e) Pag. 42. lit. ●. S. Ambrose saying, (f) Ad c. ●. Luc. lib. 6. Petra erat Christus: Christ was the Rock. There cannot be a more wilful falsification: for that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church S. Ambrose teacheth, when in his hymn mentioned by S. Augustine (*) Hymn. ad laud. Dom. speaking of S. Peter's tears, he saith: The Cock crowing, the Rock of the Church washed out his offence. The same he declareth and fully explicateth else where (g) Serm. 11. & serm. 47. and (to show your false dealing) in that very place (h) L.e. comment. in ca 9 Lucae in which you allege him for the contrary: for he saith, that as Christ was the Rock, so he communicated almost all his own names to his Disciples. He was the light of the world, and he called his Disciples the light of the world etc. And having proved the same of other names, as of Bread, of a Vine etc. he particularly showeth the same of the name of Rock. saying, Petra est Christus etc. which are the words you object. And then, to show that he gave also this his name of Rock to S. Peter, he addeth: Etiam discipulo suo huius vocabuli gratiam non neganit etc. And he refused not to honour his Disciple with this name, that he also may be a Rock, having from the Rock Christ the solidity of constancy, and firmness of faith. 2. You object (i) Pag. 42. marg. that S. Ambrose (k) Serm. 84. distinguisheth between the Rock. and Peter, as plainly as between Christ and a Christian. But though S. Ambrose say, that as Christianus is called à Christo, so also Peter the Apostle is called Petrus à Petra, yet he saith not, that Petrus is a derivative of Petra, as Christianus, is of Christus, but that, Petrus, and Petra, is one & the same name. His words are: because Christ is a Rock, Simon is also rightly called Petrus, that as he agreed in faith with our Lord, so also he might have one and the same name with our Lord. Whereby it is evident that S. Ambrose taketh Petrus and Petra to be one and the same name. And the same is evident out of the words of Christ: for if he had said, Tu es Petra, & super hanc Petram, thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, there had been no colour to deny, that Christ promised to build his Church on Peter: Ergo, now there is none; for Christ spoke in Syriack, Tues Cephas, & super hanc Cepham etc. Whereupon S. Hierome (l) In c. 2, ep. ad Gal noteth, that Petrus signifies not one thing, and Cephas another, but the self same, because what the Latins call Petra, the Hebrews & Syrians call Cephas. And the same is proved out of the Greek: for as Phavorinus advertiseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have one, and the same signification, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which he confirmeth out of Euripides: and not only he, but Caluin and Beza (m) Ad cap. 16. Math. vers. 18. confess, that Petrus and Petra are the same that Cephas, and differ not in signification, but only in termination. And therefore as if the latin interpreter had said, Tues Cephas & super hanc Cepham etc. the sense had been plain against you, so it is now: for the Latin interpreter intended not to alter the sense of our Saviour's words; but used Petrus rather then Petra, because Petrus being the masculine gender, was more fit to express the name of a man, than Petra, though both of them have one and the same signification. This you know right well, and therefore cannot deny, but that S. Ambrose acknowledged Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built: for you say: (n) Pag. 42. Among the Father's S. Ambrose gives this reason, (o) Serm. 47. why S. Peter was called Rock, because he did first lay among nations the foundation of faith: but gives he no other reason? Yes, because he sustaineth the frame and weight of Christian building, which words declare Peter to be the Rock or foundation, on which the Church is built: and therefore you mangle S. Ambrose sentence, leaving them out. 3. You object (p) Pag. 42. r. out S. Hierome these words; Petrus nominatur à Petra, to signify, that Petrus doth not signify a Rock, but is a derivative of Petra, as Christianus of Christus. But S. Hierome hath no such Doctrine, but directly the contrary. His words are; upon this Rock our Lord founded his Church; from this Rock the Apostle Peter took his name, to wit, of a Rock. And that this is the true sense of S. Hierome, it is plain out of his Comment upon Mat. 16 where professedly declaring the words of Christ, he saith that they were not vain and without effect, but that by calling the Apostle, Petrus, he made him a Rock: and that as Christ himself being the light, granted to his Disciples that they should be called the light of the world: so to Simon, which had believed in Christ the Rock, he gave the name of Petrus, and according to the metaphor of a Rock, it is truly said to him: I will build my Church upon thee. 4. You object (q) Pag. 42. c. S. Hilary to prove that not Peter but Christ himself is the Rock on which he promised to build his Church. The words you bring, are: una hac fidei petra Petri ore confessa, Tues Christus filius Dei vivi. I find no such words in S. Hilary: nor is it likely that he would use confessa passively, as in these words you do. But how imposterously you allege him to prove, that S. Peter is not the Rock on which Christ promised to build his Church, S. Hilary himself shall be the judge. O (saith (r) Can. 16. in Math. he) in the title of a new name, happy foundation of the Church, and worthy stone of her Edifice! O blessed Porter of Heaven, to whose arbitrement are committed the keys of the eternal kingdom, whose judgements have authority to prejudge in heaven! And else where (s) In Psal. 131. he calleth Peter the first Confessor of the son of God, the foundation of the Church. And in that very place which you object (t) L. 6. de Trin. that, after his confession, subiacet, he is laid under the building of the Church, and receives the Keys of the heavenly kingdom. 5. You object (u) Pag. 42.1. S. Epiphanius alleging out of him these words, (x) Haeres. 59 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Rock of faith, which show, that Peter is the firm Rock on which the Church is so strongly built that she shall never fail in faith. But he that will see your unsincere dealing, if he read S. Epiphanius his contexture, shall find that in that very place which you cite for the contrary (y) Haeres. 59 he affirmeth in most express words, not once, but thrice, that Peter is the Rock on which Christ hath built his Church: that he is the foundation of the Church: and that Christ hath committed to him the charge of feeding his flock. The same he teacheth in his Ancoratus (z) Propè in●t. , adding, that all questions of faith are in Peter. Whereby is not only signified his supremacy (which twice he there expresseth) but also his authority to resolve all doubts of saith, and condemn all heresies, which he expoundeth to be the gates of hell, that shall never prevail against the Church built upon Peter. 6. You say: (a) Pag 40. Gregory (surnamed the Great) speaking of the foundation of the Church, hath defined that whensoever the word, Foundation, is in the Scripture used in the singular number, no other then, Christ, is signified thereby; from whence you infer, that out of the Scripture Peter cannot be proved to be the foundation of the Church. But you shall be judged out of your own mouth: for you confess (b) Ibid. that, Petra, a Rock, is taken as all one with foundation: you also grant, (c) Pag. 42. that some of the Fathers understand by Peter, Rock; you should have said all: for (as Maldonate whom you cite (d) Pag. 39 f. marg. noteth, (e) In c. 16. Math. n. 16. prope fin. none but heretics ever denied it: from whence it must follow, that since the name of Rock (which is all one with foundation) is given him in Scripture, it is all one, as if the name of foundation had been given him in Scripture. And therefore Clemens Romanus, Origen, S. Hilary, the Council of Chalcedon, Isidorus, Pelusiota, and others give him the name of Foundation, aswell as of Rock (f) Apud jod. Cocc. to. 1. l. 7. art. 4. . 7. To S. Gregory the Great, you join Gregory the seaventh, a most holy and learned Pope, whom you traduce, saying: (g) Pag. 40. Hildebrand who in his own opinion was greater than Gregory the Great, and the greatest Dictator that ever possessed the Papal See, Anno 1077. invited Rodulph Duke of Suevia, to rebel against his Liege Lord and Emperor, Henry the 4. and sent unto the same Rodulph a Crown with this inscription, Petra dedit Petro Romam, tibi Papa coronam. Sir, you have been formerly admonished by P. R. in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister, of your tradueing and falsely slandering this holy Pope, of whose admirable vertnes I may have occasion to speak hereafter. But you are still the same man. and tell us this fable, which Baronius (h) Anno 1077. n. 7. apud Spond. setteth down as related by Albertus Stadenfis, and Helmoldus, two late writers, whom he convinceth of falsehood, showing, that the Princes of Germany, who could no longer endure the execrable wickedness, insolency, and oppressions of Henry, and being greatly incensed against him for his sacrilegious practices against the See Apostolic, wholly renounced him, and chose in his place Rodulph Duke of Suevia, without either the advice or knowledge of Gregory, and brought him to Mentz, where he was consecrated by Sigefridus Bishop of that City. So untrue it is, that Gregory either Crowned him, or sent any Crown unto him, or any way incited him against Henry. And it is to be noted, that whereas you call Henry, Rodulphs' Liege Lord, and Emperor, he was never Crowned, but only by Guibertus an Antipope, set up by himself to that end, and consecrated by Bishops, that were actually excommunicated, and deposed. But any thing will serve your turn, to make an argument against the Pope, be it true, or false. 8. You object (i) Pag. 41. marg. these words of Theophylact: Confessio ipsa, fundamentam. But why do you mangle his words, which are: Our Lord rewardeth Peter, bestowing a great favour on him, which is, that upon him he built the Church: for because Peter confessed him to be the son of God, he said, that this Confession which he made, shall be a foundation to them that believe etc. Can there be a more gross falsification, then to object three words of Theophilact, to prove Peter not to be the foundation of the Church, and leave out the former part of the sentence, in which he so expressly affirmeth, that, Christ to reward his faith, built his Church upon him? 9 And no less deceitfully you allege (k) Pag. 39 g. the Roman gloss, (l) Gloss. Decret. part. 1. d. 10. in Cap. Dominus no fire. to prove, that not Peter, but his confession without any relation to his person, is the Rock, on which Christ promised to build his Church: for the gloss saith: Christ would have his own name of Petra, a Rock, given to Peter, etc. therefore called him Petrus. And the Chapter on which this gloss is made, is taken out of an Epistle of S. Leo, in which he not only affirm (m) Ep. 83. Peter to be the Rock on which the Church is built, but addeth; that whosoever denyeth this truth is impiously presumptuous, and plungeth himself into Hell. To these, and otherlike objections out of the Fathers, and other Catholic authors, you add some confirmations of your own. The first is: None (say you) (n) Pag. 41. will deny, but that there was meant in Peter's Confession, that matter, which he confessed: but Peter confessed not himself, but Christ, saying. Then art the Son of the living God. Ergo, his confession had relation to Christ, and not to himself. A false and senseless consequence: for every confession hath relation not only to the matter, as to the object, or thing confessed, but also to him that confesseth, as to the agent, from which it proceedeth: and therefore to infer, that when Christ answering Peter, and rewarding his confession, said unto him, Thou art Peter etc. he meant not Peter, but himself to be the Rock, is as senseless an inference, as to say, that when Thomas cried out unto Christ, (o) joan. 20.28. My Lord, my God, and Christ in reward of his confession said, (p) Ibid. vers. 29. Blessed art thou Thomas, he pronounced not Thomas blessed, but himself, which was the matter Thomas believed. 2. You object: (q) Pag. 42. fin. 43. All the Apostles and Prophets are called foundations, whereby is not meant their persons, or dominions, but their doctrines. I grant, that Christ, S. Peter, the rest of the Apostles, and Prophets, are foundations, on which the Church is built: Christ is the chief and primary foundation by his own power, and strength: Of him the Apostle saith, (r) 1. Cor. 3.11. Other foundation no man can lay, beside that which is laid, which is Christ jesus: whom therefore S. Augustine (s) In Psal. 86. and S. Gregory (t) L. 28. Moral. c. 9 call, Fundamentum fundamentorum, The foundation of foundations. Besides Christ, the Apostles, and Prophets are also secondary foundations of the Church: for the Prophets by foretelling Christ, and the Apostles by preaching his saith and doctrine, uphold the body of the Church, to wit, the faithful; who therefore are called (u) Ephes. 2.20. Domostikes of God built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone: and for this cause, the wall of the City (of the Church) is said (x) Apoc. 1.24. to have 12. foundations, and in them the 12. names of the 12. Apostles. Among these secondary foundations, Peter hath the first, and chiefest place. The rest of the faithful in respect of him are ordinary stones; he, an impregnable Rock, as being built immediately upon Christ, and the rest by means of him: in regard whereof it was said to him alone, and to no other of the faithful, or Apostles, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. And therefore S. Augustine saith: (y) Serm. 15. de Sanct. Our Lord called Peter the foundation of the Church; for which cause the Church with reason worshippeth this foundation, upon which the height of the ecclesiafticall edifice is raised. 3. You say, (z) Pag. 42. that when the Fathers expound by Rock Peter, they mean either a primacy of order, or honour, or else a priority of Confession in Peter, not of Authority and Dominion: and the same you repeat afterwards saying; (a) Pag. 110. The similitude of head and members hath no colour of superiority, but of priority, of place, or of voice. And this reason you allege, (b) Pag. 41. why, though the other Apostles believed before Peter spoke, yet he alone answered, as being the mouth of the rest. I grant that Peter spoke in the name of the rest: but to infer, that therefore Christ when he answered Peter, saying, Thou art Peter, made him not a Rock, or promised not to make him the foundation of his Church, is a Non sequitur. I grant also, that the other Apostles believed before Peter spoke, & that he answered, as the mouth of the rest; not because he had any Commission from them, but because out of his great fervour, he prevented the rest, and spoke for them, as their head, and Superior, as Christ sometimes did for all his Apostles; (c) Math. 9.11. Luc. 6.2. and as the Rector is wont to answer in the name of the whole College. So saith S. Cyrill of Alexandria (d) L. 4. in joan. c. 18. They all answer by one, that was their Superior. And again (e) Ibid. l. 12. cap. 64. when our Saviour asked his Disciples, whom do you say that I am? Peter as being Prince, and head of therest, first cried out: Thou art Christ the son of the living God. So S. Cyrill of Jerusalem: (f) Catech. ●●. All the Apostles being silent (for this doctrine was above their strength) Peter Prince of the Apostles, and the chief preacher of the Church, saith unto him, Thou art Christ etc. And in the same sense, S. Cyprian, (g) L. 1. ep. 3. saith; Peter on whom our Lord built his Church. speaketh for all, & in the voice of the Church: And S. Augustine: (h) Serm. 31. de verb. Apost. c. 1. Peter bearing the figure of the Church most fervent in the love of Christ, chief in the order of Apostles, and holding the Princedom of the Apostleship, often answers one for all. And again (i) Tract. 124. in joan. That in his answer he bore the person of the Church, for the primacy of his Apostleship; and for the primacy which he had among the Disciples. And whereas you, to elude this exposition of the Fathers, say, (k) Pag. 42. & 110. that, when they expound by Rock, Peter, or pronounce him to be the head and Captain of the rest, they mean not primacy of authority and jurisdiction, but of order or honour, is a distinction that caries with it its own confutation, and shall be effectually disproved (l) Chap. 17. sect. 1. hereafter. CHAP. IX. S. Peter exercised his Authority, and jurisdiction of supreme Pastor, and Governor over the other Apostles, and over the whole Church. TO disprove S. Peter's authority over the other Apostles, you object first, (a) Pag. 45.46. that S. Gregory upon those words of the Apostle, (b) Rom. 9.12. I will magnify my office, in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles, saith: (c) L. 4. ep. 36. The Apostle teacheth us so to carry humility in our hart, that we do keep and preserve the diguity of that order whereunto we are called: but S. Peter (as Salmeron testifieth) though he were Head, and judge over the other Apostles, so behaved himself among them that he might seem in a manner to have neglected his Pastorship, by carrying himself as a Brother, and equal with them, and not as either Head, or Rector over them. So you out of Salmeron, whose words make wholly against you: for in them he acknowledgeth the Pastorship of S. Peter over the other Apostles; & that he was their judge, their Head, & their Rector. If therefore he say, that S. Peter carried himself with so great humility, that in some sort he may seem to have neglected his Pastorship, he saith it not, to deny his Pastoral power, but to show, that in the exercise thereof, he carried himself rather like a Brother, and equal, then as a Superior or judge: which Salmeron might have said of Christ, who saith of himself, (*) joan. 13.13. You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for I am so: and yet he carried himself not as a Master, but as a servant, washing his Disciples feet. It is the property of the Spider, to draw poison from the same flower, out of which the Bee sucketh honey: & so out of the singular modesty and humility of S. Peter in the exercise of his Pastoral power (which Salmeron allegeth to his great commendation) you draw an argument to disprove his authority; to which S. Gregory hath answered long since. Peter (saith he) (d) L. 9 cp. 38. the chief of the Apostles answered the complaint of the faithful, not by his power, but by reason: for if when he was blamed by the faithful, he had regarded the charge which he had received over the holy Church, he might have answered, that the sheep should not dare to reprehend their Pastor, to whose care they were committed. But if in the complaint of the faithful, he should have said any thing of his own power, surely he had not been the Doctor of meekness. Wherefore Peter exercised his power, but yet with meekness and humility, after the example of Christ, who being Lord and Master, was in the midst of his Disciples, as one that ministered. (e) Luc. 22.27. His example Peter followed, showing himself to be meek and humble of hart, (f) Math. 11.29. & practising that lesson which he had learned from him, The Princes of nations domineer over them, but you not so; (g) Luc. 22.25. but he that is the greater, let him become as the younger, and he that is the elder, as the waiter. Yet nevertheless as humility hindered not Christ from showing his power, and authority, when and where it was sitting, so neither did it hinder Peter from exercising his jurisdiction, as often as occasion required: for as Philip a reverend Priest and Legate of the See Apostolic in the famous Council of Ephesus, truly said, (h) Concil. Ephes to. 2. c. 10. It is out of doubt, and notorious to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter Prince and Head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received from jesus Christ our Lord, our Saviour, & redeemer of mankind, the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and exercised the power of binding and losing which he had received, and that in his Successors he still liveth until this day. Some of the particulars in which he exercised his power, are expressed in holy Scripture. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, (i) Cap. 1.15. & seqq. that immediately after the Ascension of Christ, Peter rising up, proposed to the brethren the substituting of an other Apostle instead of judas, exercising his authority therein. Peter (saith S. chrysostom) (k) Hom. 3. in Acta. rising up in the midst of the Disciples, said etc. Behold how fervent Peter is: how he owneth the flock committed to him by Christ; how he showeth himself Prince of this assembly. See likewise the modesty of james: he had been made Bishop of Jerusalem, and yet saith not a word. Consider also the singular modesty of the other Disciples, how they yield the throne to Peter, not debating for it among themselves, as formerly they had done. And further showing, how Peter in this affair exercised his authority before, and above the rest, he saith: (l) Ibid. Why doth he communicate this business with them? might he not have made the election alone? He might without doubt but did not, lest he might seem partial to any. And again: (m) Ibid. This was the wisdom and foresight of this Doctor: He said not, We alone are sufficient to teach: and although he had right to appoint an Apostle, as much as all they had, yet this doing it with advice, was agreeable to the Virtue of the man. And because eminency in spiritual power is not an honour, but a care of subjects, yet worthily doth he first before them all, exercise authority in the business, qui omnes habebat in manu, who had all the rest at his disposition, and will: for this is he, to whom our Lord said; And thou being converted confirm thy brethren. So chrysostom. And no less plainly Oecumenius: Not james (saith he (n) Ade 1 Act. but Peter riseth, to whom the government of the Disciples was committed. Nor did any of them make reply to Peter's words; but presently at his command, they appointed two whom they thought worthiest of that dignity, that God himself might design one of them. Can any Catholic at this day more fully, or in more significant words express the exercise of S. Peter's jurisdiction over the other Apostles and his power to command them, than these two ancient Fathers have done? To whom also I adjoin another like testimony of Leo the ninth, a learned & holy Pope (o) Epist. ad Michael. c. 1. . Silly therefore is your shift, whiles you reduce the force of this argument to Peter's deposing of judas from his Bishopric: for it insisteth not on his deposition, but on the election of Mathias in his place, which you conceal, not so much as mentioning it, because you know it to be unanswerable. 2. No less cunningly you shift of S. Peter's giving sentence of death upon Ananias and Saphyra (p) Act. 5.5.10. for their fraud and hypocrisy. It was (say you (q) Pag. 48. no act of ordinary Magistracy, but an extraordinary act of Miracle, as Paul's striking of Elimas' stark blind, was. But S. Augustine (or whosoever is author of the work De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae) teacheth you another lesson, saying; (r) L. 3. cap. vlt. Peter punished them to show how great his Apostolical authority was, and how great their sin, and that their chastisement might be an example to others. And S. Gregory treating of the Pastoral function, and showing how great benignity it requireth towards those that do well, and how great severity, and zeal of justice towards those that offend, gives this fact of Peter, as an example. (s) L. 1. ep. 24. From whence it is (saith he) that Peter by authority from God, having the Principality of the holy Church, refused to be overmuch reverenced by Cornelius, that did well: but when he found the fault of Ananias and Saphyra, he presently shown, how fare he was grown in power above the rest: for he took away their lives with a word, and shown himself to be the chiefest in the Church against sin. And he addeth, that Peter's zeal in punishing, declared the force of his power. The same is delivered by S. Bernard (t) Epist. ●●8. , who speaking to Eugenius Pope of his power over the whole Church, and in particular to depose Bishops when they deserve it, saith: He that holds the place of Peter, can with one blow kill Ananias; and Simon Magus, with another: and (to speak more plainly) it belongs only to the Bishop of Rome, to pronounce a peremptory sentence for the deposing of Bishops; because though others be called to a part of solicitude, yet he only hath the fullness of power etc. How think you Doctor Morton? whether is it fit, that we believe these renowned Doctors of God's Church, teaching us, that the sentence of death pronounced by S. Peter against Ananias and Saphyra was an act of his ordinary power, and jurisdiction, or you, denying it? 3. He exercised his authority upon Simon Magus, who (witness (u) L. 1. c. 2. & l. 3. initio. S. Irenaeus) was the Prince and father of all heretics. The holy Apostle detected his wickedness first at Samaria, and excommunicated him (x) Act. 8.18. & seqq. ; and afterwards (as S. Hierome (y) In cattle. script. in Simone Petro. and Theodoret (z) Haeret. Fabul. l 1. report) went to Rome to oppose him, and there condemned his Doctrine. The Doctrine of Simons sorcery, serving the Angels (saith Tertullian) (a) L. de Praescrip. was reckoned among Idolatries, and condemned by Peter the Apostle in Simon himself. And S. Augustine (b) L. de haeres. haer. 1. : At Rome the blessed Apostle Peter killed Simon the Magician by the true power of almighty God. And Marianus with all the Regulars of Syria in their petition presented to the Council of Constantinople under Menas (c) Act. 1. God scent Agapete Pope of old Rome to Constantinople for the deposition of Anthymus, and the forenamed heretics, as hereofore he sent great Peter to the Romans, for the destruction of the sorcery of Simon. And S. Bernard: (d) Serm. 1. in die Potri & Pauli. What more powerful than Peter, who with the breath of his mouth overtook Simon Magus in the air, and received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven in so singular a manner, that his sentence goes before the sentence of heaven? And to declare that the power of Peter still liveth in his Successors, he saith: (e) Epist. 138. He that holds the place of Peter, can at one blow kill Simon Magus. Nor was it void of mystery, that the first Archheretic, with his heresy, should be condemned at Rome, by Peter, where all the heretics, and heresies of ensuing ages, were to be condemned by S. Peter's Successors. 4. He shown himself to be Head, and Prince of the Apostles, in ask, and answering oftentimes, in the name of them all. When Christ exhorted the Apostles to perfection, Peter answered for all: (f) Math. 19.27. Behold we have left all things, and followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And when some of the Disciples forsaking Christ, he asked the rest, will you also be gone? Peter as representing the person of them all, answered: (g) joan. 6.58. O Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Upon which passage S. Cyrill writeth: (h) L. 4. in joan. c. 28. It was not fitting, they should answer confusedly; and therefore giving example of wisdom, and modesty to future ages, they answer by one, that was governor, and greater than the rest. And to another question of our Saviour; Peter answered (saith S. Cyrill) (i) L. 12. in joan. c. 64. as Prince and Head of the rest. The same is testified by S. Cyprian, by S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and S. Augustine (k) See above nu. 23. Now that Peter's answering for all, was an act declarative of his jurisdiction, is proved by the example of Christ our Lord: for as oftentimes the Dean, because he is Head, and Superior of the Chapter, answereth for all the Canons, and in name of them all; so Christ, because he was Head & Master of all the Apostles in divers occasions answered for them. The Pharisees demanded of them: (l) Math. 9.11.12. Why doth your Master eat with Publicans and sinners? Christ answered for them: They that are in health, need not a Physician, but they that are ill at ease. And when the same Pharisees saw the Apostles plucking ears of corn on the sabbath day, and asked them, (m) Luc. 6.2. why they did so? Christ answered for them, defending their fact by the example of David. Wherefore as Christ's answering for all the Apostles shown him to be their Head, and Master, so Peter's answering for the other Apostles, declared him to be Master, and Rector of the Apostolical College. 5. Among the Christians newly converted at Antioch there arose a dispute, whether the law of Moses were to be observed, or no? for decision of this doubt, Paul, Barnaby and some others went up to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and Priests, and chief to S. Peter, to whom as to the Head of the Church, and supreme judge of Controversies the resolution of that doubt chief belonged. Whereupon S. Paul himself speaking of this his journey saith: (n) Gal. 2.2. I went up to Jerusalem etc. And Theodoret (o) Epist. ad Leon. : Paul the preacher of truth, and the trumpet of the holy Ghost, ran to great Peter, to bring from him a resolution of such doubts, as arising about the observation of the Law, did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch: How much more need than have we that are weak and contemptible to run to your Apostolical seat, to fetch salves for the sores of the Church. And S. chrysostom (p) Hom. 87. in joan. saith: Paul went to Peter, prae alijs, above others, and that, by reason of his authority, as S. Hierome expresseth (q) Ep. 11. ad Augustinum. And S. Ambrose: (r) In cap. 1. ad Gal. because our Saviour had committed to him the charge of the Churches. Nor did S. Paul's going to Peter, and the other Apostles, and Priests together with him, any way derogate from this supreme authority; as the bringing of a suit to the Parliament, derogateth not from the supreme Authority of the King, who is Head of the Parliament. Wherefore Peter, as Head of the Church, for the determination of that doubt assembled a Synod at Jerusalem (s) Act. 15.7. & seqq. , which as it was the first Christian Council, so was it the pattern of all others, that since that time have been held in the Church of Christ. For from this Council it proceeded, (and ever since hath been the custom of general Counsels) that the Pope presiding by himself, or by his legates, first declareth the faith of the Roman Church, all Bishops subscribing, and condemning the contrary. And this is done to the imitation of this Apostolical Synod, in which Peter spoke first, and the rest following him, confirmed his sentence; Paul and Barnaby by relating the great signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles by them; and james, both by showing the sentence given by Peter to accord with the words of the Prophets, and by giving this verdict of his own (t) Act. 15.19. : I judge, that they which of the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted etc. These are the words which you object (u) Pag. 64. to prove that, not Peter, but james gave sentence in the Apostolical Synod; but without ground: for the word, I judge, contains no definitive sentence, not expresseth any authority, but only signifieth, It seems to me, or, my verdict is: the contrary were to make james Superior to Peter, which no man ever said. Besides, that the definitive sentence was given by Peter, the ancient Fathers expressly affirm, none of them so much as insinuating, that is was given by james. All the multitude (saith S. Hierome (x) Ep. 89. ad Aug. c. 2. held their peace, and into his (Peter) sentence james the Apostle and all the Priests together did pass. And long before him, Tertullian: (y) L. de pudicitia. In that controversy of keeping the law, Peter by instinct of the holy Ghost, spoke of the vocation of the Gentiles. And having set down S. Peter's words, he addeth: This sentence both loosed those things that were omitted of the law, and bound those that were reserved. It was therefore the authority of Peter that did bind and lose in that Council: for which cause S. Hierome (z) Ibid. calls S. Peter, The Prince, or author of the decree. And finally the sentence of Peter was confirmed, and ratified by the whole Council, and sent to Antioch by Paul and others, chosen to that purpose, to the end they might publish it, as an Ordinance of the holy Ghost. 6. Peter exercised his pastoral function by promulgating the Gospel both to the jews and Gentiles. To the jews; for he first of all the Apostles upon the very day of Pentecost, immediately after the receiving of the holy Ghost, preached unto them jesus Christ (a) Act. 2.14. & seqq. , and exhorting them to penance, at that one Sermon converted about 3000. souls. He spoke (saith S. (b) Ad cap. 2. Act. chrysostom) as the month of all; and the other eleven stood by, approving with their testimony, what he said. Peter also was the man, that first preached to the Gentiles, and that by special Commission from God, as he declared in the Council of Jerusalem, saying: (c) Act. 15.7. Men brethren, you know, that of old days God among us chose, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And to this end, when God sent Cornelius the Centurion unto him to be instructed, he shown unto him that marvellous vision, (d) Act. 10. 1●. which is described in the Acts of the Apostles, to declare, that the time of founding the Church among the Gentiles was now come: And by bidding him, kill and eat, he declared him to be the Head of the Church; for eating is an action, that belongs to the head. Hereupon Peter out of hand preached the Gospel to Cornelius, and other his friends and kindred, and baptised them. (e) Act. 10.35. & seqq. Again, who but Perer founded the Churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, in which Constantinople is? who founded the patriarchal seats of Antioch, (where the faithful were first called Christians) but Peter? Who the other seats of Alexandria, and Rome, the one by S. Mark his Disciple, and the other by himself, but Peter? For Christ according to his promise, chose him to found his Church, and as S. Ambrofe saith (f) Serm. 47. first of all to begin it (both amongst the jews and Gentiles) giving him thereby, the same place in his Church, which the foundation hath in a material building; and by that means notifying his supereminent dignity unto us: for as S. chrysostom wisely observeth▪ (g) In cap. 2. Act. One thing it is, to open a gate that is shut, & give beginning to a work (as S. Peter did,) and another thing, to prosecute the same work, after it is begun, as the rest of the Apostles did. 7. Peter, of all the Apostles, wrought the first miracle after the ascension of Christ, in confirmation of the Gospel which he had promulgated, curing a man that was lame from the womb of his mother (h) Act. 3.7. : which S. Ambrose interpreteth to be an act of his supreme Pastoral power; the healing and consolidating the lame man's feet, betokening him to be the firm, and foundation of the Church. Because Peter (saith S. Ambrose) (i) Serm. 68 is the Rock on which the Church is built, with great reason he first healeth the feet, that as he holdeth the foundation of faith in the Church, so likewise in man he may confirm the foundations of his limbs. It was Peter also that raised Tabytha from death (k) Act. 9.40. , working that kind of miracle, first before any other of the Apostles. And that aswell in working these first miracles, as by performing other admirable things in the first place before the other Apostles, he exercised his jurisdiction and authority, S. chrysostom expresseth in these words: (l) Hom. 21. in Acta. Peter walking as a Captain in his army, did consider which part was united, and well ordered, and which wanted his presence: See how diligently he runs up and down, and is found to be the first in every place. When an Apostle is to be chosen, he's the first: When the jews are to be certified that the Apostles are not drunk, when the lame man is to be cured, when the Gospel is to be preached, he is before others: When the Princes, and Ananias are to be proceeded against, and when cures are to be made by a shadow, Peter is the man: and when miracles are to be wrought, he steps out first: where there is danger, and where government is necessary, there Peter is: but when things are in peace and tranquillity, they are left to all the Apostles indifferently. Lastly Peter by the judgement of our Lord was appointed to feed his flock, when he said unto him, (m) joan. 2●. 26.27. feed my lambs, feed my sheep. By lambs, he understandeth the faithful people: by sheep (which are the dams of the lambs) the Bishops and other Pastors of the Church. Wherefore S. Peter in the execution of his Pastoral charge, among other admonitions, which he giveth to his subjects, putteth the Bishops and Pastors in mind of their duties, alluding to the words feed my sheep, by which Christ made him supreme Pastor of Pastors under himself. Feed (saith he (n) 1. Pet. 5.2 the flock of God, which is among you, providing not by constraint, but willingly according to God; neither for filthy lucre's sake but voluntarily; nor as overruling in the Clergy, but made examples of the flock from the hart. And when the Prince of Pastors shall appear, you shall receive the incorruptible crown of glory. Now that S. Peter made this exhortation to them, as their Superior, & chief Pastor, is declared by the second Council of Nice: (o) Can. 4. Peter the chief Apostle commanded, Feed the flock of our Lord, administering your Bishoprics, not by force, but voluntarily etc. And Haymo: (p) Domin. 2. post Pascha. The chief Pastor of the Church admonisheth the other Pastors, saying: Seniors that are among you, I beseech you etc. And the Bishops of the East, when they banded themselves against the prevarication of their Patriarch Acacius, writ to Pope Symmachus: (q) Extat haec Epist. inter Orthodox. impress. Basil. to. 2● Thou art every day taught by thy sacred Doctor Peter, to feed the sheep of Christ, which are committed to thee throughout the habitable earth, not constrained by force, but willingly etc. CHAP. X. Doctor Mortons' objections against the former Doctrine, answered. THESE examples taken out of the holy Scripture, expounded by the ancient Fathers, convince that S. Peter in divers occasions exercised acts of jurisdiction properly belonging to his authority, over the Apostles, and over the whole Church. And the same will yet more appear by the futility of the Arguments which you frame to disprove his Supremacy. The first is, (r) Pag. 46. that be had no Crown on his head to show his Empire▪ nor Mitre to show his pastoral dominion over the other Apostles: for though Peter had no Empire, as being no temporal Prince, yet (as Baronius showeth (s) Anno 34. 〈◊〉. 85. all the Priests in the old testament (which represented our Bishops) did use Mitres: and the high Priest (representing the Pope in the law of grace) had an especial Mitre odorned with a plate of gold, which the Scripture calleth a Crown (t) Ecclest. 45.14. , & (as josephus testifieth (u) L. 3. Antiq c. 8. made in a triple form. How then do you prove that S. Peter (who calls the Priesthood of the new testament a kingly Priesthood (x) 1. Pet. 2 9 had not a triple Mitre or Crown as his Successor now hath? (though not so rich, by reason of the poverty in which the Church at those her first beginnings was) especially since S. Hierome treating of the Sacerdotal Ornaments of the law of Moses, affirmeth, (y) Ep. 128. ad Fa●iolam. that in Christ they are more perfectly consummated. 2. You say, (z) Pag. 46. that Peter had no Legates à laetere to carry his mandates. This is your ignorance: for as the Pope sendeth to other Churches his decrees, made with the advice of his Confistory; so S. Peter with advice of the rest assembled with him in the Council of Jerusalem, chose out two prime men, judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, together with Paul and Barnaby to carry the mandates or decrees of that Council to the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (a) Act. 15.12.13. . Your third Objection is (b) Pag. 46. No person was admitted (a pride which S. Peter abhorred) to kiss his feet. From whence to infer, that S. Peter was not Head of the Church, or that he exercised not any jurisdiction over the other Apostles, is an argument, that deserves no answer; the Consequent having as little connexion with the Antecedent as an Egg with an Oyster. But you are so pleased with it, that you repeat it afterwards again (c) Pag. 160. , and both here and there urge it against the Pope, to disprove his supremacy, not considering, that if it be a sin in him to admit of that honour, yet it is no error in Doctrine, nor want of authority, and jurisdiction (which is the thing you should have proved) but of humility; and therefore no more disproves his supreme authority, than Pride, or other vices disprove the supreme authority of a temporal Monarch, or the jurisdiction of any other Bishop. But whereas you attribute the admittance of this honour to Pride in the Vicar of Christ, you know that (d) De sign. Eccles. l. 11. c. 9 Bozius (whom you cite (e) Pag. 160. effectually proveth, that the Pope considering his place and supereminent dignity of being the Vicar and Lieutenant of Christ on earth, admitteth less honours then any temporal Prince or Bishop whatsoever; which you conceal, that so you may tax him with pride, for suffering his feet to be kissed. You might in like manner blame Christ for admitting the same honour from Mary Magdalene (f) Luc. 7. 3●. , and for suffering the jews (h) Math. 21.8. to straw the bows of the trees, and spread their own garments in the way, under the very feet of the Ass on which he rid, and for not prohibiting the Children to proclaim his praises: for at that the jews stormed (i) Ibid. Vers. 16. , as you do at the Pope's permitting his feet to be kissed. Now that this honour of kissing his feet (and that prostrate on the ground) is no new thing (as Polydore Virgil by you cited, in a work corrupted by Protestants, and which you also know to be prohibited, affirmeth) the history of the holy Virgin Susanna (k) Apud Baro. anno ●94. maketh good. And the same is proved by what Tertullian (l) Lib. de poenit. c. 9 100 years before that time reported of the manner used by the Roman Church in receiving of penitents, who (saith he) did kneel down to the Priests, and to the servants of God. And the same is convinced by the practice of ancient Christian Emperors, and Kings: of justinus; of both the justinian's, the elder, and the younger; of Fridericus the first, and the second, surnamed Aenobarbus; of Ludovicus, the first surnamed The godly, and Ludovicus the second; of Luitprandus King of the Lombard's; of Pipinus, Ludovicus Crassus, and Ludovicus the seaventh Kings of France; of Henry the first, and the second, kings of England: some of them falling down prostrate on the ground to reverence the Pope's person, and kissing his feet; and others performing the office of yeomen of his stitrop, and leading his horse, going themselves on foot by him. All which particulars if you please you may read in Baronius (m) Spond. in Indic● V Obsequia. . And this reverence done to the Pope, was not obscurely foretold by the Prophet Isay, in two places, which are excellently pondered by jacobus Gordon Huntley (*) Contro. 2. c. 26. to this purpose, where withal he showeth, that Caluin to avoid the force of the former, corrupteth the facred text. The like is also gathered out of the other words of the same Prophet, (n) Cap. 60.14. speaking of the great power and majesty of the kingdom of Christ on earth (which is his Church), where he mentioneth this promise made unto it. The Children of them that humbled thee, shall come crouching to thee; and all that detracted from thee, shall adore the steps of thy feet: in which words is plainly foretold the adoration of the Church, and of her visible head on earth; an honour which Caluin upon this very place confesseth not to exceed that which is due to the Church, because it is given to Christ, who is adored in the Church: and Leo de Castro upon the same text out of a very ancient record of the order of S. Benedict, concerning the customs of the Catholic Church, reporteth, that, Kings in ancient times going to the Synods of Bishops, did prostrate themselves before them and kiss the ground, not rising, until the Bishops descending from their seats did take them up in their arms, and place them in thrones answerable to their Princely dignity. To this purpose also make the testimonies of S. Hierome, (o) Ep. ad Pammach. advers. error▪ joan. Hieroso▪ who speaking of S. Epiphanius, saith: A great number of all ages and sexes did flock unto him offering their little ones, and kissing his feet; and of S. chrysostom (p) Hom. 14. in priorem ad Timoth▪ exhorting the people to prostrate themselves at the feet of the monks, & kiss them: Draw near, touch their holy feet: for it is a far greater honour to touch their feet, then to touch the heads of other men. It was therefore in the puter times of the Church, no disparagement to the greatest Princes to prostrate themselves, either to the Pope, or to Bishops, or to other holy servants of Christ, and to kiss the hems of their garments, and their feet: because as Alexander the great (q) Apud joseph. do antiq. l. ●1. 〈◊〉▪ vlt. adoring jaddus the high Priest of the jews, knew and testified, that he did in him exhibit that honour to God, whose Priest he was; so Christian Emperors and Kings, when they adore the Pope, kissing his feet, do it to honour Christ in him, to whom that honour redoundeth, even as the honour done to an Ambassador redounds to the king his Master. And as Princes by exhibiting this honour to the Vicar of Christ, no way disparage their royal greatness, so neither is the acceptance thereof any note of pride in the Pope: for he accepts it not, for his own sanctity, or for any other personal quality▪ as he is a private man, but only for the public authority, and spiritual power which he receiveth from Christ, and which properly, and principally is of Christ, who is honoured and adored in his Vicar, as Tertullian noteth, saying: (r) Vbi sup. cap. 10. When thou castest thyself down at the feet of thy brethren, thou touchest Christ, thou adorest Christ. And therefore the Pope hath on his shoe, a Cross, which the faithful kiss, to signify that they exhibit not that honour to him, but in him to Christ, whose person he representeth. And finally whereas you object (s) Pag. 46, that, S. Peter abhorred this pride when Cornelius prostrated himself unto him, I answer with S. Hierome (t) L. Adverse. Vigilant. , that Cornelius conceived Peter to be some God, (as the Lycaonians thought of Paul & Barnaby) and therefore prostrated himself to honour him with the supreme adoration of Latria due to God alone, as it appeareth out of S. Peter's answer to him: (u) Act. 10.26. Arise, for I also am a man. This kind of adoration, if any man should offer to the Pope, he would admonish and forbidden him, as S. Peter did Cornelius. But yet if it be granted that (as some Fathers expound) Cornelius adored not S. Peter, as a God, but as a man, yet S. Peter with great reason forbidden him: for he adored him not, in respect of Christ, whose Vicar he was, but in respect of himself: and in like case the Pope would also forbid any man to adore him: but he knoweth (and so do you) that the cause why Catholics exhibit that honour to him, is the excellent power given him by Christ, or rather Christ himself governing his Church in his Vicar. which adoration is good, and pleasing to God, both as it is exhibited by the faithful, and as it is admitted by the Pope. Your fourth Objection is (x) Pag. 46. that, S. Peter had no Canon to direct the Apostles. Sir, the Apostles being guided by the holy Ghost, needed no humane Canons, nor constitutions for their own direction. But for the direction of all ecclesiastical Pastors they made Ecclesiastical Canons, which S. Peter as their Head, confirmed, and delivered by word of mouth to S. Clement his Disciple, and Successor in the Roman See: & he committing them to writing left them to posterity as Canons of the Apostles. I know, that your Magdeburgian Centurists cavil against them, as false, & suppositious: but withal I know, that divers of those Canons are alleged by many ancient Fathers, by many Counsels, and confirmed by later Canons of the Church, and inserted word by word into them, as Franciscus Turrianus hath learnedly demonstrated (x), (y) L. 1. pro Canon. Apostol. , & vindicated them from the Magdeburgian calumnies. Your fifth and sixth Arguments are, (z) Pag. 46. that, S. Peter made no claim, nor yet admittance of any appeal from the other Apostles; no reservation of any great case as by special prerogative due to himself, to wit, of admitting any out of the Diocese of another, absolving those that are excommunicated by another, of Canonising Saints, of confirming Synods, of granting plenary Indulgences etc. Who seethe not the futility of these objections? For first the Apostles being confirmed in grace, neither did, nor could wrong their subjects: in which case only Appeals are lawful. 2. I have already showed (a) Chap. ●. that the resolution of that great case concerning the observation of the law of Moses, was reserved to S. Peter; and that he resolved the same in the Synod of Jerusalem, presiding in it: and when the Pope personally presideth in a Council, there needeth no other confirmation. 3. When Christ made Peter Head of his whole Church, he gave him power to bind & lose throughout the whole world, and thereby power to excommunicate delinquents in whatsoever Diocese of other Bishops; and likewise to absolve them from the guilt of sin, in the Sacrament of penance, as also to bind by excommunication, and absolve from the same: and finally to release the penalty due to sins by Indulgences, out of the Sacrament: for the power of binding and losing which he gave to Peter, he limited not to the Sacrament of Penance only. But whether Peter exercised this power of excommunicating and pardoning by indulgences, we know not; for all his actions are not written. We know, that S. Paul did excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian (b) 1. Cor. 5.5. , and afterwards when he repent, at the intercession of Timothy, & Titus, (as Theodoret (c) In 1. Cor. 2.10. expoundeth) granted him a pardon, or Indulgence in the person of Christ, that is to say, by the power he had received from Christ to that end. Nor is it to be doubted, but that S. Peter (who as ordinary Pastor had power over the whole Church) did exercise the same power, if the like occasion were offered. 4. In those primitive times the Canonization of Saints was not performed with so great solemnity, nor with such exact inquiry into all particulars, nor with the deposition of so many witnesses, as in these later ages it is. If then the Church did with unanimous consent, reverence any one that had died for Christ (as the Martyrs did) or that lived & died holily (as did the Confessors,) he was by public voice and consent of the Church reverenced as a Saint, (the See Apostolic either expressly, or tacitly approving the same) and thereby canonised. In this manner were Canonised S. Stephen, and others, that died before S. Peter, without whose approbation neither S. Stephen, nor any one else was then reverenced by the whole Church, as a Saint; not any since that time, without the approbation of his Successors. 5. To make good S. Peter's jurisdiction over the other Apostles, you require us (d) Pag. 46. fin. to show, that he pardoned Simony, and almost an 100 the like sins; which is to say, that unless we show, that the other Apostles committed Simony, and almost an 100 the like sins, and that S. Peter pardoned them, we must not believe S. Peter to have had power and jurisdiction over them. That S. Peter ever pardoned Simony, we read not; but that he punished it, we prove by the power he shown over Simon Magus (e) See above Nu. 24. . And how far the Successors of S. Peter are from pardoning, or any way conniving at Simony, yea how severe they are, and ever have been in the punishment thereof, the decrees and constitutions of divers Pope's extant in the Canon Law give abundant witness against such men as you are, who out of their hatred to the Roman See, are wont to slander S. Peter in his Successors falsely with pardoning Simony and almost an 100 the like sins, as here you do, without any proof at all. 6. With no less folly you require us (f) Pag. 46. & 47. to show, that S. Peter was distinguished from the other Apostles by some one note and character of Imperial eminency, and authority, as by his guard, or coin, or habit, or command, or constitutions, as every temporal Monarch is distinguished from his Nobles. Can there be greater simplicity, then to require us to show, that S. Peter like an Emperor, had Princely robes, a guard, and a peculiar coin, as kings & Emperors have, when he was no temporal Monarch? and when not only he, but (as you forgetting your self (g) Pag. 283. confess the holy Popes his Successors in those primitive time, were (alas) daily in danger of banishments, imprisonments, torments, & death? Is it not then ridiculous, to bid us show S. Peter's guard, and his coin? his commands we show: for Oecumenius saith (h) In cap 1. ●ct. : The Apostles were committed to the government of Peter, and presently at his command appointed two, whom they thought worthiest to be chosen in place of judas: which Doctrine is also delivered by S. chrysostom (i) Hom 3. in Act. . Of the Constitutions of the Apostles, which were peculiarly of S. Peter as their Head, and set forth by Clement his Disciple and Successor, we know, that albeit they are of no great reckoning among many of the Latins (as having some things inserted into them by heretics) yet they are greatly esteemed by the Greeks', and both cited, and commended by S. Epiphanius (k) H●●r 45. & ser 70. and other Greek Fathers: To which I add, that they are learnedly defended by Turrianus (l) Proem in lib. Clem. Ro. : and Genebrard (m) L. de Liturg. Apostol c. 5 fol. 21.22. affirms them to have been received by all antiquity. Your last argument to prove (as you call it) (n) Pag. 47. the no domination of S. Peter over the other Apostles, is, that, meeting together at Jerusalem, they sent Peter, and john into Samaria; which proveth Peter to have no superiority over the rest, by whom he was sent; or if it do, it must needs imply in john an equality with Peter: for as john was not sent as Superior to the other Apostles, so neither was Peter. This inference we wholly deny. 1. because in a Corporation or College (as that of the Apostles was) the Superior may out of his own desire be sent in the name of the whole Community, the Mayor in name of the City, and the Dean in name of the Chapter. 2. The authority of the whole College together (which includeth both the head & the members) differeth from the Head alone (to use the phrase of Metaphysics) tanquam includens ab incluso, and is at least extensive of greater authority than the Head alone; and therefore the Head alone may be sent by authority of the whole College. 3. And if we take a community for the inferiors, not including their Superior, though he cannot be sent by their command, he may by their in treaty. So S. chrysostom (*) In cap 11 ep. ad Gal. saith, Paul was sent to Jerusalem by the Christians of Antioch, who yet were not his Superiors. So the Deane is sometimes sent by the Canons, and the Rector by the Collegialls. So was Pope Pi●● the second sent by the College of Cardinals, about an expedition intended against the Turks: and (as Bozius obserneth (o) De fig. Eccles. to. 2. l. 18. c. 2. §. Quocirca. the Roman Emperors were often sent by the Senate. Nor doth such a mission any way extenuate, but rather manifest the authority of such Missionants: for persons of greatest quality are fittest to be employed upon weighty affairs, especially when they import the public good, as this Mission of Peter and john did: for Philip the Deacon having converted the Samaritans to Christ, these two great Apostles were sent to oppose the wicked practices of Simon Magus, by whom the Samaritans had been long seduced, and to confirm them in their faith, giving them the holy Ghost by imposition of hands; a thing, which Philip (though otherwise a most perfect man, and full of the holy Ghost, yet being no Bishop) was not able to do, that being a function proper to Bishops. To this you have no other reply to make, then tell us, that a journey vndertake● by a Governor, at the desire and request of his inferiors, cannot be called a mission, but a profection and going. An answer, that serves for nothing, but to discover your ignorance: for the same journey is both a going and a mission: a going, as it is performed by him that undertakes the journey; and a mission, as it proceeds from those that sent him: even as the same lesson is both doctrina, and disciplina; doctrina, as it is delivered by the Master that teacheth; and disciplina, as it is received by the Scholar that learneth; and as in Philosophy the same production is called Actio, as it proceeds from the Agent, & Passio, as it is received in the subject. And to say, that the sending of john with Peter, argueth john to be equal in authority with Peter, is a great Non sequitur, as if you should argue a Cannon to be of equal authority with the Dean, or a Cardinal with the Pope, if they be sent together. CHAP. XI. Sleights, and falsifications of Doctor Morton, to shift off the testimonies of Ancient Fathers, teaching S. Peter's supremacy. BELLARMINE to prove S. Peter's primacy over the other Apostles, produceth convincing testimonies of many Fathers, both Greek and Latin (p) L. 1 de Pont. c. 25. . These you undertake to answer, or rather to elude by divers sleights. Some of them, as being so clear, that you knew not how to device any answer unto 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 devices. We pretermit (say (q) Pag. 50. marg. n. 20. you) the testimony of Pope Leo, whereof reason is given hereafter: but whereas Bellarmine allegeth two unanswerable testimonies of S. Leo, you are so far from giving any reason of them, that (for aught I can find) you never after mention either of them. The testimonies of Bede, and S. Bernard you reject, as not truly ancient: whereas Bede lived almost 1000 and S. Bernard above 500 years since. But the true reason indeed why you reject them, is not want of antiquity, but because they clearly convince your Doctrine of falsehood. 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 enough. S. Gregory you shift of, promising to speak of him largely afterwards. S. Gregory did disclaim from the title of Universal Bishop, in that sense in which john Patriarch of Constantinople did arrogate the same to himself. Of this indeed you treat at large (s) Pag. 92. & seqq. : but his testimony which Bellarmine urgeth in proof of S. Peter's pastoral power over the whole Church, you neither answer, 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 chief Bishop of Christians. He saith not, Peter the first Bishop of the Romans, as in the same place he saith. james the first of Jerusalem, and Euodius the first Bishop of Antioch, but, Peter the first chief Bishop of Christians: which difference of expression sheweth, that whereas james and Euodius were Bishops of two particular Dioceses, Peter was the Bishop of all Christians. This is one of the testimonies of Eusebius alleged by Bellarmine, which you conceal, without giving any answer unto it, though you name the place, out of which he allegeth it. The second is out of Eusebius his history, which you are contented to mention, that you may pick a quarrel against Bellarmine: for you say, (t) Pag. 49. marg. he miscites the Chapter, the 14. for the 13. But by desiring to carp, you discover your ignorance: for in the different versions of Eusebius, the Chapters are differently divided: 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 citys it. And whereas Eusebius there calleth Peter Reliquorum omnium Apostolorum Principem. The Prince of all the other Apostles, you answer, That it is with this restriction. omitted by Bellarmine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for his singular virtue's sake. But what doth this omission avail 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 Divinity, and in reward thereof, as hath been proved (*) Above Nurse 11. : and so likewise when he actually conferred on him the dignity of supreme Pastor, it was a reward of his fervent love. But doth it follow, that because this supereminent dignity was promised to Peter, and conferred on him for his singular virtues, it was nor therefore a primacy of Magistracy, and jurisdiction, but of order only? Is not the office of Pastor of Christ's flock an office of Magistracy and jurisdiction? but such are the answers, which you give to insoluble arguments; & yet shame not to charge Bellarmine with unconscionable dealing, in urging this place of Eusebius against you. 4. He urgeth S. Gregory Nazianzen saying: Vides etc. 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 john) is loved more, and reposeth on the breast 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 down; whom therefore you unjustly traduce (u) Pag. 49. marg. as depraving Nazianzen; whose words as he corrupteth not, so neither doth he pervert his sense: for out of them it is evident, that as Christ preferred john, by loving him more than the rest, so in far higher degree he preferred Peter before them, and before john also. For who seethe not that Nazianzen acknowledgeth a far greater dignity in Peter, then in john, or any other of the Apostles, when he saith 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 Governor thereof, it being a known truth, that the foundation in a building, is the same that the Head in a political body: from whence it is, that the famous Council of Chalcedon (x) Act. 3. calleth Peter, The foundation of true faith, and the rock and top of the Catholic Church, which is a far greater dignity, then to lean on Christ's breast, or any other that was conferred on john, or any of the other Apostles. 5. Bellarmine (y) L. 1. de Pont. c. 25. urgeth 3. testimonies out of S. Augustine's works. The second you pass over without any answer to it, or mention of it. The third you reject, as taken out of a book, which Bellarmine himself and others acknowledge not to be S. Augustins, but of an heretical Author. Bellarmine (I grant) confesseth the book not to be S. Augustine's, and therefore he citeth it not, as of S. Augustine: he granteth also, that the author erred in some particulars, which he expresseth: but because in this matter of S. Peter's Supremacy, he was never taxed of error, but agreeth with the rest of the Fathers, his testimony was not to be contemned; especially being so forcible, as you (z) Pag. 52. confess it to be. But be it whose you will; with what face can you reject it? For do you not produce against us two other testimonies of the same book, affirming (a) Pag. 30. & 286. S. Augustine himself to be the author of them? This Dilemma will discover your dealing: either the book is S. Augustins, or it is not. If it be not S. Augustine's, why do you in other places urge it against us, as of S. Augustine? If it be S. Augustine's, why do you here deny it to be his, and reject it as heretical, when we urge it against you? Is not this shuffling? Shall it be S. Augustine's, and of force, when you urge it against us? & shall it not only not be S. Augustine's, but heretical when we urge it against you? but such dealing suiteth best with a Grand Imposture. The third testimony which Bellarmine allegeth of S. Augustine is out of his second book of Baptism against the Donatists, where having said, that the primacy of the Apostles doth singularly excel in Peter, he addeth: I think that Cyprian Bishop▪ without any affront, is compared to Peter the Apostle▪ for as much as concerns the glory of Martyrdom: but I rather ought to fear, lest I be contumelious to Peter: for who knoweth not, that that Princedom of Apostleship, is to be preferred before whatsoever Bishopric? To this you answer, (b) Pag. 49. marg. fin. That Primatus Apostolorum signifieth nothing else. but, Munus Apostolicum, the Apostolical function, and that is most illustrious in Peter. But your answer is deficient▪ for to say that the primacy of the Apostleship singularly excelled in Peter, is not only to say, that Peter was an Apostle, but that he was Primate and Prince of the Apostles, and that his primacy contained a singular preeminence of dignity belonging to him, which was not in any of the other Apostles: and this dignity it was, that made him more illustrious than the rest. Again whereas S. Augustine said, he had cause to fear, lest he might affront S. Peter in comparing Cyprian the Martyr unto him, because that Princedom of Apostleship (which was in Peter) exceeded all Bishoprics: you answer (c) Pag. 50. marg. that in these words there is only a comparison between Peter's Apostleship and Cyprians Bishopric, and that no Protestant will deny that the Apostleship, though of Barnabas, was more excellent, than the Bishopric although of Linus. This answer is not to the purpose: for S. Augustine compares not the Apostleship in general with Cyprians Bishopric, but in particular, illum Apostolatus principatum, that Princedom, or Sovereignty of the Apostleship, which was peculiar to Peter, as to Head and Prince of all the Apostles. Nor is it true, that S. Augustine only compareth Peter's Apostleship with Cyprians Bishopric: he compares Peter's Bishopric with Cyprians Bishopric, Peter's Chair with Cyprians Chair; & (which you cunningly leave out both in your english, and Latin) acknowledgeth, that distal cath●drarum gratia, etsi una sit Martyrum gloria, that albeit the glory of Martyrdom be alike in them both, yet there is distance between the Dignity of their chairs: and by reason of this distance, S. Augustine saith, he hath cause to fear, lest he wrong Peter, in making any comparison between Cyprians chair, and his chair: for though Cyprian were Primate of all Africa, yet Peter was Bishop, and Governor of the Universal Church: a dignity no way belonging to Cyprian, or any other Bishop, or Apostle whatsoever. With shifts not unlike to these you elude the testimonies of S. Cyprian, S. Hierome and other Fathers, who (as you confess) (d) Pag. 50. i●it. call Peter sometimes Prince, Head, and Captain of all the Apostles; sometimes Chief Priest of the Christians, Captain of God's host, Pastor and foundation of the whole Church, and, One to whom the guydance and presidence of the universal Church is committed. To these their testimonies you answer (e) Pag. 50. med. that they argue not any primacy of authority and jurisdiction over the other Apostles, or over the whole Church, but of Order only. This distinction you often use, to shift of the authorities of Fathers, when you are pressed with them. By Primacy of Order, you understand priority of place and of voice, as afterwards (*) Pag. 110. you declare. But whatsoever you understand, sure I am, that ancient Fathers by the primacy of Peter understand not only priority of place, and of voice, but true power, and jurisdiction over the other Apostles, and over the whole Church, and so it is apparent by the very names which they use to express his primacy, as, of Prince, Head, and Captain of all the Apostles, Pastor, and Precedent of the universal Church: for hath not the Prince in his territories authority, and jurisdiction? hath he not power to command his subjects, to make laws, to punish offenders? In a City, hath not the Head (which is the Magistrate) power and authority over the Citizens? Hath not a Captain the command of his soldiers? and the Pastor power to rule his flock? wherefore since with the Fathers you confess, that Peter is Prince, Head, and Captain of all the Apostles, Pastor, and foundation of the whole Church, and that the guydance, and presidence of the universal Church is committed to him, either you understand not what you say, or else you grant that Peter hath not only primacy of Order, but of authority, power, & command over the Apostles & over the whole Church, as a Prince hath over his subjects, a Captain over his soldiers, a Mayor over the Citizens, and a shepherd over his flock. And what else is it that S. chrysostom teacheth, saying (f) Hom. in B. Ignat. : that Peter was the Superintendent of the whole world; that to him Christ consigned the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and committed the disposition of all things. And (h) Orat. 5. advers. jud. that Peter was made chief of the Apostles, and had the whole world in subjection: and (i) Hom. 80. ad pop. Autioch. that, Christ delivered to him the government of the Church throughout the whole world. What else did S. Maximus mean when he said (k) Hom. 3. in Natali Apost. Pet. & Pauli. Peter was of so great merit in the sight of Christ, that after the rowing of a small boat, the government of the whole Church was put into his hands? What Arnobius (l) Ad Psal. 138. , pronouncing that, Peter is Bishop of Bishops, and that Christ gave to him, and to no other of the Apostles, his own name of Shepherd, and together which the name, that power which he alone had, to to wit, of being Pastor of his whole flock? what else S. Cyril saying (m) In l. thesau. apud S. Thom. Opuse. 1. that, as Christ received of his Father the sceptre of the Church over all Princedom, and most full power over all, that all be subject unto him; so also he committed the same power to Peter and his Successors: and that what was his, he fully committed to P●ter, and to none else, but to him alone? what S. Leo affirming (n) Ser●● 3. d● Assamp. sua. that, albeit in God's people there be many Priests, and many Pastors, yet Peter governeth them all, as Christ also doth principally rule them? what Euthymius and Theophilact (o) In c. 21. joan. that, Christ committed to Peter the charge and government of his flock throughout the whole world? what Oecumenius (p) Adc. 1. Act. that, the government of the Disciples was committed to Peter? what S. Bernard (q) L. 2. de confiderat. , that, every one of the other Apostles received their several ships; but that Peter received the government of the whole world, and that to him was committed grandissima navis, that marvellous great ship, to wit, the universal Church spread over the whole world: and that to him the pastoral charge of the whole Church was committed? Finally, and what S. Eucherius that ancient Bishop of Lions saying (r) In vigil. S. Pet. Extat in Bibliothee. Pat. edit. Colon. to. 5. par. 1 pag. 712. that, Christ first committed to Peter his lambs, and then his sheep; because he made him not only a Pastor, but Pastor of Pastors. Peter therefore (saith he) feedeth the lambs, and the sheep: he feedeth the young ones, and the dams: he governeth the subjects, and the Prelates, and is therefore Pastor of all: for beside lambs, and sheep, there is nothing in the Church. What think you Doctor Morton? do these Fathers acknowledge in Peter no other primacy, but of order? Can there be any thing more clear, then that they believe him to have authority, power, and jurisdiction over the whole Church, as Precedent, and Governor thereof? were these men of your belief? But you object (s) Pag. 51. : james and john (whom S. Paulcalleth chief Apostles) S. chrysostom interpreteth Princes; & Oecumenius Heads: Ergo, they were also Governors over the other Apostles, and Monarches over the whole Church, or else Peter was not. How followeth this? In the Empire there are many Princes, Ferdinand the Emperor and many others: Ergo they are all equal to Ferdinand, and all Emperors, or else Ferdinand is no Emperor. In the kingdom of Naples there are many Heads, the Viceroy, and the Governors of divers Provinces, and Cities: ergo these Heads are all equal in authority, & have power over the whole kingdom, or else the Viceroy hath not. These consequences are absurd; and yours is no less. It is true, that each of the Apostles are Princes over the whole earth by reason of their Apostolical power: but as Bishops they are only Heads of their several flocks, and therefore in jurisdiction not equal to Peter. Paul, Andrew and john (saith S. Gregory (t) L. 4. epist. 38. what are they but Heads of several flocks? but Peter is the chief member of the holy and universal Church. And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de considerate. : james contented with the Bishopric of Jerusalem, yields the universality to Peter. And again speaking to Eugenius Pope of his authority received from S. Peter (x) Ibid. , Thou alone art Pastor of all Pastors. Dost thou ask how I prove this? By the words of our Lord: for to which (I will not say) of the Bishops, but even of the Apostles, were all the sheep so absolutely, and without exception committed? If thou lovest me Peter, feed my sheep: what sheep? the people of this, or that City, or country, or kingdom? he saith, My sheep: who seethe not manifestly that he designed not some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted, where no distinction is made. And so likewise the other title, Prince of all the Apostles, is an attribute which agreeth not to james, nor to john, nor to any other of the Apostles: for though james & john be chief Apostles, and Princes in respect of that transcendent authority which as Apostles they had from Christ, to preach, and ordain Bishops throughout the whole world, yet neither the one, nor the other, is, nor ever is called severally by himself, Prince of all the Apostles, as Peter is. And so likewise. when Peter and Paul together, are called Principes Apostolorum, Princes of the Apostles, it is not in respect of any authority and jurisdiction common to them both, over all the other Apostles, but in respect of their great labours in preaching and propagating the faith of Christ: for when there is speech of the extent of their authority, and jurisdiction, Paul severally by himself is never called Prince of the Apostles, as Peter is. All the Apostles being silent (saith (y) Cath●c. 11. S. Cyril of Jerusalem) Peter Prince of the Apostles saith etc. And S. Ephrem (z) Serm. de Transfigu. Dom. : As Moses by the commandment of God was Prince of the congregation of the Hebrews, so is Peter of the Church of the Christians. And as Moses was Prince of the old testament, so is Peter of the new. And Cassianus (a) L. 3. de Incarnate. c. 12. : Let us ask that chief Disciple amongst the Disciples, and Master amongst Masters, which governing the Roman Church, as he had the Princedom of faith, so likewise of Priesthood. Speak therefore and tell us, O Peter, Prince of the Apostles etc. In which words Peter is called Prince of the Apostles, because he was the chief among them, and had the sovereignty of Episcopal, and Sacerdotal dignity above the rest. But by the way I must advertise you of your abusing S. Ambrose and S. Cyprian. In your Margin (b) Pag. 10: you object certain words of S. Ambrose in Latin; and coming to english them in your text, you set down in lieu of them others of your own, in a different character, as of S. Ambrose, which neither are his, nor of the same sense with his, as the judicious reader will perceive, if he compare S. Ambrose his Latin, with your English. With S. Cyprian you deal in the same manner, for you make him say, that, Christ before his resurrection did build his Church upon Peter: An ignorance, of which S. Cyprian was not guilty. He saith, that, Christ speaking to Peter said: upon this Rock I will build my Church: which words he spoke before his resurrection, and they contain no more, but a promise of building his Church upon Peter, for the future: which promise he fulfilled not, until after his resurrection, when he gave to Peter the actual charge of feeding his lambs, and his sheep (c) joan. 21.16.17. . Nor doth S. Cyprian contradict this, in the words which you object; to wit, that, Christ after his resurrection gave equal power to all the Apostles saying: As my Father sent me, so I send you: receive ye the holy Ghost etc. For by these words he gave to them all, equal authority to preach throughout the world, to reveal matters of faith, assurance of infallibility to make canonical Scriptures, to institute the first mission of Pastors, to remit sins, to give the holy Ghost, and the like. In this sense, he saith: The Apostles were the same that Peter, endowed with like fellowship of honour and power, to wit, in the exercise of these Apostolical functions over the faithful, to whom he sent them. But S. Cyprian saith not, that Christ made all the Apostles equal among themselves, exempting them from the jurisdiction of S. Peter in the manner of exercising this power. Nor is it true: for he gave it them with subordination to him, as to their Superior. Peter (saith S. Leo (d) Serm. ●. in A●niuers. suae Assumpt. is preferred before all the Apostles: & if Christ would have them to have any thing common with him; he gave it them not, but by him, And this is declared, and the reason thereof yielded by Optatus, & S. Hierome; and by S. Cyprian himself in that very place, which you object for the contrary. In the Episcopal chair (saith Optatus (e) L. ● count. Parm●n. was set the Head of all the Apostles. Peter, from whence he was also called Cephas, to the end, that in this only chair, Unity might be preserved in all; and that the other Apostles might not challenge to themselves each one a several chair; but that he might be a Schismatic, and a sinner, that against this only Chair should erect another. The Church (saith S. Hierome (f) L. 1. advers. lovin. c. 14. , is built upon Peter: & though else where it be also built upon the rest, yet among the twelve, one is chosen, to the end that a Head being made, occasion of Schism might be taken away. And S. Cyprian (g) L. de unit. Eccles. : Christ, to manifest unity, constituted one chair, and ordained the original of Unity, beginning from one, giving the primacy to Peter, that so one Church of Christ, and one chair might be manifested. And then declaring you, that have forsaken this original of Unity (S. Peter's Chair, on which the Church is built) to have lost the faith, and to be out of the Church, he addoth: He that keepeth not this unity of the Church, doth he believe himself to hold the faith? he that resisteth the Church, he that forsaketh the chair of Peter, on which the Church is built, doth he think himself to be in the Church? So S. Cyprian, equalling you with the Novatians, for your disclaiming from the Church of Peter. CHAP. XII. The authority of the Roman Church in her definitions of faith, proved to be infallible. HAVING in vain shot your darts at S. Peter, to dethrone him from the height of Authority in which Christ hath placed him, you come now to try their force, against the Bishop of Rome his Successor; whose authority in his definitions of faith you hold to be fallible. SECT. I. Our first Argument. THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his definitions of faith is infallible, we prove out of the words of Christ, spoken to S. Peter (h) Luc. 12.32. : I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy Brethren. There is no man so void of understanding (saith Leo the 9 speaking (i) Ep. ad Michael. Imp●r. of this prayer) that can think Christ's prayer (whose will is his power) to have been inefficacious: which the Apostle also teacheth, saying (k) Heb. 5.7. ; he was heard for his reverence. And for this prayer in particular Christ himself signifieth so much, saying, I have prayed for thee: for what would his prayer have availed Peter, if he had not obtained for him what he asked? Or how cold his brethren have any assurance of their confirmation in faith from Peter, if Peter could have error; proposing unto them falsehood for truth? Again, that Christ in these words prayed not in mediately for the whole Church, nor for all the Apostles, but for Peter alone, appeareth in this, that he expressed one singular person, saying: Simon, S●mon (for in the Greek it is twice repeated) and added the pronounce of the second person; I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles, you grant (l) Pag. 53. , and take this for a ground to prove, that, he prayed for Peter only, and not for Clement, Vrban, or any other of his Successors in the Roman See. But your argument proveth nothing: for Christ had formerly obtained the personal perseverance of Peter and the rest, when he said: (m) joan. 17.9. & seqq. for them I do pray etc. Holy Father keep them in my name etc. I pray not, that thou take them out of the world, but that thou preserve them from evil: And therefore this prayer for Peter's not failing in faith, was not made for him, in the person of a private man, and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor, but as for a public person, that is, as for the Head of the Apostles, and Governor of the whole Church, and consequently for his See, and all his Successors in the same See: for as that supreme dignity of Head, & Governor of the universal Church was not to die with Peter, but to descend by him to his Successors; so the effect of this prayer of Christ, being a prerogative obtained for Peter, by reason of his office, was to descend to Clement, to urban, and to whosoever hath hitherto, or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office: even as whatsoever prerogative is granted to a Viceroy, as Viceroy, and as belonging to his office, is consequently granted to all his Successors in the same office. But you object (n) Pag. 54. , that this privilege cannot agree to Peter's Successors, because, Salas the jesuit teacheth, that a personal and singular privilege is that which is granted to an individual person with expression of his name: and therefore doth not extend to any other, but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted. You understand not Salas: for he calleth a personal privilege, that, which is granted to an individual person, as he is a pivat person only, for his own particular good, & not by reason of any public office, for the good and benefit of the community: for if it be granted to him, as to a public person, by reason of his office, as this was to S. Peter, as to the Head of the Church, and for the common good of the Church, though his name be never so much expressed in it, it is not a personal, but a common (o) See Bonacina Compend. v. Privileg. , or as Suarez (p) L. 7. de leg. c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine, de legibus) calls it, A real privilege: which he confirmeth with the example of a privilege, that being granted to a certain Bishop in the Canon law with expression of his name, is notwithstanding supposed to pass to his Successors. Now that this prayer of Christ, was not made for Peter as for a private, but as for a public person, that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church, and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church, & that therefore by virtue thereof the Popes his Successors have an infallible prerogative of not erring in their public definitions of faith to the seducing of others, is the agreeing consent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this passage of S. Luke. And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles: Lucius the first, to the Bishops of Spain and France, Felix the first, to Benignus; and Mark to S. Athanasius, out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter, gather the infallibility of the Roman Church in her definitions of faith. But because Protestants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles, I omit them, and pass to such as by Protestants are granted to be undoubtedly of those Popes, to whom they are attributed. 2. Therefore Agatho a most holy Pope, and whom God graced with Miracles, in his Epistle to the Emperor (q) Extat Act. 4. Apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat (which was read in the sixth general Council, and approved (r) Act. 8. & 18. as the suggestion of the holy Ghost, dictated by the mouth of the holy, and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, speaking by Agatho) saith: Our Lord promised, that the faith of Peter should not fail, and commanded him to strengthen his brethren: which, that the Popes my Apostolical predecessors have ever performed, is a thing notorious to all. This testimony showeth that not only Agatho, but all the Fathers of that Council believed this privilege of not erring in saith, and confirming others to have been obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter, but for all his Successors; and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost, and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho. 3. S. Gregory: (s) L. 6. ep. 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthened by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, who in his name received the constancy of his mind, being called Peter of a Rock, to whom by the voice of truth, it is said, Confirm thy Brethren. And else where (t) L. 4. ep. 3. he proveth, against john Patriarch of Constantinople, the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the universal Church, by the Commission given to S. Peter his predecessor: It is manifest to all such as know the Gospel, that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles: for to him it is said; Feed my sheep. And so him it is said, I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not▪ & thou being once converted, confirm thy Brethren. Which testimony convinceth tha● Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a private person, bu● as for the Head of his Church, and consequently for his Successors in him. 4. S. Leo the great (u) Serm. 2. de Natali Apost. Petri & Pauli. : The danger of tentation was common to all the Apostles & they all equally needed the protection of God's help: but our Lord taketh a special care of Peter, and prayeth peculiarly for his faith, that the state of all the rest might be more secure, if the mind of the Chief were not corquered. The strength then of all is fortified in Peter, God so dispensing the aid of his grace; that the assurance and strength which Christ gave to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles. And he addeth, that, as Pe●er confirmed the Apostles, so it is not to be doubted, but that still he affordeth his help to his Successors in the Roman chair, and as a pious Pastor confirmeth them with his admonitions, and ceaseth not to pray for them etc. 5. Leo the ninth (x) Ep. ad Michael. Imper. c. 7. : The false devices of all heretics have been reproved, confuted, and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles, which it the Roman Church, and the hearts of the Brethren strengthened in the faith of Peter, which hath not failed hitherto, nor shall ever fail hereafter. And the same sense of these words of Christ, is delivered by Nicolas the first (y) Ep. ad Michael. Imp. , and Innocentius the third (z) In Cap. Maior. de Bap. . If you answer, that these testimonies are of Pope's speaking in their own cause; I reply, that they speak in the cause of God, and his Church, and are worthy of all credit, both because they were men most eminent in learning, & sanctity; as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth general Council, and the rest: for S. Ambrose saith (a) Ad ca 22. Luc. : Behold what our Lord said, and understand it: Peter is sifted; he falls into tentations, but after his tentation, is made Governor of the Church: and therefore our Saviour before hand signifieth, why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock; for he said unto him, And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. You see then, that in S. Ambrose his judgement, Christ prayed for Peter, as for the Pastor of his flock, and that, for Peter to confirm his brethren, is to perform the office of Pastor, and Governor of the Church: which office, as it was no less necessary afterwards then in S. Peter's time, so it descended from him to his Successors. A truth, which Theodorus Studites with other his brethren being pressed with the outrageous persecutions of heretics, profess in their epistle to Paschalis Pope, in these words: (b) Apud Baron. anno 817. Hear O Apostolical Head, made by God Pastor of his sheep, porter of the kingdom of Heaven, and Rock of the faith, upon whom the Catholic Church is built: for thou art Peter adorning and governing the See of Peter. Christ our God said to thee; And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. Behold now the time, behold the place; aid us etc. Thou hast power from God, because thou art Prince of all: fright away the heretical wild beasts etc. And Theophilact (c) Ad cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words: The plain sense of them is this: because I hold thee as Prince of my Disciples, when thou (after thou hast denied me) shalt weep, and come to repentance, confirm the rest; for this becometh thee, that next to me art the Rock and fortress of the Church. And we may understand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only, but of all the faithful that shall be till the end of the world. Which addition of Theophilact showeth, that this privilege given to Peter of not failing in faith, and confirming his brethren, was not personal, but belonging to his office, and descending with it to his Successors: for Peter in his own person, was not to live till the end of the world; and therefore not by himself, but by his Successors, to confirm the faithful until the end of the world. The same truth is further proved out of an ancient Treatise entitled, A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue, written by a learned Author, above 700. years since, in which it is said (d) Cap. 19 art. 4. : Christ seemeth to have defined, that the faith of the Roman Church shall never fail, saying to Peter; I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: for he foresaw, that Peter whose faith he promised should never fail, was to be Bishop of the Roman Church, and there to end his life by Martyrdom. And what, I beseech you, are we to think him to have signified to us, but that, that Church especially whose Bishop Peter (the Head of all Churches after Christ) was to be should always remain in the confession of one true faith. To these I add the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian, who explicating the same words of Christ, saith (*) In illud joan. Si eum volo manere etc. : In them, two great Mysteries are plainly expressed: the first, that only the faith of Peter & his Successors, that is to say, of the Roman Church, shall not fail. The other, that the faith of the rest shall sometimes fail: Wherefore (saith Christ) thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. He said, Once, to show that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should err; but that their Successors should; for whose confirmation Peter, that is to say his Successors, are commanded to be converted; which hath been effectually performed: for the rest of the Churches of the world have been often confirmed by the Roman, but She never by others. Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius, and requiring him to condemn the heresies of Abailardus, subscribeth to the same exposition, saying (e) Ep. 190. : It is fit that all dangers & scandals arising in the kingdom of God, and chief those that concern faith, should be referred to your Apostleship: for I think it just, that the ruins of faith should be repared there, where faith cannot fail; for that is the prerogative of your See: for to what other was it ever said, I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not: and therefore what followeth, is required from Peter's Successor: And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. It is time therefore (most ●ouing Father) that you show your zeal, repressing the corruptors of ●ayth. Out of these testimonies I infer against you, that whatsoever Bellarmine in his Controversies holdeth to the contrary (f) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. , these words of Christ, I have prayed for thee Peter etc. contain no privilege of Peter peculiar to his person, but a public prerogative belonging to his office, and descending to his Successors, as Bellarmine in a later work (g) Apol. c. 14. §. Neque solum. expressly declareth. And therefore though out of them it cannot be proved, but that his Successors in their private Doctrine, or writing may err, and fall into heresy; yet it followeth, that they never shall, nor can err ex cathedra, that is, judicially, in their Counsels, Consistories, public decrees or definitions of faith made for the whole Church: for S. Augustine (h) Epist. 16●. truly saith; The heavenly Master in the chair of Unity hath placed the Doctrine of verity, and secured his people, that for evil Prelates they forsake not the chair of wholesome Doctrine, in which chair even they that are ill men, are enforced to speak good things. There is then in the Church a chair of wholesome Doctrine, which is not the chair in which Christ now sitteth in Heaven: for in that there sit no ill men, nor any other but himself. Nor is this Chair, the chair of every Bishop; for every Bishop is not enforced to speak truth: many have been heretics and inventors of heresies. Wherefore S. Augustine himself declareth this chair of Unity to be that, in which sitteth one Pastor, in whom all Pastors of the earth are one. I find (saith 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 divided, are many: here one is praised, because unity is commended. This one chair is none else but that of S. Peter: There is one chair (saith S. Cyprian) (k) L. 1. ep. 8. founded upon the Rock by the voice of our Lord. and again: (l) Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. Christ to manifest unity constituted one chair, and ordained the original of this unity, beginning from one, giving the primacy to Peter, that so one Church of Christ, and one chair might be manifested etc. He that keeps not this unity doth he think himself to hold the faith? In the Episcopal chair, saith Optatus (m) L. 2. contra Parmen. was set Peter, the Head of all the Apostles, to the end, that in this only chair unity might be preserved to all. From this privilege obtained by Christ for S. Peter & his chair, it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers have not doubted to believe and teach the infallibility of the Roman Church in matters of faith, as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter. S. Cyprian speaking against the Novatians, saith (n) L. 1. Ep. 3. : They presumed to carry letters from Schismatics, and heretics, to the chair of Peter, and the principal Church from whence Sacerdotal unity is derived; not considering that the Romans are they whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom misbelief can have no access. S. Basil writeth to Damasus Pope (o) Epist. 69. per Sabinum Diac. : Surely that which is given by our Lord to your Holiness, is worthy of that most excellent voice, which proclaimed you Blessed, to wit, that you may discern between what is counterfeit, and what is lawful and pure, and that you may without any diminution preach the faith of our ancestors. S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius Pope (p) L. 10. ep. 31. : Whom your Holiness hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned according to your judgement. S. Hierome saith to Ruffinus (q) L. 1. Apol. advers. Ruffin. : Know thou, that the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle, admitteth no such delusions, and that being fenced by S. Paul's authority, it cannot be altered though an Angel should teach otherwise. S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians, and having professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true faith and condemn heresies, addeth (r) Epist. 157. : The Catholic faith expressed in these words of the Apostolic See, is so ancient, so grounded, so certain, & clear, that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt thereof. S. Fulgentius saith (s) De incarnate. & great. c. 11. , that what the Roman Church teacheth, the Christian world without hesitation believes to justice, and doubts not to confess to salvation. S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the archheretic thus (t) Ep. ad Eutych. prafixa Act is Concil. Chalced. : We exhort thee reverend brother, to lend an obedient ear to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome, for as much as the blessed Peter who life's and rules in his own seat, exhibits the true faith to those that seek it. I omit other testimonies no less clear of S. Cyrill, of john, and Maximianus Patriarches of Constantinople, of Venerable Bede, S. Maximus Martyr, Theodorus Studites, Rabanus, and others formerly alleged (*) Chap. 1. sect. 4. . From this infallibility of the Roman Church it proceeded that the ancient Fathers and Counsels for the decision of all doubts of faith had ever recourse to the See of Rome, and that many learned and holy Doctors have sent their writings to the Popes of their time to be examined by them, and approved if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxal, or reproved if it were erroneous. So did S. Augustine to Zozimus: the 4. Primates of Africa to Theodorus: the Counsels of Carthage and Milevis to Innocentius: S. Cyril to Celestine: Theodoret and the Council of Chalcedon to Leo the great: S. Anselme to Vrbanus: S. Bernard to Innocentius. Other particulars I omit, having dwelled long in this point already. SECT. II. Our second Argument. AN other place of Scripture wherewith we prove the Roman Churches indefectibility in faith, are the words of Christ, Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church▪ & the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. By the gates of hell Origen, S. Epiphanius, S. Hierome, S. Cyril, Rabanus, and all other expositors understand, Heresies, and Arch-heretikes, by whom as by gates men descend into hell. And contrarily by Rock, they understand S. Peter, and his Successors in the Roman See, against which heresies, and whatsoever persecutions raised by them, have no more power to prevail, than the furious waves of raging tempests against a Rock, firmly seated in the midst of the sea. They may beat, and break themselves against it, but destroy it they cannot. And so experience teacheth: for howbeit the Heathenish persecutors and other enemies of Christ have tried their forces against it, and all the other patriarchal Sees have fallen into heresy, yet against the Roman Church (God protecting it) no persecutions, no errors have prevailed, nor ever shall prevail: for she, saith S. Augustine (u) Psal. count. part. Donati. is the Rock which the proud gates of hell overcome not. Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church (saith Origen (x) Tract. 1. in Math. nor against the Church itself the gates of hell shall prevail. Upon this Rock (saith S. Hierome (y) Ep. 57 speaking of the Roman See to Damasus) I know the Church to be built: he that gathereth else where, scattereth. Our Lord (saith S. Epiphanius (z) In Ancorato. made Peter, the chief of the Apostles, a strong Rock, upon whom the Church of God is built; and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not prevail against it: for the faith is every way fortified in him. S. chrysostom saith (a) Hom. 55. in Math. : Our Saviour promised to Peter power to forgive sins, & that the Church having for her Pastor, and Head, a poor fisherman, should amongst the assalts of so many raging floods, remain immoveable, and more firmly fixed and settled, than the strongest Rock. S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Saviour saith (b) Apud S. Thom. in Catena ad c. 16. Math. : According to this promise of our Lord, the Apostolical Church of Peter persevereth in her Bishop's pure, and free from all seduction and circumvention, above all Prelates and Bishops, and above all Primates of Churches, and people, in the faith and authority of Peter. And whereas other Churches have been stained with the errors of some, she alone remains established firmly, and unconquerably, silencing, and stopping the mouths of all heretics. Possessor a famous African Bishop, and banished by the Arians, consulting Hormisdas' Pope, about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis, yieldeth this reason (c) Extat Epistola apud Baron. Anno 520. : It is expedient to have recourse to the head, as often as the health of the members is treated of: for who hath a more solicitous care of his subjects, or from whom is the resolution of faith when it is questioned, to be required, but from the Precedent of that See, whose first Rector heard from Christ, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. S. Leo the great: (d) Serm. 2. de sua assump. The solidity of that faith which was praised in the prince of the Apostles, is perpetual: and as that remains, which Peter believed, so remaineth that also, which Christ instituted in Peter. Wherefore the disposition of truth remaineth, and Peter persevering in the strength of a Rock, hath not left the government of the Church, which he once undertook. S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarch of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine Pope (e) Ep. ad Theodosium. , and others (f) Apud Spond. anno 431. n. 22. , writeth to the orientals: All the bounds of the earth have sincerely acknowledged our Lord; and Catholics throughout the whole world, professing the true faith, look upon the power of the B. of Rome, as upon the Sun: And then speaking of the reward, which our Saviour gave to Peter, for that excellent confession of his faith, he addeth: For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world, chose S. Peter, to whom he gave the chair of Doctor, to be principally possessed, by a perpetual right of privilege, to the end, that whosoever is desirous to know any divine and profound thing, may have recourse to the oracle, and doctrine of this instruction. justinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his faith to Bonifacius Pope (g) Extat inter decreta Bonif. Papae. : The beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right faith, & no way to swerve from the tradition of our forefather's; because the words of our Lord cannot fail, saying. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock etc. And the proofs of deeds have made good those words, because in the See Apostolic the Catholic Religion is always conserved inviolable. And the same profession was made by john Patriarch of Constantinople to Hormisdas' Pope (h) In epist. ad Hormisd. , abjuring the memory of all such, as die out of the Communion of the Roman Church, or agree not in all things fully with her. S. Gregory (i) L. 6. ep. 37. : Who knoweth not, that the holy Church is strengthened by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, who with his name received the constancy of his mind, being called Peter, of a Rock to whom by the voice of truth it is said, I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven? S. Maximus a famous Martyr, the greatest Divine of his age, and a stout Champion of the Church against the Monothelites (k) Epist. ad Marin. Diac. Apud Spond. Anno 657. n. 2. : All the Churches of Christians had their beginning, and surest foundation from the Roman Church, against which the gates of hell shall no way prevail, according to the promise of our Saviour himself, that she should have the keys of Orthodox faith and confession, and open to them that come to her religiously seeking true piety, and contrarily shut and stop all heretical mouths, that breath out iniquity against heaven. Theodorus Studites a man very famous for his learning, and constancy in defending the Catholic faith, writing together with other his Colleagues to Paschalis Pope (l) Ep. ad Pashal. & ep. ad Naucrat. calleth him, Porter of the kingdom of Heaven, and Rock of the faith, upon whom the Catholic Churches built; And the Roman See, The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keys of faith, against whom the gates of hell, which are the mouths of Heretics, have never prevailed, nor shall ever prevail, according to the promise of our Lord which cannot fail. To these testimonies I add others of Theodoret and Gelasius alleged by Bellarmine (m) L. 4. de Pont. c. 3. , which make up more than a full jury, to pronounce you guilty of a solemn untruth, in denying (n) Pag. 55. that, what was here spoken to Peter, doth accordingly belong to the Pope, by the right of Succession: for you have heard the Father's teaching the contrary. Their exposition I embrace, and follow, as the true sense of holy Scripture, & detest yours, who have nothing to say against it, but to outface it, by calling it, An error, & to object against it the comment of Abulensis, who (say you (o) Pag. 55. teacheth, that by those words, Blessed art thou Simon, there was granted to S. Peter an infallible certainty of his souls eternal blessedness, which is an excellent privilege, but no promise of authority made unto him. If Abulensis comment so, his comment makes nothing to your purpose: for he denies not the Church to be built upon Peter, nor grants, that the gates of hell (which are heresies) shall prevail against her. Again if he say (for I have not seen him) that Christ by saying, Blessed art thou Simon, granted to S. Peter an infallible assurance of his eternal happiness, it followeth not, that the same assurance passeth to his Successors, as the office of Foundation, Head, and Governor of the Church, doth: for the assurance of eternal happiness, was for his own peculiat good, and therefore granted to him alone, and not to his Successors. But the office of Head, and Governor of the Church, was promised to him for the good of the whole Church, and therefore to pass to his Successors, according to the nature of privileges, which is, that when a prerogative is granted to a Governor for the good of the Community of which he is Governor, (as the office of Head and foundation of the Church was to S. Peter) it dieth not with him, but still liveth in his Successors. Again, that comment of Abulensis (if it be his) I approve not: for it is disproved out of the words themselves, which being of the present tense, import nothing else but a present blessedness, in having so great a favour bestowed on him, as by the special revelation of Almighty God, to know the Divinity of Christ, and to be the first that made so illustrious a confession thereof, and (as S. Basill (p) Orat. 3. de peccato, & in proem. de iudicio Dei. expoundeth) to have his confession rewarded with a promise of building the Church on him, and of having the keys of the kingdom of heaven committed to him: which (saith he) was a far greater blessedness than the other Apostles obtained. And in the same sense expound S. Hierome (q) Ad c. 16. Math. and S. Augustine (r) Serm. 10. de verb. Do. & serm. 31. de verb. Apost. . But whereas out of the comment of Abulensis (be it his, or whose you please) you charge us (r) Pag. 56, , with lack both of conscience, and modesty in violating the sacred writ, unless to make good the jurisdiction of our Popes derivatively from S. Peter, we can show that all of them by virtue of their succession from him, are so blessed now in their hopes, as to be infallibly persuaded that no temptation of Satan shall prevail against their persons, but that they shall be blessed everlastingly; you cannot be excused from fraud, & folly: fraud, in changing the state of the question: for our assertion is, that out of these words of Christ, S. Peter, and his Successors are secured from erring in their public decrees, and definitions of faith. But that Popes may not err in manners, to the damnation of their souls, we neither deduce out of this, nor any other place of holy writ: nor is it true, nor asserted by any Catholic, nor necessary for the defence of their jurisdiction, or privilege of not erring ex cathedra: for Christ (saith S. Augustin) (s) Ep. 166. hath placed in the chair of Unity the doctrine of Verity, and secured his people, that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chair of wholesome Doctrine, in which chair even ill men are enforced to speak good things. And else where (t) Ep. 165. having reckoned all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius, who then possessed his chair, he addeth: If in all this time any traitor had come in by surreption, it could not breed any prejudice to the Church, nor to innocent Christians, for whom our Lord making provision, saith of evil Prelates; What they say do ye; but what they do, do it not: for they say, and do not. And as it is fraud, in you to change the state of the question, so is it folly to infer, that because Popes may be vicious in their lives, they may err in their public definitions of faith, or manners, to the seduction of others. S. Augustine (u) Ep. 137. observeth it to be an old trick of Heretics, because they cannot calumniate the Scripture, in which they find the Church commended, to calumniate those, by whom she is defended & governed, to make them odious. And Tertullian long before (x) L. de Praescrip. observed the same in the heretics of his time, to whom he answered, that what they objected, were vitia conversationis, non pradicationis, faults of manners, not of Doctrine: and for this S. Augustine reprehendeth Petilianus the Donatist, saying (y) Cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 51. : Why dost thou call the Apostolic See the chair of pestilence? if for men, whom thou thinkest to profess the law, and not to fulfil it, did our Lord jesus Christ for the pharisees, of whom he saith, that they say and do not, do any wrong to the chair in which they did sit? Did he not commend that chair of Moses, and reprehend them, preserving the honour of the chair? Wherefore you in carping at the vices of some Popes, show yourself to be like to the Donatists, who (saith S. Augustine (z) Ibid. had with wicked fury separated themselves from the Roman Church. And as no vices of Popes could justify their separation, so neither can it yours. I deny not, but that histories mention sins and scandals of some Popes; but yet of few in comparison of the great number of most holy and learned Bishops, that have possessed that Seat, for whose excellent virtues, and great labours in defending, and propagating the Catholic faith, you ought rather to commend the Bishops of Rome, then for the vices of a few to defame both them and their Seat. Though all the Popes have not been holy like Sem and japhet, yet (as S. Gregory admonisheth) (a) L. 25. Mor. c. 22. & l. 3. Pastoral. c. 1. it is not lawful for you to imitate wicked Cham, in laying open their faults. It is no marvel, if among so many good there have been some few bad: for among the twelve Apostles there was a judas, whose wickedness, as it was no defamation to the Apostolical function, so nether are they faults of a few bad Popes, to the dignity of the Roman See. But what if there had been many? Can their evil life excuse your evil faith? Shall their falling from God by frailty for a time, justify your departing for ever from God's Church, by contempt and obstinate rebellion? If the ill lives of Prelates be a sufficient cause to forsake the Church, how can you remain in your Protestant Congregation? For Luther (whom your brother Klebitius in his book against the Saxonicall Popedom termeth, The Pope of Wittenberg) was a jewd Apostata, and had conversation with the Devil: Caluin, a stigmatical Sodomite; Beza, an especial pattern of wantonness and lust. And if you look nearer home, Cranmer, and other chief Heads in your English Church, have not been very great Saints. Wherefore since you cannot but know, that the ill lives of some Popes, is a Non sequitur, to prove that they may err in their definitions of faith, you cannot be so simple, as to allege it to that end, but only to ease your stomach of some part of that venom, wherewith it is charged against the authority of the Roman Church. And yet not this without imposture: for of the authors, which you bring, Massonius is a fabulous Historian, and forbidden by the Church. (b) In indic. lè. prohib. Costerus, as in that very place he confesseth that Popes may be wicked in their lives, (c) Enchir. c. 3. §. Patemur. so he proveth that they cannot propose to the Church any heresy, or error, which is the thing you ought to disprove, but cannot, & therefore divert from it to rail at the ill lives of Popes, that have been, or may be. Baronius and Genebraed speak only of such Popes as were intruded, partly by the tyranny of Emperors, partly by the Marquis of Thuscia, partly by the Nobility of Rome, and Princes of Etruria. This you ought to have observed with Baronius, and with him to have put your reader in mind, of the singular care, and providence, wherewith Christ protecteth the Roman Church: for notwithstanding she suffered greater calamities by the tyranny of these Christian Princes, then she had ever done under any heathenish persecutors, yet it cannot be showed, that any of those Princes ever doubted of the infallibility of the Roman Church, or that any of the aforesaid Popes, albeit they came in by intrusion, ever taught any thing repugnant to faith. SECT. III. S. Paul's subjection to S. Peter, and his acknowledgement thereof. TO prove that S. Paul believed not the domination of S. Peter (for so you call it (d) Pag. 57 and consequently of the Pope, or the universal power of the Roman Church above all others, or yet the absolute continuance thereof in the faith of Christ, you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections, from the eight to the fourteenth, all which make against yourself. It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors, their dominion. If by dominion you understand a dominiering power, wherewith some temporal Princes govern their subjects, S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiastical Prelates (e) 1. Pet. 5.3. , commanding them not to domineer in the Clergy. But if by dominion, you understand a Fatherly government and jurisdiction over the universal Church and their infallible assurance in their definitions of faith; that S. Peter and his successors have such a power and jurisdiction, hath been already proved, & will be more confirmed by the answer to your arguments against S. Peter's supremacy out of sundry passages of S. Paul to the Galathians (f) Pag. 58. & seqq. . The first is, Paul some time after the exercise of his Apostleship, would not go to Jerusalem to Peter, or any of the Apostles, lest he might have seemed to have been authorized by them: yet three years after that, he taketh a journey thither of see Peter; doubtless for honour sake, as one in order of Apostleship most eminent: but this be did voluntarily, in discretion, & brotherly communion; & not in subjection, as the Context showeth. So you: but the Context showeth no such matter, and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary. S. Ambrose (g) In eum locum. : It was fit, that Paul should desire to see Peter, to whom our Saviour had committed the charge of the Churches. S. Hierome (h) Ep. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August. : Peter was of so great authority, that Paul writeth in his epistle, Then after three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter. And again (i) In c. 1. ad Gal. : He went to see him to the end he might yield honour unto him. Theodoret (k) In cap. 1. ad Gal. : he went to yield unto Peter, as to the Prince of the Apostles, that honour which was fitting. And showing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme judge to whom all doubts of faith ought to be referred, he saith (l) In ep. ad Leon. : Paul the preacher of truth, and the trumpet of the holy Ghost, ran to the great Peter, for a resolution of such doubts, as rising about the observation of the Law, did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch. Oecumenius (m) In cap. 1. ad Gal. : He went to see him, as one greater than himself, and stayed with him, to honour him with his presence. S. chrysostom (n) Hom. 87. in joan. : He went to see him above others, because he was the mouth, and Prince of the Apostles, and the Head of the whole company. and again (o) In c. 1. ad Gal. : he went to him, as to one greater than himself, and that, not in a vulgar manner, but (as he observeth out of the Greek Verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to behold and admire him, as a personage of great excellency, and majesty, as men go to behold, and admire great and famous Cities: for which cause, and to satisfy himself with a perfect view of his person, and behaviour, notwithstanding his great employments, he stayed 15. days with him. If therefore the general accord of sacred expositors be of weight, this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disprove his subjection to S. Peter, is so fare from disproving it, that it strongly proveth it, and his own acknowledgement thereof. Again: 14. years after this time (saith S. Paul) I went up to Jerusalem, according to revelation to confer with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. From this place you argue (q) Pag. 5●. that S. Paul held himself equal in authority with S. Peter: for S. Hierome (whom you allege out of Salmeron) saith, it is one thing to confer, an other thing, to learn: for among them that confer, there is equality. What equality? of jurisdiction, and power? No: (for a subject may confer with his Superior, a Collegiall with his Rector) but of Doctrine, and learning only; as S. Hierome there declareth, adding, that between him that teacheth, and him that learneth, he that learneth is the lesser; to wit, in knowledge. And therefore I grant that S. Paul went not to learn of S. Peter: he had learned his Gospel by revelation immediately from jesus Christ, the same Master that taught S. Peter. Nor did he receive from S. Peter, or the other Apostles power, or authority to preach: for that likewise he had immediately from Christ: & in this sense he saith (*) Gal. 2.6. : The Apostles added nothing to me. Nevertheless because he had not conversed with Christ in mortal flesh, nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apostles, which had been instructed by him before his death, lest the Gentiles, to whom he preached, being incensed against him by false Apostles, might have any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine, or of his Commission to preach; for their satisfaction, and that his preaching might not be in vain, and without profit to the hearers, he went to Jerusalem, and conferred his Gospel with the chief Apostles, to the end that the Gentiles might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine, knowing it to have their approbation, and to be the same, that they preached. But you that borrow your argument from Salmeron (r) In Ep. ad Gal. Disput. ●2. , why do you conceal what followeth in his Comment? If (saith he) it was needful for so great an Apostle of Christ, to confer his Gospel with the Apostles, and Peter; how much more necessary was it, that Luther and Caluin should have brought theirs, to be conferred with the See Apostolic? With what pillars of the Church did they confer it, as Paul did? or with what Miracle did they prove it? they that could never persuade themselves so much, as to come to the See Apostolic, and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to confer; nor to the Ecumenical Council (of Trent) that was gathered for their soul's health sake, that was free, and open to them, that did courteously entreat them, and with a safe conduct invite them to come. So Salmeron; whose words you thought best not to mention, both because they show your Doctrine to be destitute of lawful authority, and also because they refute the fabulous report which you (s) Pag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian, that, divers Protestants came to the Council, and desired of the Pope's Legates liberty to dispute, but could not be admitted: for Samleron was present at the Council, as one of the Pope's Divines, who therefore knew what passed in the Council better than Thuanus. And to Salmerons testimony, I add your own confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended General assembly holden at Glascow (t) Pag. 13. ; and in your Apology of the Church of England, which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come, set down in your own words, and refelled by Doctor Harding, in his Confutation of the same Apology (u) Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. & seqq. . How far therefore you are from the Doctrine & example of S. Paul in this point, not only Salmeron, but Venerable Bede and S. Anselme (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. have declared out of S. Augustine, whose words both they and Salmeron set down to this purpose. If the Apostle Paul himself (saith S. Augustine) (y) L. 28. contra Paust. c. 4. being called from Heaven, after the Ascension of our Lord, had not found the Apostles living, that by communicating and conferring his Gospel with thew, he might show himself to be of the same society, the Church would give no credit at all unto him. But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did, that he lived in communion and unity with them, and did work Miracles as they did (our Lord thereby commending him) he deserved so great authority, that his words at this day are heard in the Church, even as if Christ were heard to speak in him, as he most truly said. With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome (z) Epist. 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August. defining that, Paul had not had security of preaching the Gospel, if it had not been approved by Peter's sentence, and the rest that were with him. So S. Hierome, whose testimony with the rest show how beggarly a cause you have, since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence thereof, are so many verdicts against you. A third text of S. Paul (*) 2. Cor. 12.11. you set down thus: I am nothing inferior unto the Chief of the Apostles. But I cannot commend your translation: for none but Peter is Chief of the Apostles, to whom therefore S. Paul compares not himself in the singular number, as you here, and else where (falsifiing his words make him to say) but to the Chief Apostles in the plural number, and yet not that, in authority and jurisdiction, (of which he speaketh not) but in the dignity of an Apostle, in his great labours, in his Miracles, in his revelations, in his dangers and journeys undertaken for the preaching of Christ, as the Context before and after showeth, & S. Ambrose, Theodoret, S. Anselme, S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare (a) In eum locum. . But you urge the testimonies of Fathers. (b) Pag. 60. fin. upon this text of S. Paul: And first that S. Ambrose saith (c) In 1. Cor. c. 12. , Paul was no less in dignity, than Peter. You falsity. S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular, but speaking of him and the rest in general saith, that, albeit he were called to the Apostleship after them all, yet in the dignity and function of an Apostle, in preaching and in working of miracles he was not inferior to them. And to show how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peter's primacy, he addeth, that, Though Andrew followed our Saviour, before Peter, yet Andrew received not the primacy, but Peter. 2. You object (d) Pag. 60. fin. S. Maximus, saying: Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred, is uncertain. Here again you falsify. For, to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Peter, you pervert the order of his words, placing Peter after Paul, which S. Maximus doth not, but contrarily Paul after Peter. Again he compares them not in authority, but only in sanctity of life, and merits. Howbeit (saith he) all the most blessed Apostles obtain equal grace of sanctity in the sight of God, yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogative of faith in our Saviour, surpass the rest etc. But which of the two is to be preferred, is uncertain, for I think them to be equal in merits, because they are equal in their death. You make no mention of merits to persuade your reader that S. Maximus compares them in authority, and so much the more you are to be blamed, because in that very place, he saith, that, Paul hath the key of knowledge to preach and teach, but Peter the key of power; which is to say, that Paul excelled in knowledge, but Peter in authority. And therefore else where he saith; (e) Hom. 3. in Nat. Apost. Pet. & Paul. Peter was of so great merit in the sight of our Lord, that after the rowing of a small boat, the government of the whole Church was committed to him: and that (f) Hom. 1. de eisdem. As Christ was a Rock, so be made Peter a Rock, and built his Church upon him, and gave him charge of feeding his sheep, and lambs, which out of his mercy he had redeemed. Wherefore, as certain as it is, that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christ's Church, and one of the sheep which he redeemed: so certain it is, that he held him subject to S. Peter, as to his Head and Pastor. 3. You object (g) Pag. 60. fin. out of S. chrysostom: Paul (that I say no more) was equal to Peter. You still falsify. S. chrysostom saith: Paul was equal to Peter in honour, to wit, of an Apostle, for of that he speaketh: you leave out, in honour, to infer that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and jurisdiction; which cannot be excused from imposture: for one thing it is to be equal with Peter in the honour of Apostleship (in which all the Apostles were equal unto him) and another, to be equal to him in authority, which none of the Apostles were. Among the most blessed Apostles (saith S. Leo (h) Ep. 48; in the likeness of honour, there was difference of power: and though the election of them all were a like, yet it was granted to one, that be should surpass the rest: from whence as from a pattern, hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops. The same is declared by S. Maximus (i) Serm. vlt. de Apost. Pet. & Paul. , yea, and by S. chrysostom himself, in this very place which you object, saying (k) In ep. ad Gal. 1.18. : Paul went to Peter, as to one greater, and elder than himself: And, (l) Hom. 87. joan. he went to see him, because he was the mouth, and Prince of the Apostles, and head of the whole company. These testimonies as they demonstrate chrysostom to have believed that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority; so they convince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary. 4. You attribute (n) Pag. 60. fin. to S. Hierome (o) In Psal. 44. these words: The titles of these two Apostles are equal: they are Chiefs of the Church. But S. Hierome upon that Psalm hath no such words, nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul, nor any mention at all of them. 5. You object (p) Pag. 61. init. out of S. Basils' epistles (but at random naming none in particular) that, S. Peter and Paul are Pillars of the Church. And what of that? As among many great, one may be greater than another; so of two Pillars, one may be higher than another. By those 7. Pillars mentioned in the Proverbes (q) Prou. 9.1. , some of the Expositors understand the 7. Sacraments, which yet are not all equal: for Baptism exceedeth the rest in necessity, and the Eucharist in Excellency. Others understand the Doctors of the Church, whom Daniel compareth to stars (r) Dan. 13.3▪ which yet (witness S. Paul (s) 1. Cor. 15.42. are unequal in their light. And hereby is showed the futility of your argument, that S. Paul held james and john to be equal in jurisdiction with Peter, because speaking of them three, he calls them all, Pillars. 6. You object (t) Pag. 61. init. out of Casaubon, that, Eucherius calleth Peter and Paul, Two Princes of the Christians. But S. Hierome (u) In Psal. 44. calleth all Bishops, Princes of the Church, and yet all Bishops are not equal in jurisdiction: for Bishops are subject to Archbishops, Archbishops to Patriarches; Patriarches to the Pope; and so was Paul, to Peter. But let Eutherius speak for himself: Christ (saith he) (x) In vigil. S. Pet. first committed to Peter his lambs, and then his sheep; because he made him not only a Pastor, but Pastor of Pastors. Peter therefore feedeth the Lambs. & the sheep: he feedeth the young ones and the Dams: he governeth the subjects and the Prelates, and is therefore Pastor of all: for beside lambs, and sheep, there is nothing in the Church. So Eucherius, showing how Casaubon and you abuse him: and that if Paul be a sheep of Christ's flock, he is subject to Peter's pastotall authority. A fourth text of Scripture you object, (z) Pag. 59 which are those words of S. Paul: They saw, that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the Gospel of the circumcision unto Peter. Your gloss is, that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct, Peter having for his Diocese, the jews; and Paul the Gentiles, which was of infinite extent larger. But by the like argument you might infer that S. Paul by calling Christ, The minister of Circumcision, (a) Rom. 15.8. and himself, Doctor of the Gentiles, (b) 1. Tim. 2.7 signified that himself had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ, & a Diocese of fare larger extent, then his. Wherefore this clause implies not any division of the authority of their ordinary Ministry; nor yet, that the Diocese of Peter was confined to the jews, or of Paul to the Gentiles; for both of them preached to jews & Gentiles. It contains nothing else, but a special testimony of the blessing of God upon S. Peter, to persuade the jews, and upon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles: and yet not so, but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach unto them both. But you oppose (c) Pag. 59 , that S. Ambrose (d) In Gal. 2● from hence cellecteth two different Primacies, the one of Peter, and the other of Paul. S. Ambroses words are: As Paul received a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles; so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church; a dignity fare greater, then to preach and found Churches among the Gentiles, and that implieth the subjection of S. Paul, and all other Prelates of the Church unto him. 2. You say: (e) Pag. 59 chrysostom argueth from these words of S. Paul, that both he and Peter had the same dignity: and, Oecumenius wisheth his reader to observe, that Paul herein equalled himself to Peter. I answer: The false Apostles excepted against S. Paul's Doctrine, and authority to preach, because he had not conversed with Christ, nor been trained up in his school before his passion, as the other Apostles had; and by that means seduced some of the Galathians, as it appears out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them. Wherefore in the second Chapter he certifies them, that he went to Jerusalem, to confer his Gospel with the chief known Apostles, and was received by them into their society, as being an Apostle no less than they were, and one that had learned his Doctrine by revelation, and received his authority to preach from the same master, that taught and authorized them. And herein only S. chrysostom and Oecumenius say, that S. Paul is equal to the rest, & compares himself to Peter the chiefest of them: for (saith Oecumenius) (f) In cap. 2, ad Gal. though he speak this of Peter praedicationis causa, to authorise his own Doctrine (with the Galathians) yet he respecteth and honoureth Peter fare above himself, that is to say, as, Head of the Apostles (for so he had called him a little before:) and, (g) Ad c. 1. Act. As one, to whom the government of the Disciples was committed, and that had power to command them all. And how cold S. chrysostom mean any other thing, he that said; (h) In c. 2. ad Gal. & hom. 87, in joan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater than himself; as to the mouth and Prince of the Apostles, and Head of the whole company: that, in matters belonging to authority Paul gives the primacy to Peter (i) Hom. 35. in c. 14.1. ad Cor. : that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees: (k) L. 2. de Sa●ord. that he was chief of the Apostles, & had the whole world subject to him: (l) Orat. 5. advers. judaeot. that, Christ delivered to him the government of the Church throughout the whole world, (m) Hom 80. add Antioch. & the charge of feeding those sheep, which he had redeemed with his blood (n) L. 2. de Sacord. . 3. You object (o) Pag. 61. S. Gregory, saying: Paul was made the Head of Nations, and obtained the principality of the whole Church. S. Paul (I grant) obtained the principality of the whole Church, as the rest of the Apostles did, because they were all Princes over the whole Church, as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalm, (p) Psal. 44.17. Thou shalt make them Princes over all the earth. And this is the principality which S. chrysostom declared S. Paul to have, (q) Hom. 18. in epist. ad Rom when he said; all preaching, the affairs of the world, all mysteries▪ and all dispensations were committed to him. But this argueth not that the Princedom and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independent, and without subordination to S. Peter: for (as S. Hierome (r) In psal. 44. observeth) The Church hath Bishops instead of the Apostles, and as their Successors in their Episcopal authority; which therefore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church, yet not without due subordination: for all Bishops are subject to the Pope: and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter. And this S. Gregory himself (to show your imposture in objecting him for the contrary) declareth saying: (s) L. 4. ep. 38. Peter the Apostle is the chief member of the holy and universal Church: Paul, Andrew, john, what are they, but Heads of several flocks? SECT. iv Other arguments of Doctor Morton answered. IN prosecution of the same matter you object, (m) Pag. 62.63.64. that Paul named james before Peter saying: james, Cephas, and john: whereby you will have, Paul to mate and equal james, & john with Peter: for it had been ill manners in him to name james before Peter, if Peter had been james his Superior, as it would be thought ill manners, in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen before the Pope. You argue from an uncertain ground: for S. chrysostom in his commentary, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierome both in the text and commentary, read, Peter, james and john: and so likewise doth S. Hierom● in other his works (n) Contr● Heliud & l. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Paulo. . It is therefore credible that S. Paul in naming them, observed the same order: but if he named them otherwise, it is no argument to prove that he equalled james in authority with Peter: first because (as S. chrysostom (o) In cap. 1. ep. ad Gal. noteth) S. Paul (in that very Epistle) professeth himself to yield greater honour to Peter, and show more love to him, then to the rest, in saying, that he went up to Jerusalem, not for any of them, but for his sake alone. 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Peter above himself, and next unto Christ: I am Paul's, and I Apollo's, but I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 3. If it be true, that he named james before Peter, he did it not to equal them in authority, and much less to prefer james before Peter, but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which james received of the great grace given to Paul: for when he came the first time to Jerusalem to give the Apostles notice of his calling, and of the great fruit of his labours, he found none of them there but james. Put now the like case, and it will neither be ill manners, nor any derogation to the Pope's authority to name him after the Bishop of Colen, or of Milan. 4. Because it is certain, that in all other places of the new Testament, in which there is a Catalogue of all the Apostles in general, or of some in particular, Peter is still named in the first place: and if here (as you say) he is named before Peter, because he was Bishop of Jerusalem, it is no argument to prove him Superior or equal in authority to Peter. S. Bernard (q) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord. fragm. nameth Paul & Matthew before Peter, and yet in that very place expressly saith, that the Pastoral care of the whole Church was committed to Peter. And the sacred Expositors teach you the same lesson: for when a new Apostle was to be chosen in place of judas, S. chrysostom noteth (t) Hom. 3. in. Act. that albeit james was Bishop of Jerusalem, yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himself, but to Peter, & that therefore not he but Peter shown his authority in the carriage of that business. Behold (saith chrysostom) the modesty of james: He had received the office of Bishop of Jerusalem, and yet speaks ●ot a word, but yields the throne to Peter. And Oecu●●e ni●●: (s) Ad cap. 1. Act. james riseth n●●, out Peter, be being the man, to whom the government of the Disciples was committed. And chrysostom further declaring that the Episcopal authority which christ gave to Peter, was as fare above that of james, as the Bishop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bishop of one particular See. saith (t) Hom. vlt. in joan. : If any one demand how james obtained the See of Jerusalem, I answer, he was made by Peter, Master of the whole world: which difference between the authority of Peter and james, Euthymius (u) Ad c. 21. joan. hath also expressed in the same words. And no less S. Bernard, saying (x) L. 2. de considerate. c. 9 : The other Apostles obtained each of them their peculiar stocks, james contented with Jerusalem, yields the universality to Peter. I conclude therefore that if S. Paul once named james before Peter (which is yet doubtful) it is a non sequitur to collect from thence, that he held james superior or equal in authority to Peter. You show yourself to be one of those men of whom S. Peter (y) 1. Pet. 3.16. saith, that reading S. Paul's epistles, they deprave them, and the rest of the Scriptures, to their own perdition. Not unlike to this, is the argument you make (z) Pag. 62. fin. 63. to prove that S. Paul (forsooth) butteth and excopteth against Peter's authority, because he saith (a) Gal. 1.18. , I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and tarried with him 15. days; but other of the Apostles I saw none, save james the brother of our Lord. Your inference is, that Paul going up to stop the mouths of false Apostles, who objected that he had not sufficient commission to preach, as not having been authorized by the other Apostles, if the spirit of Popery had reigned in those days, his Adversaries might have replied, that Peter being the Vicar of Christ, and the Ordinary and universal Pastor of his Church, was alone sufficient, and All in All to authorise him, because the Governor of all others without exception. So you, but falsely and ignorantly: for Paul went not then to Jerusalem to have his Gospel approved, but only for honour's sake, to see and reverence Peter his Superior, as the expositors with one accord declare: Their words you have already heard. His journey to Jerusalem to vindicate his calling, and have his Gospel approved by S. Peter and the other Apostles, was 14. years after, when he took Barnabas & Titus with him, as in the second Chapter to the Galathians he declareth. But you are contented to confound the former journey with this: such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Pope's authority. SECT. V Privileges granted to other of the Apostles, and not to S. Peter, objected by Doctor Morton. TO the former objections you add others, concerning some privileges granted to other Apostles, and not to S. Peter; which I will briefly touch. The first is (c) Pag. 64. ; Peter gave not sentence in the Apostolical Synod, but james in his presence. This is an untruth, and such I have proved it to be. The second (e) Pag. 64. : Peter leaned not on Christ's breast, as john did. True; but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church, and Pastor of his flock; a far greater dignity, then to lean on his breast, and which implies john's subjection to him. The third is (f) Pag. 64. : Peter solicited john to ask a question of scorecy. He did so: but how ill advised you are, to object this against Peter's Primacy, the Fathers will inform you. Cassiodorus (g) L. de amicit. c. Quasi diceret, benefac. sint amici. : Surely our Lord preferred Peter before john, and bestowing the Princedom on Peter did not therefore withdraw his affection from the disciple whom he loved. He gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that he might open and shut heaven: to john he gave a facility of opening unto us the secrets of his breast. To Peter he gave the charge and government of his Church: to john the care and custody of his Mother. Peter durst not ask of our Lord, who was to betray him: john at Peter's instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in choir. S. chrysostom (h) Hom. vlt. in joan. : Why doth john mention his leaning on Christ's breast? Not without cause; but to show the confidence of Peter after his denial: for he that durst not then ask, but did is by another, after the charge of his brethren was given to him committeth is not to another, but himself asketh the Master; and john is silens. He speaks and shows his love to john etc. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter, and given him charge of the whole world, he being desirous to have john for his partner, and colleague, said; And this man, what? And as he not daring to ask at the last supper, did it by john; so now doth he the like for john, thinking that he was desirous to ask, but durst not. And again (i) Hom. 66. in Math. : Mark how this same john that lately made such demands, after wholly yields the primacy to Peter, and prefers him in all things before himself. S. Hierome (k) L. 1. advers. jovin. ; Among the twelve Apostles one is chosen, that a Head being appointed, occasion of Schism might be taken away. And declaring (l) Ibid. why the dignity of Head was not given to john, but to Peter, he yieldeth this reason, because Peter was the elder, and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a young man, whom he loved, he might seem to minister occasion of envy to the rest. That famous Emperor Leo surnamed The wise, having declared (m) Serm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors, and required of him the care of feeding his flock, as a return of his love, addeth: Peter knowing that to be a great Princedom, and how great strength it requireth, seeing john following whom jesus greatly loved, said; And this man, what? wilt thou have me to be placed as Head over the disciples, what then dost thou command him to do? Our Lord answered, as it were checking Peter: So I will have him to remain, till I come: what's that to thee? follow thou me, that is, follow me with this pastoral staff: and as whiles I was with you, I did keep you watching over you, as a Father, & as your Head & Master: so be thou in my place, & follow me with thy Princedom and power, confirming thy brethren; for I will have thee to be in my place: from whence it is, that Peter remaineth till this very day following Christ in his Successor. Theophilact (n) Ad c. vlt. joan. : Our Saviour speaking to Peter, saith: I deliver into thy hands the preaching of my Gospel and the whole world etc. I lead thee forth, to govern the world. And again (o) Ibid. : The government of the sheep is committed to Peter: and not only that; but he asketh, and is made a mediator for him, that was best beloved. So these Fathers. And if it be lawful to compare sacred things to profane, we may in this liken Christ, & these two Apostles, to Alexander, and his two friends, Craterus and Ephestion. Craterus loved Alexander as a King, looking to his public affairs, and honour: Ephestion loved his person, diligently procuring his health, and private well-doing: whereupon Alexander was wont to say, that Craterus loved the King; and Ephestion loved Alexander. So we may say, that john loved Christ, more than any other of the Apostles did, as the cause of his virginity, and author of his chaste love: but Peter loved him, as the Prince of Pastors, more than any other ever did. And in reward of this their love, Christ loved john, as a Virgin, that had dedicated his body and soul to him alone, and commended to him, as to a Virgin, the custody of his Virgin Mother: but he loved Peter in regard of his flock, which was to be fed, and governed upon earth: & in that respect, made him Universal Pastor and Governor thereof: which was a greater dignity, then to lean on Christ's breast, or to be the guardian of his Mother. The fourth objection is (p) Pag. 64. : Paul reprehended Peter to his face before all. This you had urged before (q) Pag. 61. as a principal Argument, to disprove S. Peter's superiority over S. Paul; but as unfortunately as the rest: for this reprehension was not of superiority, but of charity, as that of jethro (r) Exod. 18.14. to Moses; that of joab to king David (s) 2. Reg. 19.15. & seqq. ; and of S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius (t) L. 4. de considerate. : all which, as they stand well with the superiority of the persons reproved, to their reprovers; so doth this with the superiority of Peter, to Paul: yea the Fathers are so fare from arguing from hence any equality of jurisdiction between these two Apostles, that divers of them assume it, as an Argument, to prove that when there is just occasion, inferiors may with due charity and humility reprehend their Superiors. Paul (saith chrysostom (x) In cap. 2. ad Gal. reproves, & Peter hears, to the end that whiles the Master reproved holds his peace, the scholars may learn to change their opinion. S. Augustine: (y) Ep. 19 That which was done of S. Paul profitably, by the liberty of charity, Peter took in good part, by holy and benign godliness of humility: and thereby gave a more rare and holy example to posterity, if at any time they do amiss, not to disdain reproof from their inferiors, than Paul did in teaching the meaner to resist the greater with brotherly charity, for the defence of truth. And S. Gregory (z) Hom. 18. in Ezechiel. noteth, that Peter as he was chief in the Apostellship, so he shown himself to be chief in humility. All which discovereth your ignorance, in saying (a) Pag. 62. , that with all like circumstances of opposition, in true tenor of morality, one can hardly reprehend another, unless he be his equal. If you had been as skilful in Divinity, as you are diligent in laying hold of any shadow of occasion, to carp at S. Peter's authority; you would have known the lesson which S. Thomas and all Divines with him, (b) 2.2. q. 33. art. 4. teach, that there are two kinds of correction; the one of justice, the other of charity: the first belongeth only to Superiors, in respect of their subjects: the second, to all men: for as charity binds us to love all, so it binds us in due circumstances to use fraternal correction to all, even Superiors: and so Paul did to Peter. Finally so certain it is, that all antiquity believed S. Peter to be Superior in authority to S. Paul, that (as S. Hierome (c) Apud S. Aug. op. 11. noteth) blasphemous Porphyrius taxed S. Paul of petulancy, and pride, in reprehending his Superior: and that some to free him from that note, thought it was not Peter the Apostle whom he reprehended, but another of the Disciples, called Cephas. But you reply (d) Pag. 62. out of our interlineary Gloss, that Paul reprehended Peter, tanquam par, as being his equal. You mistake: for that note is not in the interlineary, but in the gloss of Lyra, and (as Gratian hath declared (e) 2. q. 7. Cap. Paulus. is to be understood of parity in the Apostleship, and in purity of life, and conversation, not of Ecclesiastical power, and jurisdiction: in which sense, S. Augustine (f) L. 2. de bapt. c. 1. writeth of S. Cyprian, that he was equal to S. Peter in his Martyrdom, but inferior in power. But you make a digression (g) Pag. 61. & 210. to tell us, of a notorious prerogative, which our Pope's challenge to themselves in their books of privileges authorized by themselves for their own licentiousness, saying: None presumeth to reprehend the Pope, except only in case he depart from the faith: no, not although otherwise he draw innumerable multitudes with himself into Hell. Of which privilege they can give no other ground, than their falsely pretended plenitude of Papal power: whereupon it is, that their Gloss affirmeth, that in disposing of prebend's, and such acts, there is none that dare say to the Peep, Sir, why do you so? These are your words, from which you take occasion to rail lustily against the Pope. And I ask you, Sir why do you so? For you cannot but remember, that in your hateful libel, set forth many years since under the title of, A discovery of Romish doctrine in the case of conspiracy & rebellion, you proposed this very objection, and that a learned Antagonist of yours (h) F. Persons. in his Treatise tending to mitigation, against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister, told you (i) Chap. 5. num. 54. , that many years before that time the same objection had been set forth in print, by Sir Francis Hastings, in his Watchword, and defence thereof, and stoutly avouched by Matthew Sutcliffe Minister, his Advocate and Proctor of that defence: and that the same objection was confuted at large by the Warn word, and so many lies, falsehoods, and frauds discovered therein, that the said Matthew Sutcliffe in his Reply entitled, A full and round answer, thought good to let it pass roundly, without any answer at all: & therefore your said Antagonist told you (as with reason he might) that he greatly marveled, with what conscience, or if not conscience, with what forehead at least, you could at that time write and print things, that you did know, or might have known, to be merely false, and forged. Is not this (saith he) a sign of obstinate wilfulness, & that neither God, nor truth is sought for by you, but only to maintain a part or faction, with what slight or falsehood soever? Having given you this admonition, though he remit you, or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction, yet he also briefly answereth (k) Ibid. num. 55.56.57.58. showing, 1. Your gross ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface, whereas it is gathered by Gratian, out of the say of S. Boniface an Englishman, that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany, and a holy Martyr. 2. Your fraud, in setting down the words of the Canon corruptly, both in Latin, and English, as by leaving out the beginning which showeth the drift of the Canon; and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said; and cutting of other words in the midst, to cover the pious meaning of S. Boniface. 3. Your falsehood in leaving out, and altering some words, and corruptly translating others, with a heap of falsities, as he rightly calleth them (l) Ibid. num. 57 marg. . Wherefore if he had just cause to marvel, with what conscience or forehead you could then repeat an objection so fully answered before; fare greater cause have I to marvel now, that after he hath again given you this second answer, and so fully discovered your fraud, you are not ashamed yet again to reiterate the same objection, without taking any notice of those errors, & wilful falsities, which that answerer laid to your charge. To him, and to the Warnword, I remit the reader. But because the gloss affirmeth the Pope to have plenitude of power in disposing of prebend's, and that none ought therein to say unto him, why do you so? You call this, the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes, to make themselves incontroulable in their mischiefs. A bold censure. King's have fullness of power to dispose of the temporal offices of their kingdoms, and none ought to say unto them, Why do you so? Will you therefore tell them, that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselves incontroulable in their mischiefs? No; why then do you give it that name, and censure in the Popes? You might have done well, to ask S. Bernard's opinion: He would have told you (m) Ep. 131. , that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogative given to the See Apostolic: That he which resisteth this power, resisteth the ordination of God: that he hath power, if he judge it profitable, to erect new Bishoprickes, where formerly they were not; and of those that are in being, to put down some and set up others, as reason shall dictate unto him; so that he may lawfully of Bishops, make Archbishops; and contrariwise, if it shall seem necessary: He can summon from the furthest parts of the earth, whatsoever Ecclesiastical persons of never so high degree, and compel them to appear before him, and this, not once, or twice, but as often as he shall find it expedient. This is the power which the gloss speaketh of: you call it the Height of all desperate presumption, whereby the Popes make themselves incontroulable in their mischiefs. S. Bernard holds it to be a power given him by Christ, and that whosoever refisteth it (as you do) resists the ordinance of God. Whether is it fit, that Christian men should believe S. Bernard, or you? especially since you acknowledge him to be a Saint, which he could not be, if he had erred in faith: nor will any wise man think, that in this point he was of any other belief, than all the holy Fathers of God's Church were, whose doctrine he knew, and understood better than you do. But not contenting yourself with censuring, & condemning Popes, you carp at the holy Martyr S. Boniface, (whom all Germany reverenceth as their Apostle) for teaching, that albeit the Pope should by his scandalous life draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell, yet no man may presume to correct him (to wit iuridically by punishing or deposing him, for that is the sense in which S. Boniface speaketh) unless he also departed from the faith. But you consider not the wrong which by thus carping at the Pope, you offer to all Christian Princes: for dare you say, that if an Emperor, a King or any other absolute Prince be of so scandalous a life, that by his example he lead thousands with him into Hell, he may therefore be deposed? Wherefore since you will hold it to be good doctrine, that albeit a temporal Prince, yea or many Princes living at the same time, should by their vicious lives, draw thousands with them into hell, none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically; why do you carp at us for defending the same of the Pope, who is but one at once? Your fifth objection is (n) Pag. 64. sin. 65. ; S. Paul alone writ to the Romans, not S. Peter. True; for when S. Peter writ his Epistles, he was at Rome, and had converted many of the Romans to Christ, and planted the Church among them, before S. Paul came theither, or writ his epistle to them. Again S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faithful, and in regard thereof you entitle them, General Epistles, and we, Catholic Epistles, a title, which is not given to those of S. Paul. Your sixth Objection is (o) Pag. 65. : It was not said of Peter's ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was, God hath given unto thee all them that sail with thee: and except those (to wit the Mariners) remain in the Ship, you cannot be saved. Among 28. famous privileges, which Bellarmine (p) Lib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24. showeth to have been granted to S. Peter, and not to S. Paul, nor to any other of the Apostles, you are content to conceal them all without making any mention of them, unless it be of two or three, to carp at them, as here you do at his ship, postposing it to that, in which S. Paul sailed, because in a dangerous tempest, God preserved the lives of all that were in the ship, for his sake. But in this, your dealing is no better, then in the rest: for the holy Doctors take the ship of Peter to be a type of the Catholic Church, out of which none can be saved eternally: which they say not of the ship, in which Paul sailed. When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth, going into the one, ship (q) Luc. 5.3. that was Simons, and sitting, he taught the multitude out of the ship; it was not without mystery, that of those two ships, Christ made choice of Peter's only to teach the people out of it: for (as S. Hilary saith) (r) Can. 13. in Math. the Church is the ship, in which the word of life is placed, and preached, and which they that are out of it, cannot understand, but lie like sand barren and unprofitable: and the preaching of God's word out of the ship of Simon in particucular, signifies, that Christ dwelleth in that society, which keeps the faith and communion of Peter, and makes his See the pastoral chair, from whence by Peter and his successors, he teacheth the doctrine of his Gospel. Our Lord (saith S. Ambrose) (s) Serm. 11. goeth only into that ship of the Church, of which Peter is Master, our Lord saying, Upon this rock I will build my Church. And then he addeth, that the Church of Peter is the Ark of None, to show that out of his Church none can be saved. Which Doctrine S. Hierome likewise delivereth, comparing the Roman Church to the Ark of None, out of which whosoever is, shall perish at the coming of the flood. Moreover howbeit other ships be tossed, yet (saith S. Ambrose) Peter's ship is not tossed: in her wisdom saileth, perfidiousness is absent, (t) L. 5. in c. 5. Luc. faith favoureth: for how cold that ship be tossed, of which he is Governor, that is the strength of the Church? And S. Bernard (u) L. 2. de consider. : The sea is the world; the ships, the Churches: From whence it is, that Peter walking on the waters like our Lord, shown himself to be the only Vicar of Christ, which was not to govern one nation, but all; for many waters are many people: and therefore whereas each of the others hath his peculiar ship, to thee (he speaks to Eugenius Pope S. Peter's successor) is committed that one mighty great ship made of them all, to wit the universal Church of the whole world. I conclude therefore, that the ship of S. Peter is the pastoral Chair, from whence the doctrine of Christ is to be learned by all, and the Ark of None, out of which none can be saved; and that therefore between his ship, and that in which S. Paul sailed; as also between the privileges granted to the one, and to the other, there is as much difference, as between the eternal salvation of all Gods elect, and the corporal life of a few Mariners, and passengers, that sailed with S. Paul. Your seaventh and principal Objection is (x) Pag. 65. : If S. Peter had written of himself, as S. Paul did of himself, saying: I have the care of all the Churches, this one would have seemed to you a firmer foundation, than the word, Rock, or any other of those Scriptures, whereby you labour to erect a Monarchy on S. Peter, and (by your consequence) upon the Pope over all Churches in the world. Answer. There are two kinds of solicitude, and care: one proceeding from the obligation of justice, the other merely out of the zeal of Charity. The supreme care which S. Peter had both of all Churches, and of their Pastors was of obligation of justice, because he had jurisdiction over them all, as being supreme Pastor over the whole flock of Christ: and therefore as the Pastor hath obligation of justice to govern his flock, and attend to the good thereof, so had S. Peter to attend to the good & government of the universal Church, and whatsoever persons thereof; which function was not committed to S. Paul, nor did Christ promise to build his Church on him, as he did on S. Peter: and therefore that care he had of the universal Church, proceeded from his great zeal of God's glory, and fervorous charity, which made him travel so much in the conversion of souls. SECT. VI What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church. YOu say, (y) Pag. 65. S. Paul had not by fare so great estimation of the Roman Church, as we would make the world believe. How prove you this? because (say you) Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians, (witness Eusebius (z) L. 2. c. 24. saith, that Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Corinth, and that of Rome. This then is your argument: Dionysius Bish. of Corinth saith; Peter and Paul founded the Churches of Corinth, and Rome: Ergo S. Paul had not by fare so great estimation of the Church of Rome, as we would make the world believe. A witless consequence: It is true, that we account it a great honour, and happiness for the Church of Rome, to have been founded by those two most glorious Princes of the Apostles: and so it was also to the Church of Corinth. But the Church of Rome was not only founded, but moreover ennobled by them: for (as Tertullian (a) L. de Praescr. c. 36. observeth) they poured into her all their doctrine, together with their blood, and enriched her with the inestimable treasure of their sacred bodies. But her chiefest dignity, and that which maketh her absolutely the Head and Mother of all Churches, is, that S. Peter the supreme Pastor and Governor of the universal Church fixed his seat at Rome, and ending his life there, left the same dignity to his successors: and they (as occasion required) ceased not to send their pastoral admonitions to the Corinthians: for when not long after S. Peter and Paul had founded a Church among them, they fell into errors and dissensions among themselves, S. Clement Pope successor to S. Peter, writ unto them (saith S. Irenaeus) (b) L. 3. c. 3. potentissimas literas, most effectual letters, reducing them to peace, and showing them the Doctrine, which they had newly received from the Apostles. And to the same purpose Soter Pope, not long after, writ also unto them. And that the Corinthians acknowledged these epistles of the Roman Church to be sent unto them, as from their Mother Church whose doctrine they were to embrace, and received them as such, appeareth in this, that (is Dionysius their Bishop, and Eusebius (c) L. 4. hist. c. 22. out of him testify) they held them in so great veneration, that they used to read them publicly in the Churches, for the instruction of the faithful. But this you could not see, or if you did see it, were willing to conceal it, as not being for your purpose. 2. Whereas we in commendation of the Roman faith and Church are wont to allege those words of S. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans (d) Rom. 1.8. : I give thanks to my God; through jesus Christ for all you, because your faith is renowned throughout the whole world; you say (e) Pag. 66. , that we upon this commendation of the faith of those Romans, use in a manner to triumph, as though that Encomium with the same faith were hereditary to that Church, or as if at that day, Catholic, and Roman, had been all one. If in this testimony of S. Paul we triumph, and hold the Catholic faith, and the Roman faith, to be all one, and hereditary to the Church of Rome, we do therein nothing more, than what the most holy and learned Doctors of God's Church from time to time have done. And as out of this passage of S. Paul we show you, that the faith of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles time, so we require of you (as S. Augustine (f) L. de. unto. Eccles. c. 12. & 13. did of the Donatists) to show us out of Scripture, that after 600. years she was to fall from the true faith, as you pretend her to have done. Let them (saith S. Augustine) read us this in the Scripture, and we yield: but if they read not this in the Scripture, but seek to persuade it by their contentions wrangling, I believe those things which are read in the holy Scriptures, but I believe not those which are affirmed by vain heretics. And in requiring this at your hands, we require no other prose for the truth of your Protestant Church & faith, but what we are able to show for ours: for that the Roman Church cannot err in saith I have already proved (g) Hoc cap. sect. 1. & 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers, which therefore convince her to be the true Catholic Church, in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for ever (h) joan. 14.16. And that the Catholic Church, & the Roman Church, are terms convertible denoting one and the same thing, hath also been proved (i) Above Chap. 1. sect. 3. . But because you seem to think, that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be proved, that the faith which S. Peter delivered to the Romans, is hereditary to the Church of Rome, or that the Catholic faith, and the Romen faith are all one, it will not be amiss to let you hear, what the ancient Fathers (the best interpreters of Scripture) have believed in this point. That holy and renowned Martyr S. Cyprian (k) L. 1. ep. 3. out of this text proveth, that the Roman Church cannot fall from that faith which she once received. They (to wit the Novatian heretics) having set up a false Bishop presume to carry letters from Schismatics, and heretics, to the chair of Peter, and the principal Church, from whence Sacerdotal unity is derived, not considering, that the Romans are they whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom unfaithfulness, can have no access. If unfaithfulness can have no access to the Roman Church, it followeth that she retaineth still the same faith, which was commended by S. Paul, and that whosoever believeth at this day as she believes, is free from all error in faith. The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Father, who writing to Cornelius Pope, and divers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of Decius, and praising their constancy and faith, saith (l) Ep. 57 : It was foreseen in spirit, and prophetically foretold by the Apostle: My dearest brethren whiles you are of one hart, and one voice, it is the confession of all the Roman Church; that faith hath shined in you which the Apostle praised. He did even then foresee in spirit, this praise of your virtue, and strength of your constancy, and by prediction of future things gave testimony of your deserts, and comm●nding the parents, encouraged their Children. With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome: When (saith he to Demetrias) (m) Ep. 8. thou wast little, and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory governed the Roman Church, a cruel tempest of heretics risen out of the Eastern parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that faith, which had been commended by the mouth of the Apostle: but this personage (Pope Anastasius) rich in a most plentiful poverty, and in an Apostolical care, broke the pestilent head, and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra. And because I fear, yea have heard say, that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liu●, and spring up in some, I thought it my duty, to admonish thee in a devout zeal of Charity, that thou keep fast the faith of S. Innocentius his son, and successor in the Apostolical chair. And writing to Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria (n) Ep. 68 : Know, that we have nothing in greater recommendation, then to conserve the statutes of Christ, and not to transgress the bounds of our Fathers, and always to have in mind the Roman faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle, whereof the Church of Alexandria glories to partake. And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholic faith (o) Lib. 1. Apol. advers. Ruffin. : Know thou, that the Roman faith commended by the Apostle, receives not such delusions: though an Angel should denounce otherwise then it hath bene once preached, it cannot be altered, being fenced by Paul's authority. If therefore S. Hierome be to be credited, the Roman faith in his time was conserved pure, as it was preached, and cannot be altered, as you pretend it to have been since that tyme. And therefore, as it were speaking to you (p) Ep. 6. ad Pammach. & Ocean. he further saith: Whoever thou art, that avouchest new sects, I pray thee have respect to the Roman ears, spare the faith which was commended by the voice of the Apostle. And to Paula and Eustochium (q) Proem. lib: Comment. in ep. ad Galat. : Will you know, how the Apostle hath noted every province with their proprieties? the faith of the people of Rome is praised; where is so great concourse to Churches, and to Martyr's sepulchres etc. Not that the Romans have any other faith than the rest of the christian Churches, but that in them there is more devotion, and simplicity of faith. To which place of S. Hierome the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas alluding, saith (r) In vers. 8. cap. 1. ad Rom. : The Romans are commended for their faith, because they received it easily, and persevered in it constantly: from whence it is, that to this day are showed very many signs of their faith in the visitation of holy places, as S. Hierome saith upon the Epistle to the Galathians. And a little after: The Apostle rejoiceth, and giveth thanks to God for their faith, not only for their sake, but for the profit that followed thereof, because they being Lords of nations, other countries' were moved to believe by their example: for as the Gloss saith; 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 Archheretic (s) L. 2. de peccat. orig. count. Pelag. c. 8. , saith: He deceived the Palestine Council, and therefore seemeth to have been absolved there. But he was not able to deceive the Roman Church, (though be endeavoured, to do is) because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to mind what opinion (Innocentius) his predecessor worthy to be imitated, had of his proceeding: and be considered likewise, what judgement the faith of the Romans worthy of praise in our Lord did make of him: for he perceived them with united endeavours to strive earnestly against his error for the Catholic truth. The reason therefore why Pelagius after he had deceived the Council of Palestine, endeavoured also to deceive the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his faith sent to Innocentius Pope, was, because it was the constant belief of all Christians in those days, that the Roman Church as being heir of the faith commended by S. Paul, could not approve any doctrine, but what was truly orthodoxal and Catholic, as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth, saying: (t) In fin. Symb. ad D●●●. apud Hieron. to 4. & Baron. anno 417 This (o most blessed Pope) is the faith which I have learned in the Catholic Church, and which I have always held, and do bold. Wherein if I have said any thing ignorantly, or unwarily. I desire to be corrected by you, that hold the faith and chair of Peter. If this my confession be approved by the judgement of your Apostleship, whosoever lays an aspersion on me, shall show himself to be ignorant, or malicious, or else not to be a Catholic; but he shall not prove me to be an heretic. With this profession Pelagius sought to deceive the Roman Church, but could not, because Zozimus (saith S. Augustine (u) Proximè cit. considered what judgement the faith of the Romans commended by the Apostle, had made of him in the time of (Innocentius) his predecessor. For which cause Procopius truly said (x) L. 1. de bello Goth. : If ever any, surely the Romans chief are they that have had the Christian faith in veneration. I conclude therefore, that (if the holy Fathers have understood the Scriptures aright) the faith of the Roman Church is proved to be infallible, not only by the Scriptures formerly alleged (y) Supra hoc ●ap. , but by this very passage of the Apostle. Nor do Tolet, or Sà, whom here you object (z) Pag. 66. , say aught to the contrary: for if they observe, that when the Apostle saith to the Romans, your faith is published every where, it is an hyperbole (because the sense is not, that the faith which they believed, was then actually preached throughout the whole world, but that is was a thing known, and published throughout the whole world, that they had believed) they say nothing, but what is true: for the Apostle could not say, that the Roman faith which was the faith of Christ, was then actually preached in all parts of the world, as neither it is yet at this day; but that it was publicly known throughout all the world that the Romans had received the faith of Christ, because in common speech and moral reputation, that which is diffused over a great part of the world, and famously known, is said to be every where. And this public fame was of great moment for the conversion of other nations: for Rome being the Head of the world, whither all sorts of people under that vast Empire had recourse for discharge of their tributes, and accounts of their offices, they could not but have knowledge that the Romans believed in Christ. And (as Tolet noteth out of S. chrysostom, but you to detract from the Romans what praise you can, conceal it) this public same and knowledge of their belief, was an example and a great motive for other nations to receive the faith of Christ. Now, whereas you add (a) Pag. 60. , It is an objection now a days breathed into the mouth of every vulgar Papist, that at that day, Catholic, and Roman were all one, the testimonies of antiquity which I have formerly brought in proof thereof, show that none but he, which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiastical history, can be ignorant of so certain a truth. Wherefore you speak untruly, when you say, it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a parallel of the like, if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle. 1. Thessaly. 1.2. We give thanks always to God for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, remembering without ceasing your work of faith. And again. v. 8. From you (saith he) sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to Godward is spread abroad etc. This is your parallel, which is easily disparalelled: for as Baronius observeth (c) Anno 58. out of S. chrysostom, the Romans being Head of the world, their faith was a forcible motive to bring other nations to believe in Christ. And therefore S. Leo (d) Serm. 1. in Nat. Apost. Pet. & Paul. had reason to say, that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, not by humane counsel, but by divine ordination came from Antioch to Rome, to preach the Gospel and fix his chair in that City, that so the chief seat of religion might be, where the Head of superstition had been: and that the faith from thence as from the top of the Empire might be diffused throughout the world. And S. Anselme (e) ●n c. 1. ad Rom. that, S. Paulgiving thanks to God for the faith of the Romans, saith: I give thanks to God for all the faithful, & in the first place for all you, because you are the chiefest, the Roman Church having the primacy among all Churches. And whereas the Apostle saith, The faith of the Romans is published throughout the whole world, the same S. Anselme noteth (f) In c. 1. ad Thessaly. , that he saith not so to the Thessalonians, but, You are made a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia: and from you the word of our Lord was bruited not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in ●uery place, that is (saith he) in every place near to you. And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their faith and the profit that redounded thereby to others, were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians, as fare as the whole world (over which the conversion of Rome was quickly spread) exceedeth Macedonia & Achaia, with a few bordering Provinces, which only had notice of the Thessalonians. And therefore S. Paul giveth a further praise to the Romans (g) Rom. 15.15. : I am assured of you, that you are also full of love, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another. And again (h) Rom. 16.19. : Your obedience is published into every place: none of which praises he gave to the Thessalonians. But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Roman Church, because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Paul's epistles hath the first place, you preoccupate this objection, telling us (i) Pag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans. Be it so: but we advertise you with S. Anselme (k) Praefat. in ep. ad Rom. . It is to be believed, that they which collected S. Paul's epistles into one body, judged that the epistle to the Romans ought to have the first place, because it was addressed to that City which was then Head of the whole world, and because the Roman Church still until this day hath the sovereignty of all Churches. And in his commentary of the eight verse of the first Chapter, Here again (saith he) it is manifest, that the epistle to the Romans ought to be placed first, because the Romans among all the faithful are the chiefest, & because the Roman Church hath the sovereignty among all Churches. SECT. VII. Why S. Paul did not entitle his Epistles, Catholic Epistles. THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath given sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Roman Church above all others, is a thing manifest, if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the judges. Them you must give us leave to follow, and forsake you, fight against S. Paul and them. Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more: The first is (l) Pag. ●●. , that whereas the epistles of S. james, Peter, jude, and john are entitled Catholic epistler, if S. Paul had been possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome, he would have entitled the Church of Rome, the Catholic Church, and at least inscribed his epistle▪ Catholic. The second is (m) Ibid. , that he giveth not to the Roman Church so much as the title of a Church, which yet in his prefaces to the Corinthians, Galathi●ns, and Thessalonians he gives to those Churches. To the first I answer, that the Apostles themselves did not give to any of their epistles the name of Catholic epistles. That title is prefixed to the epistles of james, Peter, john, & jude by the Church for divers reasons, which you may read in Salmeron (n) Disp. 1. in Ep. S. jacobi. and chief because (as S. Augustine (o) De fide & oper. c. 14. witnesseth) they were written against the heresy of Simon Magus, defending justification by only faith, wherein Protestant's are his heirs. And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good works, and the keeping of God's Commandments, and show that faith without charity is dead and fruitless. And for the same cause S. john (p) Ep. 1. vers. 24. & 27. admonisheth the faithful, to abide in that Doctrine which they have heard from the beginning, because many seducers are gone out into the world. And S. jude (q) Vers. 4.8. & seqq. exhorteth them to stand to their old faith, showing them by examples, that it is damnable not to be constant in it. To your second Argument I might answer with 8. chrysostom, that they which were but a small number newly converted, and weak, 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 unto them. For this reason I say, that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, by the name of a Church in express words, so neither did he the Romans, but only virtually and implicitly, saying (r) Rom. 1.7. To all that are at Rome the beloved 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 proveth, and you contradicting yourself acknowledge, saying: (t) Pag. 7●. sin. S. Paul to show 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 beloved of God, called Saints. But because you mention Salmerons solution, I will give the reader notice, how foully you abuse and fallify him. He gives three solutions to this Argument. The first, he most approveth; and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader, that he gives not three, but only the two later: and therefore whereas he gins the second thus: Posset secundò commode dici, you leave out fecundo that this may seem not to be his second solution, but his first: and to the same end you say, allata alia solutione, ad hunc redit, that having brought another solution he returns to this, saying, but the first solution in my judgement is more so●de, which words contain a most notorious falsification: for he returns not to this, which you make the first, by leaving out secundò, but to the first of the three, which you never mention. And whereas he saith, that the first solution is in his judgement the more , you by falsifying, apply this his saying to the second; against which because you can make a shift to cavil, you would have your reader think it is Salmerons first solution, and that he thought it to be the most of all the three. But of what import to your cause is this juggling? Marry, that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth the factions that were then in Rome between the jews and Gentiles, you may infer, that S. Paul did think Rome to be (as other Churches) subject to the alteration of Schisms and factions: and in proof thereof you say, (u) Pag. 69. that, not only our Professors among themselves, but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into divers Schisms, and factions etc. One of our devout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schisms to have been twenty; an other accounting the continuance of one of them to have endured fifty years. Our Devout Doctor whom you mention to prove that there hath been twenty schisms in the Roman Church, is Stapleton. The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth book, De princip. Doctrine. Cap. 15. whereas in that work he hath but twelve books in all. But be it, that there have ben twenty Schisms in the Roman Church: Schism is not a sin against faith, but against Charity. If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church have broken the bond of charity, was it therefore lawful for you to renounce the faith of the Roman Church? If Schisms be a lawful cause of departure, who can stay in your Protestant congregation, divided & subdivided into Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, Brownists and a thousand other Sects under these? new ones daily arising among you, as Separatists and Socinians, all which are divided not only in point of charity, but in the very substance of faith. And surely you are ill advised to object the Schisms of the Roman Church in justification of your departure from her: for since (as our Authors have advertised) nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors, nor the Goths and Vandals, nor the Turk, 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 Schisms and divisions between the lawful Popes and Antipopes, nor the manifold difficulties & dangers in their elections, nor the great vices which have been noted in some of their persons, nor any scandal, have had power to overthrew the Roman Church, as they have done the Churches of the East, and many of the West; it is a manifest sign (& so much the more evident, the greater the persecutions, and the more and longer the schisms have been) that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrew. SECT. VIII. Other Arguments out of S. Paul, and other Catholic Authors answered. S. Paul writing to the Romans saith (x) Rom. 1.13. : I have often purposed to come unto you that I may have some fruit in you, as also in the other Gentiles. Tolet (y) in eum loc. Annot. 22. upon these words observeth that the Gospel is indifferent to all, and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent than other nations, and had the primacy, yet in preaching of the Gospel and business belonging to salvation, the Apostle equalleth others with them. These words of Tolet you object (z) Pag 70. but to what end I know not: for Tolet declareth the reason why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ, and procuring their salvation, to be, because, as Christ found all sinners and died for all; so he calleth all, and receiveth them from whence soever they come. If you had set down these words of Tolet, you had discovered, that to infer either from his, or S. Paul's words, the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of jurisdiction, is a senseless illation: for by the same consequence you may infer, that all Diocesans in spiritual jurisdiction are equal with their Bishops, and all subjects in temporal power with their Princes, because Christ having shed his blood equally for all, the souls of all are equally dear to him, and their salvation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Gospel to all aswell to the least, as to the greatest, to the poorest, as to the richest. 2. No less impertinently you object other words of the same Apostle (a) Rom. 11.19. in which (as you confess) he exhorteth not the Romans in particular, but all the converted Gentiles in general, not to be overwise, but to fear, lest they also be broken off by infidelity, as the jews were. For these words show, that no man hath certainty of faith that he shall be saved, as Protestants vainly presume themselves to have, but that all aught to live in fear, lest they fall into infidelity, or other sins: which fear the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to have, as well as other nations. But to infer from thence, that the Bishop of Rome may teach heretical Doctrine ex Cathedra, or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the faith (which is the point in controversy) nether is it S. Paul's meaning, nor any Interpreter ever expounded so. 3. As little to your purpose it is, that S. Paul saith (b) Rom. 1.11. to the Romans, I desire to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace to confirm you: for thereby, as S. Hierome (or whosoever is the author of those Commentaries) Theodoret, S. chrysostom and S. Thomas expound (c) In eum locum. , he showeth that they had received the faith already from S. Peter: Because (saith Theodoret) the great Peter had already declared to them the Evangelicall Doctrine, therefore S. Paul necessarily adds, To confirm you. And S. Hierome: Paul saith, he will confirm the Romans already belleeving: not that they had not received the faith by the preaching of Peter, but that their faith might be strengthened by the witness and doctrine of two Apostles. Wherefore S. Paul desired to see them to confirm them, that is (as he himself declareth) to the end both he & they might receive mutual comfort from each other; they by his faith, and he by theirs. What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter, or of the Roman Church? 4. You object (d) Pag. 72▪ Bellarmine, confessing that S. Peter & Paul were Co-sounders of the Roman Church. He doth so; & it is true: but yet so, that S. Peter first planted that Church, & S. Paul came not to Rome till many years after, to assist him: for which cause the conversion of the Romans and the planting of Christian religion there, is absolutely attributed to S. Peter. Our will is (say the godly Emperors Theodosius and Gratian) (e) Cod. tit. 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Empire of our clemency, shall live in the same religion which the divine Apostle Peter gave to the Romans, as the religion insinuated by him until this present witnesseth, and which it is manifest, that the high Priest Damasus followeth. Wherefore when Bellarmine saith, that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church, he saith it not to equal them in the foundation, and much less in authority: for in that very place (f) L. 1. de Pout. c. 27. he learnedly proveth that in authority S. Peter fare exceeded S. Paul. 5. You object (g) Pag. 72. out of Lorinus, that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome. True: but S. Paul's Episcopal authority was only transient: he had no Episcopal Chair at Rome, as S. Peter had: and therefore Lorinus saith, that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense, then because he exercised the Episcopal functions there, as he might do in any other place of the world. This explication contents you not: and therefore you say (h) Pag. 72. marg. , it is confuted in the next testimony, and in the Challenge following: but you break promise; for there you nether confute it, nor mention it. And as for the thing itself, it is manifest: for no man ever said that S. Paul had an Episcopal Chair at Rome, as S. Peter had: no do S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Optatus, S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius (whom you object,) making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their time, nor any other writers, reckon S. Paul as one of them. 6. You object (i) Pag. 72. , that, the authority of both is cited in the Pope's Breves for confirmation of Papal ordinances: that both have their images engraven in the Pope's bulls, and that in such sort, that Paul sometime hath the right hand of Peter, as well as other while Peter of Paul. You often borrow arguments out of Catholic authors, and conceal their answers. This you borrowed out of Bellarmine. (k) L. 1. de Po●t. c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth, giving three different solutions unto it: To him I remit the Reader. Only I will tell you, that the words which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his, but your own: for though he prove out of Scripture, & out of a place of Virgil, that apud homines, among men the right hand is the better and more honourable, yet he saith not, that it is so among all people saving the Persians (as you by adding to his words this particle, All, make him to say:) for he acknowledgeth, and Bellarmine out of Eusebius & Nebrissensis proveth the like by examples of other nations. And to what he saith, I add the reason, which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient writer that lived 400. years since, yieldeth, (l) De Potest. Ecclesiact. c. 7. art. ● why S. Paul in the Pope's bulls is sometimes placed on the right hand of S. Peter. S. Paul (saith he) was less than Peter, greater than Peter, and equal to Peter. He was equal to Peter in the office of preaching: less than Peter in Ecclesiastical power, for Peter alone was Cephas, that is, Head of the whole Church: but he was greater than Peter in the prerogative of his election to the Apostleship, for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection, & glorification: & for this cause Paul in the Pope's bulls is placed on the right hand, & Peter on the left. So he. Having now answered the arguments which hitherto you have brought out of S. Paul's epistles, and shown that by alleging them, you convince your own Doctrine of falsehood, and prove ours; I must crave pardon, if I ask you a question concerning his Epistle to the Romans, which Optatus asked the Donatists concerning some other of his epistles, and S. Augustine concerning them all. How dare you (saith Optatus) (m) L. ●. count. Parmen. read S. Paul's epistle to the Romans, in whose communion you are not? You (saith S. Augustine) (n) L. 2. de Baptism. c. 6. that have it, and read it, and say that you live according to it, why do you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent? Answer, why have you separated yourselves & c? Choose which you will: If then (that is when Donatus, when Luther, when Caluin began) the Roman Church was polluted with errors, it was perished: for a Church that holds false, pernicious, schismatical, heretical, blasphemous and Antichristian Doctrine (with which you often charge the Roman Church) cannot be a true Church of Christ, but a Synagogue of Satan: from whence then had Donatus (Luther or Caluin) his beginning? where was he Cathechized? where baptised? where ordained? I conclude therefore as Optatus did against the Donatists, Know, that you are cut of from the holy Church. And I say to you as S. Augustine did to them (p) L. de unit. Eccles. c. 12. : You have the epistle to the Romans but we read it, and believe it, and have the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieve (with him (p) Psal. count. part. Donati. to see you lie cut of, she being that Rock which the proud gates of hell overcome not. CHAP. XIII. Whether S. john the Evangelist conceived himself subject to the Roman Church. YOUR Tenet is (r) Pag. 73. , that S. john's faith did not conceive the Article of subjection to the Roman Church. In proof thereof you assume, that in his book of Revelation, he revealeth the City of Rome to be Babylon, & that Autichrist shall have his seat there: which though it were granted, yet I see not, which way it followeth, that. john did not acknowledge himself subject to S. Peter, or ●o his Successors in the Church of Rome. But let us examine the particulars of your Doctrine and proofs. SECT. I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist. THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Revelation (say you (s) Ibid. is the gener all consent of our own jesuits and other Divines. But in prose hereof you can find no other jesuits, nor Divines to allege, but Ribera, Viegas and the Rhemists, whom you abuse and falsify to make them serve your turn, as I shall now declare. The Rhemists (say you) (t) Pag. 74. do thus fare grant▪ as to say: The great Antichrist shall have his seat at Rome as it may well be, though others think that Jerusalem rather shall be his principal soat. But your jesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and public professors do confidently aver the contrary: and the one is so bold as to hold him to be a most notable fool that shall deny it. But good Sir, by your leave, this is a most notable untruth. That which Ribera saith, is, that towards the end of the world, Rome shall be burned, not only for her former sins of Idolatry, and persecuting of Christ, under the Pagan Emperors, but also for other sins, that in the end of the world she shall commit under Pagan Kings: and that this is so certain out of the Apocalypse, that no man, though never so foolish, can deny it. This Ribera saith: and it may well be said, that he who out of these words of Ribera inferreth (as you do) that the City of Rome is to be the seat of Antichrist, or that Ribera saith so, is, I will not say, a notable fool, but whether he deserve not that name, I leave to the reader's censure. The Doctrine of Ribera, Viegas, & the Rhemists is, that when S. john calleth Rome, Babylon, he neither speaketh of the Church, or Pope of Rome, nor yet of the City of Rome, as she is under the government of Christian Emperors, or in obedience of the See Apostolic: for in that estate, the hath (saith S. Hierome) (u) L 2. cont. lovin. wiped out the blasphemies written in her forehead, by the confession of Christ. In that estate (x) Ep. 17. ad Marcell. , there is in Rome the holy Church, there are the triumphant Monuments of Apostles, and Martyrs, there is the true confession of Christ, there is the faith praised by the Apostle, and gentility trodden under foot, the name of Christ daily advancing itself on high. Wherefore when S. john calleth Rome. Babylon, Ribera, Viegas, and the Rhemists, with the ancient Fathers expound him to give her that name, as she was the head of Paganism, the mother of superstition, and Idolatry, and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome, (being drunk with the blood of the Saints, & Martyrs of Christ jesus (*) Apoc. 17.6. as she did under Nero, and Domitian, in S. john's time, & afterwards under other Pagan Emperors, when she put to death thirty Popes successively, one after another; and as she shall do again in the end of the world: for both Ribera and Viegas hold, that the City of Rome shall then fall from the obedience of the See Apostolic, and from the faith of Christ: and that as well for her enormous sins anciently committed under the heathen Emperors, as also for other like, which in the end of the world she shall commit under heathenish Kings, she shall be burns and consumed with fire. But that Rome even then under pagans Emperors, was, or hereafter under Heathenish Kings, shall be the seat of Antichrist, neither Ribera, nor Viegas affirm, nor any way insinuate, as it may appear out of their words, which you here set down in Latin (y) Pag. 74. marg. : for those words, Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera, are not his, but foisted in by yourself, to Father on him your own fiction. And therefore whereas here, & else where often (z) Pag. 377. 378. & alibi. you affirm peremptorily out of Ribera, and take it as a truth granted by him and us, that Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist, you pass the limits of truth; for Ribera most expressly affirmeth (*) Adcap. 11. Apoc. n. 20. sin. & 21. init. that Antichrist shall have his Court in Jerusalem & reign there; and that the jews shall receive and honour him as their Messiah. And the same is the most common and received opinion as well of our modern Divines, as of the Ancient Fathers. Hippolytus Martyr, Lactantius, S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, Sedulius, S. Damascen, Arethas, Severus Sulpitius, S. Gregory of Tours. Venerable Bede, Haymo, and S. Thomas related by Suarez (a) Defence. sid. l. 5. c. 16. , Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Pont. c. 13. and Sanders (c) Visib. Monarch. l. 8. c. 26. , that Antichrist shall not have his seat at Rome, but at Jerusalem. And if the Rhemists say, it may be that he shall have his seat at Rome, withal they rightly observe that, whosoever opposeth the Roman Church, or believeth otherwise then she teacheth, belongs not to Christ, but is an Heretic, & a member of Antichrist, And the same was the belief of the most learned Doctors of God's Church. S. Hierome (d) Ep. 57 : I know the See of Rome to be the Rock on which the Church is built. And speaking to Damasus Pope (e) Ibid. : Whosoever gathereth not with thee, scattereth, and is not of Christ but of Antichrist. And before him S. Cyprian (f) L. 1. ep. 8. had said: He that gathereth out of the Church and chair built upon Peter, scattereth. Optatus: (g) L. 2. cont. Parmen. that whosoever opposeth the Episcopal chair of Rome built upon Peter, is a Schismatic and a sinner. S. Leo (i) Ep. 75. : that whosoever presumeth to oppose the Roman Church built by the voice of our Saviour upon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as upon a Rock is either Antichrist, or a Devil. S. Maximus a famous Martyr, & the greatest Divine of his age (k) Epist. ad Marin. Dive. ; that they which speak against the Church of Rome, are heretics that with unbridled mouths breathe out iniquity against heaven. S. Bernard (l) Ep. ad Hildebert. Arch. Turon. ; that, they which be of God, are united with the Pope, and he that stands but against him, either belongs to Antichrist, or is Antichrist himself. By these testimonies it appears first: how great reason the Rhemists, Ribera, and Viegas had to admonish you, that this Prophecy of S. john, though (in their opinion) it point out the destruction of the City of Rome for her Idolatry under the Pagan Emperors, and for the Apostasy from the faith under other wicked kings in the end of the world, when she shall return to her ancient greatness; yet it aimeth not at the Church of Rome, or Bishop thereof, because that Apostasy shall be from the faith of that Church, and from the Bishop thereof. 2. And since you confess (m) Pag. 75. that these Authors admonish their readers here of again and again, thereby you convince yourself of folly: for this your argument out of the Apocalypse against the Bishop and Church of Rome is wholly grounded on their exposition & testimony, which being so manifestly against you, what man but yourself would have produced them, or (which is all one) S. john as expounded by them, for witnesses against the Roman Church? Or with what conscience could you say here (n) Pag. 74. & afterwards again so boldly repeat (o) Pag. 377. 378. , as their Doctrine, that Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist, since Ribera (from whom Viegas dissententh not) most expressly teacheth that Jerusalem shall be his seat, and that he shall reign there? Is not this a most wilful falsification? 3. And from hence the reader may learn how fraudulently you remit us to the testimonies of Ribera & Viegas in their exposition of this text of S. john, to prove a necessity of your departure from the Church of Rome; since they condemn you as an heretic, and the holy Fathers pronounce you to be a member of Antichrist for it. The departure which S. john speaketh of, is not from the Church of Rome, but from the idolatry and vices which in his time reigned in the City of Rome, and shall reign in her again in the end of the world. And this departure is not to be made so much by local motion, as by steps of faith, that is, by not communicating with her in her wickedness. And therefore notwithstanding that admonition of S. john, Go out of Babylon my people, the faithful in his time did not leave the City of Rome, but still remained there, departing from her idolatry, and other Vices. But you ask (p) Pag. 76. 77. ; If the destruction of Babylon mentioned in the revelation point only at the City, and not at the Church, or Bishop of Rome, how can the Pope at that time still remain Bishop of Rome, when he and all Christian people are departed out of the City, and the City itself is utterly extinct? for then to be called Bishop of Rome (say you) is but a man in the moon, and, Titulus sine re. I answer, though at that time the City of Rome shall be consumed with fire; yet the Church of Rome shall not, for you (*) Pag. 76. confess, that the Church rather consisteth in the Professors, then in the place: and therefore whiles the faythfulll Professors of the Roman Church, yea of Rome itself, with their Bishop shall remain, which shallbe till the end of the world (though not in the City after it is destroyed,) the Church of Rome shall still remain according to your own Principle, and chief according to the oracle of Christ, That the gates of Hell shall never prevail against her. Suppose (which God forbidden) Turk's and Infidels should take from you the City of Durham; or that the same should be consumed by fire into ashes, the whole multitude of your good & godly Christians escaping away with yourself, living, and being by you fed in some corner of your Diocese; in this case would you say, the Church of Durham should be extinct? the Bishop of Durham become Titulus sine re? Should the superintendent of Durham, be changed into the man in the Moon? The City of Rome, as Ribera (q) Ribera in Apocal c. 1●. n. 47. Pontificem cum multitudine Sanctorum eijcient. Nam multi viri boni, ex has potissimùm Civitate, ●iecto Pontifici adhaerebunt. holds, shall towards the end of the world fall from the Christian faith and obedience of her Bishop; not that all the people of Rome shall fall away, for a great multitude of good Christians, and Saints shall remain constant, and adhere to the Pope, and departed with him out of the City; yea the City itself (their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it) shall be consumed with fire before the reign of Antichrist, or in the very beginning thereof, as (r) Riber a cap. 17 n. 20. in verse 16. Ex hoc, quod nunc ait Apostolus, intelligitur Roman evertendam 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 than the Bishop of Canterbury should, in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes? Will you say upon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moon, the shepherd of Utopia, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? You might have learned from Cusanus (t) Epist. 2. ad Bohemos. (whom you cite often, and highly commend) that if by any accident the City of Rome should fail, the truth of the Church shall remain there, where the Principality, and seat of Peter shallbe. Nor is your example of the Emperor of Rome (u) Pag. 77. any help to your Argument: For albeit the Roman Empire be now in part decayed, or weakened, in respect of that power and greatness, which anciently it had; yet it still remaineth so, that the name & succession of the Roman Emperors at this day is famous in the world: else why did our late Sovereign King james inscribe his Monitory Prefation, Sacratissimo, atque invictissimo Principi ac Domino, Rodulpho secundo Romanorum Imperatori, semper Augusto etc. And why else doth the Church of Rome in her Office (x) In die Parasceves & Sabbatho Sancto. , pray for the Roman Emperor? Nor the Authors which you allege for the contrary, do say aught else, though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise: for whereas he speaking of the Roman Empire, as it anciently was, saith, Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu eversum est, that Empire of Rome (to wit, with that ancient splendour, majesty, and power, which once it had) is long since destroyed; you leave out illud, and make him say absolutely, The Roman Empire is long since destroyed, whereas in the words next following, he expressly 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 mind, of your weak manner of arguing throughout all this Section: for how doth it follow, that because Ribera and Viegas hold, that Babylon, out of which the faithful are commanded to departed, is the City of Rome, as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world, you may now lawfully revolt from the Church of Rome? Again, who obligeth me to allow of their exposition? I might retort your Argument upon yourself, and tell you, that Babylon signifies not Rome, but Geneva; and prove it by the testimony of Castalio, a prime brother of yours, who lived there, and was a special friend of Beza. They (saith he speaking of the Genevian brethren) (y) Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud, puffed up with glory, and revenge: We may with less danger offend Princes, then exasperated these fiery Caluinists: their life is infamous, and villainous: they are Masters of art in reproaches lies, cruelty, treachery, and insufferable arrogancy. They name their Geneva, The holy City; and their assembly, Jerusalem: but in very truth we should call it, O Babylon, Babylon; O infamous Sodom, and children of Gomorrha. If you like not this exposition, yet I know no reason, why if you will believe Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalypse to be Rome you may not as well believe 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 understand not Rome, but the society of all the wicked in general, from whose vices the faithful are commanded to departed (c) S. August. Brevic. Collat. collat. 3. . Others understand Paganism, which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods, is rightly named Babylon, that signifies Confusion; others Mahometism, the mother of fornication, and all filthiness. Others, Constantinople, the Metropolitan of Turkism. And others, the chief 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) Defence. 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 allegorical, afford no solid foundation to build matter of faith upon, but are merely conjectural. And therefore if S. August. say (g) Ep. 48. , Who dares with an unbridled licence produce for himself, that which is couched in an allegory, unless he have places more clear by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure, we may with just reason reprove you, for grounding your departure from the Roman Church upon the allegorical sense of those words of the Apocalypse, 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 understood the Church of Rome, but the City, & that not as it is Christian, but as it was idolatrous in S. john's time, and shallbe again in the end of the world. But any thing will serve your turn, be it true or false, if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome. SECT. II. Whether S. john surviving S. Peter were subject to the Bishop of Rome, S. Peter's Successor? SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter, and his Successors, moveth this question (h) De trip. virtute disp. 10. sect. 1. , Whether the Apostles that survived S. Peter, were subject to S. Peter's successor in the See of Rome? His answer is: I remember not, that I have read any thing of this point in Authors: but it seems to me, to follow out of what hath been said, that they were inferior in jurisdiction, and consequently subject therein to the Bishop of Rome, although in other excellencies and prerogatives they were superior to him. For the same power and jurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Successors; who therefore in three things surpassed the Apostles there living. 1. In the object of their power; for the charge and government of the whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter, which (as I have said) belonged not to the other Apostles. 2. That power did extend to all Bishops, because the reason of order and Ecclesiastical unity so required. 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was always ordinary, and to continue perpetually in the Church, not so in the other Apostles. This is Suarez his Doctrine, which I have set down in his own words, that the reader perusing yours, and comparing them with his, may see how you falsify: for both in your Latin margin, & English text, you leave out (i) Pag. 79. the reason, wherewith he proves his assertion, and set down for his only ground, that he cannot remember to have read in any author any thing of this point, whereas he proves it out of what he had formerly said. And doth he not here again prove it, out of the power and jurisdiction which was in S. Peter over the whole Church, & descended from him to his Successors? And doth he not from thence infer, three prerogatives which his Successors had over the other Apostles, two of which you conceal? And though you set down the third, yet it is in your Latin Margin only, and so dismembered from Suarez his context, that the reader will not easily understand the force thereof. Again, who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing, which is this (*) Pag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is, that S. john surviving S. Peter, was subject to Linus his Successor, ergo, S. john's faith did not conceive the Pope to have jurisdiction over all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholic Church. You might as well have inferred, that because York hath a Minster, London hath a Bridge: for this is as good a consequence, as yours. But hereby the Reader may see, with what silly Sophistry you delude (or to use your own words against yourself) with what vntempered mortar, you daub up, the consciences of your followers. Now as for Suarez his assertion, that the jurisdiction of S. Peter's Successor was greater, than the ordinary Episcopal jurisdiction of the other Apostles, a judicious Reader will easily conceive to be no such improbable Doctrine, if he reflect, that the Successor to every Bishop is invested in all the Episcopal authority of his predecessors and therefore Linus being Successor to S. Peter, it must follow, that 8. Peter being in Episcopal authority, and jurisdiction, superior to all the other Apostles, Linus had the same authority and jurisdiction over those that survived S. Peter. And this S. chrysostom seemeth to have expressed (k) L. 2. de Sacerd. 1● , when he said: Christ committed to Peter, and to Peter's Successors, the charge of those sheep, for the regaining of which he shed his blood: from which number I trust you will not excluded S. john, or any other of the Apostles that survived S. Peter. And what else did S. Cyril mean, when he said (l) Apud S. Thom. Opusc. count. error. Graec. c. 32. : As Christ received from his Father most ample power, so he gave the same most fully to Peter. and his Successors? And what Paschasinus, when in the presence, and with the approbation of the Council of Chalcedon (m) Act. 1. , he affirmed, the Pope to be invested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle. And what meant S. Bernard (n) L. 2. de considerate. when he said to Eugenius Pope? Thou art Peter in power, and by unction Christ: the sheep of Christ were not so without exception committed to any Bishop, nor to any of the Apostles as to thee: thou art Pastor not only of the sheep, but Pastor of all. Pastors. And what meant S. Leo (o) Serm. 2. ●. Annivers. suae assump. when he said: The ordinance of truth standeth, and S. Peter continuing in the received solidity of a Rock, hath not left the government of the Church: for truly he persevereth and liveth still in his Successors. And again (p) Ibid. : In the person of my humility he is understood, he honoured, in whom the solicitude of all Pastors, with the sheep commended to him persevereth, and whose dignity in an unworthy heir faileth not. And what S. Peter (surnamed Chrysologus (q) Ep. ad Eutychet. when he exhorted Eutyches, to hear obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome, because S. Peter who liveth in his own See, and is still precedent in the same, exhibits the true faith to those that seek it? And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Council of Ephesus (r) P. 2. Act. 2. ? No man doubts (for it hath been notorious to all ages) that the holy, and most blessed Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, & foundation of the Catholic Church, lives and decides causes yet unto this day, and for all eternity by his Successors? And what Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria writing to S. Gregory (s) Apud Greg. l. 6. ep. 37. , that Peter Prince of the Apostles sitteth still in his own Chair, in his Successors? And what S. Gregory himself reporting (t) Dial. l. 3. c. ●. that Agapet Pope coming to Constantinople, the friends of a man that was lame and dumb, beseeching him to cure that man by the authority of Peter the Apostle, Agapet by the same authority cured him. And what the Fathers of the sixth Council general, when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they said (u) Act. 18. : The paper and ink appeared, but it was Peter that did speak by Agatho. And finally, what Constantine Pogonate, when writing to the Roman Synod (x) Apud 6. Syn. Act. 18. , he admired the relation of Agatho, at the voice of the divine Peter himself. It followeth then, that if Linus was invested in the Episcopal dignity and power of Peter, if S. Peter still live and rule in his own See, and decide causes in his Successors, if he speak by them, and their voice be to heard as his voice; to be subject to Linus, was no other thing then to be subject to S. Peter; and to disobey Linus, was to disobey S. Peter, who did speak by Linus, and govern in his own See by him. Wherefore as the Apostles owed subjection to S. Peter, whiles he lived, so those that surui●●● him, did to Linus, having the place of Peter for 〈◊〉 ●●●rian ●alles the Roman See. L. 4. ●p. 2. CHAP. XIV. Your fifth Chapter, with divers Arguments answered. SECT. I. Of the Name, Catholic. AFTER a discourse made from an Argument ab authoritate negatiuè, which every Logician knows to be of no force, you say (a) Pag. 81. : We begin at the word, Catholic, and desire to understand, why the epistles of james and john, and jude were called Catholic, or universal, as well as the two Epistles of Peter, if the word Catholic were so proper to the Roman Chair? seeing that the Epistles of james, john, and jude were not sent to, or from Rome, nor had any relation to Peter there. Before I answer, I desire you to remember, that the name Catholic by the ancient Fathers is given as a certain note, or mark, whereby Orthodoxal people are distinguished from Heretics, as you have already heard (b) Chap. 2. sect. 2. out of Pacianus, S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and S. Augustine: and contrariwise that they who to express their faith, have taken new names (as the Arians of Arius, the Marcionists of Martion, the Pelagians of Pelagius, the Donatists of Donatus, & the like) witness S. Irenaeus (c) L. 1. c. 20. , S. justine (d) In Triphone. , Lactantius (e) Diuin. institut. l. 4.30. , S. Athanasius (t) Serm. 1. cont. Arian. , and S. Hierome (g) Cont. Lucifer. fine. , have been known thereby (as by an undoubted mark) to be Heretics, who have been enforced to take new names, knowing that the ancient name of Catholic could not agree to them. And for the same cause you knowing yourselves not to be Catholics, & that you shall never be esteemed such, have been enforced to call yourselves by a new name of Protestants, to distinguish yourselves from those, who in all ages have been, and are still known by the name of Catholics; by which neither we, nor you understand any other, than those, which profess the Roman faith, and are in the communion of the Roman Church; Catholic and Roman being terms convertible, as hath been proved (h) Chap. 1. sect. 3. . And this is the reason, why Protestants speaking not only to us, but even among themselves, ever call themselves Protestant's, as knowing, that by Catholics, no man understands any other, but them that before Luther began, were, and are still known by that name, and can never lose the possession of it. This was a thing well known to ancient Heretics, who therefore abhorred the name Catholic. So did Gaudentius the Donatist, calling it (i) Apud S. Aug. l. 1. cont. Gaudent. c. 23. a humane fiction. So did other heretics, who speaking in the Lutheran language, said (k) Praefat. in nowm Testam. anni 1565. ; Come, O ye fools, and silly wretches, that are commonly called Catholics, and learn the true faith, which lay hid many ages heretofore, but is now revealed, and shown of late. With these jump our Protestants: for Beza (k) calls it, A vain word: Doctor Humphrey (l) In vita juelli p. 113. , An empty term: Master Sutcliffe, (m) Challenge pag. 1. A fruitless name: and others of you scoff at the word, (n) Doctor Bristol Motives, pag. 7. nicknaming us, catholics, and Cartholikes. And this is the reason why the Lutherans rejected an allegation out of Luther, because (said they (o) In Colloq. Altemburg. anno 1568. pag. 154. Is is not a phrase of Luther, that any thing ought to be understood catholicly. And for this cause (as Lindanus (p) In Dubitant. observeth) Luther and other your new reformers in hatred of that name have corrupted the Creed of the Apostles, saying in their Catechisms, instead of, I believe the holy Catholic Church: I believe the Christian Church. And you english Protestant's insisting in their steps, for the good will you bear to that name, have left it out of your Bibles: for whereas Eusebius (q) L. 2. histo. c. 12. reporteth that the Epistles of james, Peter, john, and jude were known in antiquity by the name of Catholic Epistles, and therefore the Catholic Church so instiles them in her Bibles, you in yours of the years 1562. and 1577. (which are yet currant among you, having never been forbidden) have wholly left out that name. And though since that time you have been admonished of your bad dealing therein, yet still in all your later Bible's you commit the same fault, using the profane signification of the word Catholic in lieu of the Ecclesiastical, and in styling the Catholic Epistles, The general Epistles, saying, The general Epistle of james, of Peter etc. Who seethe not the absurdity of this translation? For it is as ridiculous to translate Catholic, General, as if when S. Hierome said (r) L. 1. Apol. advers. Ruffin. : If Ruffinus call his faith that, which the Roman Church professeth, then are we Catholics, you should translate, Then are we Generals: or whom S. Augustine (s) Contra ep. Fundam. c. 4. reporteth, that Catholics travailing among Heretics, to distinguish their own Churches from heretical conventicless, ask. qua itur ad Catholicam? which is the way to the Catholic Church, you should translate which is the way to the General? All this showeth that you know yourselves not to be Catholics, since you seek as far forth as you can, to suppress the name. How therefore can you ask why the Epistles of james, john, and jude, were called Catholic, as well as the two Epistles of Peter? (I say) you that call none of them Catholic, but in a profane manner, General Epistles? And that very improperly if not also falsely: for some of them, (as the two last of S. john) were not written to all the faithful in general, but to particular persons: The reason why the Catholic Church instileth the Epistles of james, john, and jude Catholic Epistles, as well as the two Epistles of Peter, is, because they were written in defence of the Catholic faith against heretics, as well as the Epistles of S. Peter were. So it hath been already showed out of S. Augustine (t) Chap. 12. sect. 8. . Your second question is (u) Pag. 81. ; why S. Paul was so sole, as of himself to anathematise the false Apostles? I answer, that not only S. Peter, but each of the Apostles had power to excommunicate or anathematise offenders; for their Apostolical jurisdiction was universal over all the faithful; but yet not ordinary, at S. Peter's was: and therefore not to descend to their successors. SECT II. Whether the title, of Vicar of Christ, belong to the Pope, and in what sense? YOur third question is (x) Pag. 82. , why S. Paul did absolve the incestuous Corinthian, as the Vicar of Christ, if (as Bellarmine pretendeth) that title wholly belong to the Pope, as an Argument of his succession from S. Peter in the Monarchy of the whole Church. This argument you urge again afterwards (y) Pag. 242. as of principal note, and confirm with the testimonies of S. Ignatius, of Eusebius Pope, and Genebrard who observes that Tertullian calleth Paul, Vicar of Christ. Answer. The name of Vicar may be given to any one, that supplieth the place of another. King's are Vicars of God, in things belonging to Civil government. Bishops are Vicars of Christ, in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs, because, the holy Ghost hath placed them to rule the Church of God (z) Act. 20.28. . All the Apostles were Vicars of Christ, because they were Legates, God as it were exhorting by them (a) 2. Cor. 5.20. : and thereby S. Paul had power to absolve the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ, or, as his Vicar, as the Rhemists expound. But the supreme Vicar, and chief Lieutenant of Christ on earth (as S. Peter was, so now) is the Bishop of Rome his Successor: and so much the holy Counsels have declared. He that hath the See of Rome (saith the Council of Nice) (b) Can. 39 ex Graecis & Arab. is Head and Prince of all Patriarches: for as Peter was, so he is, the chief, to whom power is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, as one that is the Vicar of Christour Lord over all people, and over the whole Christian Church. And the general Council of Lions (c) In S●xt. Decret. Cap. Vbi. periculum. calleth the Pope the Vicar of jesus Christ, the Successor of Peter, the Governor of the Universal Church; the guide of our Lords flock. And in the same sense S. Bernard (d) L. 2. de Confid said: Peter walking upon the water like our Lord, shown himself to be the only Vicar of Christ, that was to govern not one nation, but all: for many waters, are many people: By this you see, that when we call the Pope, The Vicar of Christ, we take the name of Vicar, antonomastice, for him, that beareth the person, and holdeth the place of Christ, as universal Pastor and Governor of the whole Church. In which sense, neither Tertullian attributed that name to S. Paul, as Genebrard observeth in that very place in which you cite him for the contrary (e) Chrou. l. 3. pag. 479. ●80. : nor doth it in that sense agree to any other Bishop but only to S. Peter and his Successors in the See of Rome; which Genebrard also testifieth against you in these words: Christ hath no Successors, because he still liveth: but he hath Vicars and Ministers, on earth, among which Peter and the Bishops of Rome his Successors have the Sovereignty, as all antiquity without exception hath believed: and therefore with great reason we reckon their Succession, which is to continue till the world's end, as one of the marks that hold us in the lap of the Catholic Church. S. Ignatius, and Eusebius Pope you likewise abuse: for although Deacons be in their degree Ministers and Vicars of Christ, yet S. Ignatius saith it not, but only commandeth the Trallians to whom he writeth, to reverence them as our Lord jesus Christ, and as guardians of that place: and so much his own words set down by you (f) Pag. 242. n. 15. in Greek declare. The testimony of Eusebius you falsify: He saith, Caput Ecclesiae Christus est, Christ is Head of the Church: You corruptly translate, There is one Head of the Church, Christ; to signify, that there is no one Head thereof under Christ, as his chief Lieutenant, and Vicar on earth; which is contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius in the same Epistle, both before and after the words which you object. And to this you add an other corruption: for where Eusebius saith, Priests are Vicars of Christ you in your English leave out the word Priests for the good will you bear to that name, and function. Whose Vicar may he be thought to be that deals so imposterously? But you object (h) Pag. 82. : S. Paul to avoid Schisms among the people, will not have them adhere to any one man; no more to Cephas (that is Peter) then to Paul or Apollo's: whereas your Roman Cephas would have taught S. Paul a contrary lesson, saying, that they who adhere unto Cephas, cannot be called Schismatics, as those who hold of Apollo's, because Cephas was the Rock whereupon the Church was built. Answer. That Cephas was the ministerial Rock on which Christ built his Church, is a truth asserted by Christ, and by all the Orthodoxal writers, that have lived in the Church: & therefore with great reason they have pronounced him, that separates himself from the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome, to be, a sinner, a Schismatic, an Heretic, and not to be of Christ, but of Antichrist. Their words I need not repeat; you have heard them already (i) Chap. 1. sect. 4. . And tell us now; did those Fathers teach S. Paul a lesson contrary to our Doctrine? So you say, but misunderstand S. Paul: for S. Augustine, and S. Gregory expound him to speak these words against them, that contemning Christ did not build their faith upon him, but upon men, as upon Heads not subordinate to him; (k) L. 4. ep. 38 or to use S. Gregory's words, extra Christum, out of Christ. Paul the Apostle (saith S. Augustine (l) Serm. 13. de verb. Dom. knowing himself to be chosen, and Christ to be contemned, said: What? is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptised in the name of Paul? In like manner expound S. Anselme, and S. Thomas (m) In eum loc. , saying, that the Apostle speaketh against those that made many Christ's, and many Authors of grace. What force then hath this Scripture against us, who hold S. Peter and his Successors to be Vicars of Christ, and reverence and obey them, because they are his Vicars? so fare we are from contemning him, or setting up another Head different from him, as the false Apostles, and some of the Corinthians seduced by them, did; for which the Apostle reprehendeth them. You might with more truth have proved out of these words, with S. chrysostom (n) In hunc locum. , that Paul acknowledged S. Peter to be his Superior, because he spoke ascending by gradation, that so he might place Peter above himself, and next to Christ. SECT. III. Whether S. Paul, reckoning the Ecclesiastical Orders, gave the Pope any place among them. IF S. Paul (say you) (o) Pag. 82. had been of our saith to believe, that the Pope of Rome as Successor of S. Peter, is the visible Head of the Church, whereas he allegeth the Ecclesiastical orders twice, first, Apostles, than Prophets, after Doctors: and again: Some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, he should have alleged Peter among them, and the union with the Bishop of Rome, as a true note of the Church. Sir, you may be pleased to take for an answer the fearful example, which Doctor Sanders (p) Vifib. Monarch. l. 7. pag. 690. related of one Wright a Doctor of law, and Archdeacon of Oxford, who after the change of Religion in England, being loath to lose his place, falling one day in a Sermon on these words of S. Paul, said: Here you find not one word of the Pope. Which when he had uttered, being presently strucken with a vehement disease, & as it were suddenly become dumb, he was carried from the pulpit, not to dinner as he had intended but to bed, where the eight day after he ended his life. I fear that this answer (howbeit it is from God) will not please you; S. Damascen will give you another. For with him I desire to know of you (who to flatter Secular Princes grant them the chiefest place of government in the Church, making them Heads thereof) where among the Ecclesiastical Orders reckoned by S. Paul, you with all your wisdom can sinned any place for secular Princes, or Magistrates, or any mention at all of them? It belongs not to Kings (saith S. Damascen) (q) Orat. 2. de Imagine. to give laws to the Church: for consider what the Apostle saith, and whom he hath placed in the Church, first Apostles, after Prophets, than Pastors, and Doctors: in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings: And again (r) Ibid. . Obey your Prelates and be subject to them, for they watch, as being to render account of your souls. And; remember your Prelates, which have spoken the word of God to you. King's are not they which have spoken the word, but Apostles, and Prophets, and Pastors, and Doctors. The civil government belongs to Kings; but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors. So Damascen, whose Doctrine if it please you not, you may learn the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin, teaching, that the chiefest place of government in Christ's Church belonged to the Apostles, and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors. And lest you might think, that there is so much as one word in S. Paul, which may argue him to grant unto secular powers any place of government in the Church. Caluin (*) L. 4. Instit. c. 3. sect. 5. & cap. 11. sect. 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes, goverments (which S. Paul after Apostles, and Doctors reckoneth in the seaventh place) are not understood civil officers, but, such men, as were joined to the Preachers, for better order in spiritual government. But though you in neither of these places (where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiastical dignities) can find any place for secular Princes, and Magistrates, the Fathers of the Church have found in both of them a place for the Pope: for S. Hierome observeth (s) In Psal. 44. that in the Church, Bishops succeed in place of the Apostles: and therefore Tertullian (t) L. de praescrip. c. 2●. & 32. , and S. Augustine (u) Ep. 162. have noted, that their Churches were called Apostolical, so long as they continued in the faith received from the Apostles; as likewise all others, that being afterwards founded, agreed with them in Doctrine, or as Tertullian speaketh propter consanguinitatem doctrinae. Now as S. Peter was Head and Prince of the Apostles, so the Roman Church in which he placed his Episcopal Chair, and into which (saith Tertullian) (x) L. de praser. c. 36. both he, and S. Paul poured all their Doctrina, together with their blood, was, and is still by a special prerogative called, The See Apostolic, in so much, that when the See Apostolic is named without any addition, the Roman See is always understood. In this language speak S. Hierome (y) L. 2. Apol. advers. Ruffin. when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus: I wonder how the Bishops have rece●●ed that, which the See Apostolic hath condemned. In this spoke S. Augustine (z) Ep. 106. , saying: Relations concerning this business were sent by the two Counsels of Carthage and Milevis, to the See Apostolic. And else where (a) Ep. 162. : In the Roman Church hath always flourished the Principality of the See Apostolic. In the same language spoke the Council of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. , calling Paschasinus the Pope's legate, The Vicar of the See Apostolic. And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius (c) Ext●● inter epist. Gelasij. : It is our desire to obey all your commands, and to keep inviolate the ordinations of the See Apostolic, as from our Fathers we have learned to do. And S. Bernard (d) L. 2 de Considerate. upon those words of S. Paul, He that resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God, saith to Conradus the Emperor: This sentence I wish, and by all means admonish you to keep in yielding reverence to the chief, and Apostolical See. From hence it also proceedeth, that (as S. Hierome (e) Ep. 58. said to Damasus): The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in honour, and therefore he above all other Bishops is called Apostolicus, Apostolical. So was S. Leo called in the Council of Chalcedon (f) Act. 1. , The most blessed and Apostolical man, Pope of old Rome, which is the Head of all Churches. And the Bishops of France (g) Inter op. Leonis. ●●to 52. salute him with the title of, The most blessed Pope to be reverenced with Apostolical honour. And Rupertus (h) De diui●● offic. l. 1.27. : The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarches: but the Successor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles, Apostolicus nominatur, hath the name of Apostolical. And Hugo Victorinus (i) L. 1. Erud. Theol. de sacram. Eccles. c. 43. : The Pope is called Apostolical, because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles. From hence also his Episcopal dignity is by a special prerogative called, Apostolatus, Apostolate, or Apostleship. So Paschacinus in the Council of Chalcedon said of Pope Leo (k) Act. 1. : His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command, that Dioscorus sit not in the Council. So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo, beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slowness (l) juter ep. Leon. ante 52. . Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope Bonifacius (m) Ep. ad. Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer up prayers to God for the good of his Empire. S. Bernard saith to Innocentius (n) Ep. 190. : It is fitting that whatsoever dangers or scandals arise in the kingdom of God, be referred to your Apostleship All this showeth that under the name of Apostles, to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiastical governors, are understood S. Peter and his sucessors, who have the first and chiefest place of govermentin the Church. And this the Fathers & Counsels have sufficiently declared by giving the Pope the title of Apostolical, by calling his place Apostleship, and his Church absolutely Apostolical See. This you could not see: so dim sighted you are in beholding any light that shows the Authority of the Bishop or Church of Rome. And this also is thereason, why you could not see, that S. Paul comprehendeth Peter, and the Popes his Successors, under the name of Pastors: for Christ made Peter Pastor of his flock; & the same dignity remaineth to his Suecessors: for why else did the Milevitan Council (in time of the Pelagian heresy) beseech Innocentius Pope (o) Aug. ep. ●2. to apply his Pastoral diligence to the great perils of the weak members of the Church? why did S. Hierome (p) Ep. 57 living in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts, as a sheep to his Pastor? Why did S. chrysostom say (q) L. 2. de Sacordot. that, Christ committed to Peter, and his Successors, the charge of those sheep for which he shed his blood? Why did S. Ambrose (r) Ep. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor, that with pious solicitude keeps the flock of Christ? Why did S. Prosper say (s) l. de ingrat. c. 2. that Rome by the See Apostolic is made the Head of Pastoral honour to the world? Why did the Bishops of the East say to Pope Symmachus, (t) In volume. Orthodoxograph. impres. Basileae. You are taught daily by Peter your sacred Doctor, to feed the flock of Christ, which is committed to you throughout the whole world? Why did Amator, an African Bishop, writ to Siluerius Pope in banishment: (u) Ep. ad Silver. What do you think becomes of us, when such things are done to the chief Pastor? Why did that Emperor Leo, surnamed the wise, say (x) Serm. de. S Petro. that Christ made Peter Prince of Pastors, and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a return of his love? Why did the Emperor Constantine Pogonate, and the sixth Council general call Agatho the universal Arch-pastor? (y) Ep. ad synod. Apost. in ●. synodo. Act. 18. You (say they to the Council of the West) and the universal Arch-pastor by your procurators have been present at our Council. Why did the second general Council of Lions (z) Sext. decret. C. Vbi peric. call Gregory the tenth, Governor of the universal Church and guide of our Lords flock? And finally why did S. Bernard (a) L. 2. de considerate. say to Eugenius Pope. To you are committed the sheep not of one City, or country, but all the sheep of Christ without exception? What think you M. Doctor? These Fathers and Counsels found the Pope among the Pastors reckoned by S. Paul, and believed him to be the Arch-pastor, and Pastor of all Pastors under Christ: but you that shut your eyes against the light, cold not discern him. The same I say of the name and title of Doctor, which all antiquity hath acknowledged to be due to S. Peter, and in him to his Successors. S. Hippolytus Martyr saith: (b) Orat de consummate. mundi. Peter the Prince, the Rock of faith: he the Doctor of the Church, the chief of the Disciples. S. chrysostom calleth him (c) Orat. Encom. in Pet. ac Paul. Doctor of the Apostles, and Master of the world. And the Council of Florence (d) In lit. union. with the accord both of the Latin and Greek Church, defineth the Bishop of Rome to be, The Successor of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, the Father and Doctor of all Christians. Nor doth this title agree to him, as it doth to others, but in a far more noble and excellent manner: for S. Augustine speaking of his Chair, saith (e) Ep. 160. : The heavenly Master hath placed in the Chair of Unity the Doctrine of verity. To you (saith S. Basil to Damasus Pope) (f) Ep. 69. per Sabin. Diac. it is given by our Saviour to discern between what is counterfiete, and what is pure; and without any diminution to teach the faith of our Ancestors. And S. Hierome (g) L. 1. Apol. advers. Ruffin. : That though an Angel should preach otherwise then the Roman Church teacheth, he were not to be believed: Whereof Maximianus Patriarch of Constantinople yieldeth the reason, saying (h) Ep. ad Oriental. : The Creator of the world among all the men of the world, selected S. Peter, to whom he granted the Chair of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of privilege, that whosoever is desirous to know any profound and divine thing, may have recourse to the oracle and Doctrine of this instruction. Nor is there any man that can deny this truth, if he credit the ancient Fathers, teaching that the privilege given to S. Peter of confirming his Brethren, did not die with him, but was in him granted to his Successors: In regard whereof the Counsels have sent their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by him: & S. Hierome, S. Augustine, Theodoret, S. Cyril, Venerable Bede, S. Anselme, S. Bernard, and many other of the most learned Doctors of God's Church have submitted their writings to the several Popes of their times to be examined & approved, or reproved according to their judgement. SECT. iv Doctor morton's railing against the Inquisition. YOu object (i) Pag. 83. 84 that, S. Peter as an Elder exhorteth the Elders or Bishops: feed the flock of God, not dominiering over God's heritage. What may be inferred from hence (say you) we may understand in your second Challenge. But you must give us leave not to learn the sense of this Scripture from your Challenge, but from the Ancient Doctors of God's Church, who out of it show, that S. Peter had, & practised the authority of Supreme Pastor, and Governor of the universal Church. But because S. Peter writing to Bishops, commanded them not to domineer in the Clergy, (k) See above Chap. 9 fin. you take occasion to rail against the Romish Inquisition, first by making a relation of your own (l) Pag. 85. no less false than spiteful) of imprisonment, famishment, torment, and ropes to strangle prisoners, and all in tenebris, works of darkness; employed against all believers, receivers, defenders, and favourers of heretics. And to this your relation you add another like of Cornelius Agrippa, (m) Ibid. whom you know to be a Magician, an heretic, and a forbidden author, and yet you are not ashamed to call his lies. Our Confession. And to the same purpose you bring Thuanus, (n) Ibid. whom we own not, but bequeath him to you, as one who by praising the Huguenots and their Doctrine, and by speaking against the Pope and Church of Rome, sufficiently declareth what he is. Now as for the thing itself, who seethe not the absurdity of your argument, which reduced to a few words is: The inquisition is severe in punishing heretics, especially such, as having abjured their heresy before a judge, relapse into the same again, and are in danger to infect others, Ergo salvation may behad out of the Roman Church; or, Ergo it is lawful to departed from her faith & communion: or, Ergo the Roman Church is not the Head of all Churches: for these are the points in proof whereof your grand Imposture wholly insisteth. That you know all these illations to be absurd, 'tis not to be doubted: but you are contented that men of learning, and judgement should know you to be absurd, so that thereby you may make the Roman Church hateful to simple souls, that want learning and judgement to discern your Impostures. That jews, Mahometans, and Heretics hate the Inquisition, 'tis no wonder. Malefactors hate their judges, & thiefs the gallows. How (saith S. Augustine) (o) Ep. 166. can he that hath an ill suit, praise the judges, by whom he hath been convicted? And else where (p) Tract. 11. in joan. & ep. 48. & 50. he declareth, that as they which blasphemed the God of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, were justly punished by the Edict of Nabuchodonosor; so heretics, because they draw men from Christ are in like manner justly punished according to the laws made against them by Christian Kings and Emperors. And showing that they have no reason to complain thereof, he saith (q) Tract. 11. in joan. : They (the Donatists) will do such things, and yet will not suffer such punishments: See what they do, and what they suffer: They kill souls, and are punished in their bodies: They cause everlasting deaths, and complain that they suffer temporal deaths. And again (r) Cont. ep. Parmē. l. 1. c. 8. : What do not these men justly suffer, seeing they suffer deservedly for their offences by lawful power, and by the judgement of God governing from above, and admonishing them by such punishments to beware of everlasting fire. Let them first prove themselves not to be Heretics or Schismatics, and then let them complain that they suffer injustly. And else where he saith (s) Conc. 2. in Psal. 34. : The Physician is sometimes enforced to cut and lance, and desisteth not, though the Patiented curse, and rail: They that are in a letargy are wakened, and they that are in a frenzy, are bound; yet both of them are loved. Let no man therefore say, I suffer persecution: let him not proclaim his punishment, but let him prove his cause, lest if he prove not his cause, he be reckoned among the wicked. And answering the arguments of the Donatists, who desiring to be freed from the punishment due to their Heresy, argued out of Terence, that it is better to refrain men from evil by shame and freedom, then by fear of punishment, he answereth, (t) Ep. 50. that albeit those which are drawn with love be better, yet more come by fear; which he proveth, 1. out of the same Poet, saying: Thou knowest not how to do well, unless thou be enforced with punishment: 2. with a Proverb of Solomon, that, A stiffnecked servant will not be amended with words: for though he understand, he will not obey: & 3. by experience: for (saith he) it is superfluous to prove this with words, seeing it is manifest by, many examples, that not these, or those men, but that many Cities of Heretics are now become Catholic for fear of the Imperial laws from Constantine to the present laws. These are the laws M. Doctor, which you storm at: for the Inquisitors nether pronounce sentence of death against any, nor execute it. If any man be accused, they examine his cause, as with justice, so with great meekness. If he be found guilty of heresy, they use all means both by themselves and by other learned men to reclaim him. If he acknowledge his error, he is delivered up to religious persons to be instructed, and with charitable usage gained to God. But if they find him to stand out obstinately against all persuasions, they deliver him up with his whole process, to the secular Magistrates, beseeching them to deal mercifully with him. And if the Magistrates judge him worthy of death, & punish him according to the Imperial laws, I know no reason you have to blame them: for (as S. Augustine saith with the Apostle) (u) Ep. 164. & l. 1. cont. ep. Parmen. c. 8. &. l 2. cont. Petil. c. 83. they bear not the sword without cause: for they are Gods Ministers, revengers unto wrath, to them that do evil. Nor do I see what you have in all this to quarrel at, unless you think, that thiefs, and murderers of men's bodies ought to be punished with death, and that murderers of men's souls ought to be spared. And so much the more inconsiderate you are in this your cavil, because your selves use the same proceeding against heretics: for have you not burnt David George in Holland, Hacket, Coppinger, and others in England? But you complain (x) Pag. 85. 86. , that not only heretics are punished, but also Believers, Receivers, Defenders, and Favourers of heretics, namely such as commend their learning, wit, Zeal, constancy or simplicity, which any Christian may do in a Pagan. Sir, I know not how to excuse you either from imposture or impiety: for (as Suarez (y) De trip. virt. Theol. disp. 24. n. 2. and Azor (z) Part. 1. l. 8. c. 15. the very authors whom you object have declared) Believers are they that give credit to the Doctrine of heretics, and make profession thereof, or praise the same as no way dissonant to the Catholic faith: May a Christian do this to a Pagan? Defenders are not they that praise the learning, wit, or eloquence of heretics, but that commend or maintain their doctrine, or praise their pertinacy (which you call zeal) in defending their errors. Say now: were it not impiety to do this to a Pagan? And so it is in you, to say that, any Christian may lawfully do it to an heretic. Favourers or receivers are not they, that receive heretics into their houses, or show love or favour unto them as to their friends or kinsfolks (this any man may do to a Pagan) but that receive, conceal or assist them, that they may persever in their heresy, and teach it to others: also officers, that aught to concur to the apprehension of heretics, and do it not, but aid them to escape the hands of the lawful judges, that so they may not be punished, but remain free to pervert others. This is the Doctrine of Suarez and Azor, whom you object: & no Catholic Divines speak otherwise against him, that having abjured his heresy before a judge, relapseth into the same: for if he talk with an heretic, or visit him as his neighbour, or reverence him as his Superior, or reward him for any favour received, or commend him for his wit, or other talents of nature or learning, he is not therefore thought to have relapsed into heresy. But if he visit, reverence, reward, or commend him, because he is an heretic, and for his heretical Doctrine, he is then by the law of Fredrick the Emperor to be delivered to the secular Magistrate, & as a relapse to be executed, as one that by reason of his inconstancy is held morally incorrigible, & that by his example and Doctrine may infect others. But yet if he repent, the Church like a pious mother, receives him into her bosom, allowing him the Sacrament of Alsolution and Eucharist, and affords him all instruction, and help, for the good of his soul, that so he may die in state of salvation. Against this your choler riseth, saying (a) Pag. 87. : Bubalus was never so stupid, as to judge them morally incorrigible, which do repent so▪ as to make themselves capable of Absolution: but, Sir, Bubalus was never so stupid, as not to understand that a relapsed heretic being condemned to death, may by the help of God's grace open his eyes to see and acknowledge his error, and thereby make himself capable of the Sacraments; and yet that nevertheless the Church may justly fear, that as he became a relapse after he had once solemnly abvired his heresy, so if he be permitted to live, he may fall the third and fourth time again, which is to be morally incorrigible. And whereas you add, (b) Ibid. that there was never any Rhadamanthus so extreme, as at once to pardon and kill, and that therefore such mercy is to be cursed, because it is cruel: by these words you condemn the practice of all Christian Common wealths, which when they put Malefactors to death, grant them access to the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist, & afford them all help and instruction to die well, as the Church doth to Heretics, if they will accept thereof: for with them she dealeth not otherwise in this case, than all Christian Princes do with other malefactors. But belike nether heretics nor other Malefactors must be put to death, or if they be, the Church must deny them the holy Sacraments, that so their souls may perish with their bodies; or else you will compare her to Rhadamanthus: you will say she pardons and kills at once, and curse her mercy, canonising it for cruelty. What may we say, or think of such a man? Small reason therefore you had (c) P●g. 85. 86. to call the Inquisitions proceeding against heretics, Tyrannous Romish cruelty, and Barbarous Romish cruelty. And so much the reader will yet better understand, if he consider, that nether the Inquisitors, nor any other Ecclesiastical persons pronounce, nor much less execute sentence of death against heretics: and what the secular Magistrate doth in that kind against Lutherans & Caluinists, is not by force of any new laws made against them, but according to the laws which the most godly Christian Emperors have anciently provided (before any Protestants were exstant in the world) for the preservation of Christian Religion against jews, Mahometans, and Heretics. But if I were disposed to deal with you by retorsion (which kind of argument is familiar to you in this Grand Imposture) I could put you in mind, how without any warrant of law (for at that time you had made no laws against Catholics) yea and contrary to all laws of this kingdom, and of Christianity, in the days of K. Henry the eight, and Queen Elizabeth, you partly sent and forced into banishment, and partly consumed with the loathsomeness of prisons, and stench of dungeons, many Catholics of all degrees, aswell ecclesiastics, as Laics. I could write of your racking, and many other ways cruelly torturing of Priests, and lay Catholics, and of your putting to death many of them for crimes composed, and maliciously forged against them by yourselves, you having then no laws whereby to condemn them. And I could reckon the number and specify the cruelty of your Parliament Statutes made since that time against all sorts of Catholics, and the severity used in the execution of them, with continual vexation of innocent people, especially by the inferior sort of your officers. But for the honour of our Country: I forbear the rehearsal of them, and wish that the Christian world abroad had not taken so much notice of them, as their Histories show them to have done. But if leaving England, I pass to other nations, what pen is able to express the never before heard of inhuman, barbarous, & sacrilegious cruelties of your Geuses in the how Countries, and your good brethren the Huguenots in France? which whosoever desires to know more in particular, may see lively presented to his view, by M. Richard Verstegan in a book of pictures entitled Theatrum crudelicatum haere●icorum nostri temporis, printed at Antwerp, Apud Adrianum Huberti Anno 1592. with so many particulars of the time, place, persons, and torments, that no man ever had the face to question the truth thereof: nor the relation which Doctor Harding, In his proof of certain articles of religion against Master jewel (d) Fol. 129.130. hath made of the Caluinists at Pat●é, not fare from Orleans, throwing 25. infants quick into the fire; of their burying of Catholics alive at S. Macarius; of cutting infants in two; of ripping up the bellies of Priests alive; of drawing out their entrails by little and little, and winding them about stakes; of cutting of the privy parts of a Priest, than frying them, after causing him by violence to swallow them down, and last of all ripping up his stomach being yet alive, to see what was become of them; of their dragging other Priests after their horses, then picking out their eyes, cutting off their ears, noses, and privy parts, wearing their ears in their hats as jewels to glory in their malice; hanging up the carcases of some yet striving for life, dispatching others at once with their pistols, hacking and mangling the faces of some, & cleaving the heads of others in two at a stroke to make trial of their strength. To which you may add the horrible sacrileges, the unspeakable cruelties fit for Tigers than men; and the monstruous beastliness of your French and Holland Brethren at Tillemont in Brabrant Anno 1635. I pretermit the particulars not to soil my paper with the rehearsal of them. If you desire to know them, the famous University of Lovayne, next neighbour to Tillemont, hath depainted them in lively colours: in their relation you may read them. If you had consired these and many other most horrible cruelties of your gospeling Brothers, the like whereof have never been heard among any people never so inhuman and savage, and added unto them your own outrages committed both in England and Ireland (some of which Verstegans Theatrum representeth unto you) you would surely have been ashamed to instile the just proceed of the Inquisition, or the sentences pronounced against them by Catholic Magistrates, Tyrannous Romish cruelty, Barbarous Romish cruelty. CHAP. XV. Of the signification of the word, Catholic, and the judgement of divers Fathers objected by Doctor Morton against the Roman Church. SECT. I. That the word Catholic proves the Roman Church to be the true Church. You demand (e) Pag. 88 89 how the Roman Church (seeing it is Roman, that is, a particular Church) can be called Catholic, that is, universal, or the whole Church? And if it be the whole Church, how can it be a particular Church, distinct from the Church of Greece, or Church of France? will you make us believe, that the thumb of the hand can be the whole body? Sir as we are not so witless as to think that the thumb of the hand can be the whole body, so nether are we so foolish as to believe that the particular Church of the Roman Diocese can be the universal Church. We know, and so do you to, and it hath been already proved (f) Chap. 1. Sect. 2. &. 3. , that not only the particular Church of Rome, may in a true & proper acception be called the Catholic Church, as Head of all Churches; but also that the Roman Church taken (as often it is) for the collection of all Churches in the world, consisting of the Roman as Head, and the rest as members, may be, and is truly and usually called The Catholic Church, and the universal Church. Yea it is evident, that if (according to the Etymology of the name Catholic, and (g) Cont. Gand. l. 3. c. 1. Serm. 131. de temp. & ep. 170. the interpretation of S. Augustine, the Catholic Church be that which is universally spread over the world, the Roman Church and none else but she, is the Catholic Church: for Universality agreeth to none but to her, all Sects lurking in corners. Wherefore you not only inconsiderately but against yourself produce S. Augustine here (h) Pag. 89. , and Optatus afterwards (i) Pag 341. , to prove, that your Protestant Church is the Catholic Church. S. Augustine saith (k) L de pastor. c. 8. ; Not all heretics are spread over the face of the earth. & yet there are heretics spread over the whole face of the earth, some here, some there; yet they are wanting no where; they know not one another. One fact for example in Africa, another heresy in the East, another in Egypt, another in Mesopotamia. In divers places they are divers: One Mother Pride hath begot them all, as our one Mother the Catholic Church hath brought forth all faithful people dispersed throughout the whole world. So said S. Augustine to the Donatists; and so say we to you: There are divers sectcs in the world: Wiclefists in Bohemia; but in any other part of the world they are not. There be Lutherans in Germany, in Denmark etc. but in the rest of the world they be not. There are ridged Caluinists in Geneva, France, and Scotland, to whom you may add your English Puritans, but in other parts of the world they are not. There are Protestant's a more temperate sort of Caluinists in England; but out of England they are not. These therefore, and all other sects of heretics whatsoever are confined to a few Countries; and therefore none of them can be the Catholic Church, which is universally speed over the whole world, as the Roman Church is; & therefore she, and none else but she, is the Catholic Church. Optatus speaking also to the Donatists, said (l) L. 2. contra Parmen. : You will have the Church to be where you are; and you will have it not to be where you are not: that it may be with you, you will have it to be in a corner of Africa: and that it may not be with us, you will not have it to be in almost innumerable Lands, Provinces, and Countries, where we are, and you are not. So we say to Protestants: you will have the Catholic Church to be in England, where you are: but you will not have it to be in so many other countries of Europe, Africa, Asia and America almost innumerable, where we are, & you are not. If your Church be the Catholic Church, if it be universally spread over the face of the earth, as the Catholic Church must be; we say to you, as S. Augustine did to the Donatists (m) Ep. 163. : Give us form letters to men of your faith and communion in all parts of the earth. This you cannot do; but we can: for we are not only in Countries almost innumerable of Europe, Africa, Asia, and America, where you are not; but we are also in England, in France, and all other Countries, in which you are. We therefore can give you letters of communion to men of our Religion, professing the faith, & living in the communion of the Roman Church throughout all the world, as well in places where you are; as where you are not. The Roman Church therefore, ●●e all one, and ●on● but she, is universally spread over the face of the earth, whersoever the name of Christ is known: and therefore if Christ have any Catholic Church on earth, none but she is the Catholic Church. The words which you object out of the Conference of Carthage (which in some copies are joined to Opt●tus) are neither his, nor S. Augustine, but of Balduinus a late Protestant writer of small credit. But be they whose you please, they are not pertinent to your purpose: for no man doubts, but that as the Church of Christ began at Jerusalem where his Gospel was first preached by S. Peter, and from thence by degrees spread over the world, so whosoever is in communion of this Church universally spread, hath God for his Father, and the Catholic Church for his Mother, as S. Augustine professed himself to have. But withal he teacheth (n) Psal. count. part. Donat. (and so doth all Antiquity) that this Catholic Church so spread over the world, is built upon S. Peter and his Successors as upon a Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot overcome: and so doth S. Hierome, saying (o) Ep. 57 to Damasus of the Roman See, I know the Church to be built upon this Rock. In regard whereof he convinceth all them that are not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, not to be of Christ but of Antichrist. And for the same cause S. Augustine (p) Psal. count. part. Donat. grieved i● see the Dou●tist●l ye cut of from the Roman Church; and exhorted them, as reunite themselves to her, as branches to their Vine. SECT. II. The judgement of S. Hierome, concerning the Church Catholic. WHat his judgement was you have partly heard. 〈◊〉 ●●eli●●●●● the Roman See to be the Rock on which the Catholic Church is built▪ he was in her communion and (q) Ep. 57 ●eld you that refuse her communion, to be a profane person belonging to 〈◊〉 ●●brist: he held her to be, The 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 whosoever else shall be found at the ●●●●ing 〈…〉, shall 〈◊〉. His judgement was (r) Dial. count. Lucifer. ▪ that if Christ 〈…〉 Church diffused throughout the world (as the 〈◊〉 is ●hat w●s ordi●●● only (as the sect of the Lucif●ri●n● against whom he writeth was, or only in a few Northern parts of the world, as your Protestant Congrega●●●● 〈◊〉) fit i●●e ●●●●creding p●or●. His judgement was (s) Ibid. that 〈◊〉 ●or●●ayne in that Church, which being founded by the apostles d●●●th until this day, which is none else but the Roman, 〈◊〉 in her alone there hath been, and still is a never interrupted Succession of Bishops from S. Peter, unto urban the eight, who 〈◊〉 g●●●●●e●h that Church; whereas there is no other. Church founded by the Apostles, in which Succession is not either wholly decayed, or hath not been often interrupted and broken of by heretics, or Arch-heretikes, those Churches being wholly possessed by them▪ His judgement was that which he declar●●, when he said of Ruffinus (t) L. 1. Apol. advers. Ruffin. : Which faith doth he call his is. If that which the Roman Church holdeth, than we are Catholics. And speaking to Ruffinus (u) Ibid. ▪ Know, that the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle, admitteth not such delusions: though an Angel should teach otherwise th●●●●●●eth been on ●●●●iuered, it cannot be altered being sensed 〈◊〉. Paul ●●thority. He declared his judgement▪ when he said to such as you are (x) Ep. 6. ad Pammach. & Ocean. ▪ Whosoever thou are, that avouchest no● Sects, I pray thee have respect to the Roman ears: spare the faith which was praised by the voice of the Apostle: He declared his judgement (y) Ep. 8. , when advising Demotrias to avoid the cruel tempest of Heresy, which rising out of the Eastern parts, at that time when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goa●●ned the Roman Church, attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that faith, which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle, he prescribeth her this rule, that the keep fast the faith of S. Innocentius, son and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolical Chair. He declared his judgement, when he said (z) Proom. lib. 2. Comment. ad Galat. : The faith of the people of Rome is praised: Where is there so great concourse to Churches, and to Martyr's sepulchres? Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He even etc. Not that the Romans have any other faith than the rest of the Christian Churches, but that there is in them more devotion, and simplicity of faith. He declared his judgement, when he said to Marcelia (a) Ep. 17. : In Rome is the holy Church, there are the trophies of the Apostles and Martyrs; there is the true confession of Christ there is the faith celebrated by the Apostle, and gentility trodden under foot, the Christian name daily advancing itself on high: He declared his judgement when he said (b) Ep. 16. that Peter (Patriarch of Alexandria) persecuted by the Arians stead to Rome as to the safest haven of communion. These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his judgement of the Roman Church: against which you object (c) Pag. 91. that he reproved an ill custom (not of the Pope, or Church of Rome, but) of the Deacons of that Church, who though few in number, yet growing proud in regard they had the treasure of the Church in their custody, contrary to the ancient practice of that Church, and of all other (which was that Priests, fitting with the Bishop, Deacons should stand) they of Rome began to presume by little and little to fit. This custom S. Hierome reprehended, because it proceeded from pride, and wanted authority: for (saith he) if authority be required, greater is the authority of the world, then of a City: which is true in things of this nature, that nether concern faith nor the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: for who fee not, that a custom no way concerning saith or jurisdiction, but discipline, and warranted by all other Churches of the would, was of greater authority, than a contrary, custom brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church, without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome? And who seethe not, that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman saith, or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome? for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman faith, nor maketh any comparison between the Church of Rome, & the rest of the world in point of jurisdiction, but only between the authority of all the other Churches of the world, and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custom no way repugnant to faith, nor touching the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. And finally, who seethe not, that your intention is to delude, and deceive your readers? For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome, in which he expressly declareth, that the Roman faith is the. Catholic faith; that it admitteth no delusions, nor can be changed; that the way to avoid heresy, is to hold fast the faith of the Roman Church; that we must remain in her, as being that Church which hath Succession from the Apostles, that he is the safest port of communion; that the Church of Christ is built upon the Roman See; and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, gathereth not, but scattereth; that he is profane, and belongs not to Christ, but to Antichrist. He (I say) that hath so many, and so forcible testimonies of S. Hierome, & yet coming to deliver his judgement concerning the Roman Church, concealeth them all, and objecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent, as you do; what intention can he be thought to have, but to deceive men in the most important affair of their salvation? But you reply (d) Pag. 91. : This is that testimony of S. Hierome, wherein the Fathers of the Council of Basil did in a manner triumph in opposition to the Pope's claim. How prove you this? With a sentence of Aeneas Siluius. O imposture! For you know, that the Council of Basil was a Schismatical Conventicle: & moreover you know, that the words which you object, are, not of the Council of Basil, but of Aeneas Siluius, and that he hath retracted them, with the whole book out of which you took them. Are not then you a deceitful merchant, to cozen your customers with such false wares? Nor do I well see, how you can be excused from contradiction: for you say (e) Ibid. , S. Hierome was a professed and devout child of the Church of Rome, when Rome was yet a true and natural Mother, and no Stepdame: Ergo, in S. Hieromes days the Church of Rome became a Stepdame, which could not be otherwise then by falling into error. How then is it true, that, as afterwards you grant (f) Pag. 17●. & 19●. the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in faith 600. years after Christ, which was not in S. Hieromes time, but 200. years after him? SECT. III. The judgement of S. Gregory, concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and his title of Universal Bishop. YOur scope here is, to disprove the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome by the judgement of S. Gregory refusing, and reprehending in john Patriarch of Constantinople the title of Universal Bishop, as likewise did Pelagius, and Leo Bishops of the same See. And first you tell us (g) Pag. 91. , It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papal authority, to object against you the testimonies of Popes in their own cause. It was necessary for you to premit this Caveat: for howsoever you here pretend that S. Gregory, S. Leo, and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselves any superiority or jurisdiction over the universal Church, your guilty conscience tells you the contrary: and therefore you slight their testimonies as of men partial, and that speak in their own cause. And the like you do afterwards again with reproachful and contumelious words: for whereas Bellarmine (h) L. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in proof of the ancient practice of appealing to the Pope, produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory, you (i) Pag. 30●, 304, reject them, as of partial witnesses, and compare them to Adonias, who traitorously sought to set the crown on his own head, which is in effect to say, that as Adonias traitorously assumed to himself the dignity of a King, not due unto him: so did these Popes unlawfully challenge to themselves, the dignity of Pastors, and Governors of the universal Church, having no right thereunto. A most comparison: for these two Popes were of the most holy, learned, and renowned Prelates, that ever sat in the Chair of S. Peter, since his time, whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles, and whom all posterity hath justly honoured with the surname of Great. S. Leo is he, that with great care and vigilancy suppressed the Manichees that came flying out of the Africa to Rome, & other places of Italy; that used singular industry to root out the Donatists in Africa, the Pelagians in France, & the Priscilianists in Spain, writing to the Bishops of greatest learning, and fame, that were then living in those Countries, to be watchful, and assemble Counsels for the condemning, and extirpating those heresies: and like wise he himself against the errors of Nestorius, Eutyches, & Dioscorus assembled in the East that famous Council of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon, who all acknowledged him to be their Head, and themselves his members, and children; and that to him the government of the Church was committed by our Saviour (k) In relat. ad Leon. ; and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter, and his judgements as oracles of God, crying out all which one voice (l) Act. 1. , Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo; Leo hath judged the judgement of God. Nor was S. Gregory of less renown: for to omit the admirable humility wherewith he refused the dignity of supreme Pastor, the conversion of our English nation, and other great works, which he performed for the good of the Church, the excellent books he writ, for which he hath deserved the title of Doctor of the Church, and the many famous miracles wherewith God declared his sanctity, who is ignorant of the admirable Eulogies wherewith ancient writers have celebrated his praises? Among others, that famous Archbishop of Toledo, and Primate of Spain S. Hildephonsus writeth of him (m) In lib. de viris illust. , that in sanctity he surpassed Antony, in eloquence Cyprian, in wisdom Augustine, & by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science, that in former ages none had been equal unto him. And Petrus Diaconus testifieth (n) Vit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in form of a dove at his care, inspiring him whiles he was writing: which alone might have made you forbear the traducing of so admirable a man. But returning to our question: this very evasion of yours, to wit, that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papal authority because they speak in their own cause, sufficiently convinceth, that you know them to have acknowledged such authority in themselves, and that when you deny it, you speak without all ground of truth: for who can think that S. Leo, S. Gregory, and many other Pope's renowned Martyrs, and glorious Confessors, most eminent in humility, and all kind of virtue, and to whose sanctity God added the seal of divine miracles, should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselves Pastoral authority, & power over the Church of God throughout the whole world, if that dignity had not been given by Christ to S. Peter, and in him to them? I deny therefore that when they maintain their authority, they speak in their own cause: They speak in the cause of God, as (witness yourself) (o) Pag. 4●. S. Paul did when he said (p) Rom. 11. : I will magnify mine office, in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles. And the like did S. Gregory, when upon that text he collected a general lesson for the defence of his own jurisdiction against such as you are, saying (q) L. 4. ep. 36. ; The Apostle teacheth us so to carry humility in our hart, that we do keep and preserve the dignity of that order, whereunto we are called. Wherefore as if a Viceroy should defend & maintain the dignity of his place, for the service of the King his Master, and the repression of seditious persons, he that should oppose him, and resist his authority, under colour that he speaketh in his own cause, would be accounted no better than a rebel; so no other reckoning is to be made of him, that rejects the testimonies of Popes, the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth, because they defend their authority: for they do it, to defend the honour of Christ their Master, to magnify their office with S. Paul, and with S. Gregory to preserve the dignity of that order whereunto they are called: which dignity S. Augustine (r) Ep. 92. and the whole Council of Milevis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures, But here by the way I desire to be resolved of a doubt. You confess (s) Pag. 301. that power of appeals if it be right, and proper, is a most certain argument of dominion. Again you confesse (t) Pag. 303. marg. fin. n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated john, a Greek Bishop of the first justinianaea, because he had presumed to judge Adrian Bishop of Thebes, after he had appealed to the See Apostolic: which convinceth S. Gregory to have believed that the Bishops of the Greek Church might lawfully appeal from their own Metropolitans, and from their Patriarch of Constantinople to the See Apostolic, & that the same See had true and proper right, to admit their appeals, and reiudge their causes; which it could not have, if the Pope had not true & proper authority over the Greek Church. How then can you deny, that S. Gregory believed himself to have that authority, or that he practised the same? Yea, that he had power and jurisdiction not only over the Greek Church, but also over the universal Church, & practised the same, is a thing so certain, that your Protestant brethren Friccius, Peter Martyr, Carion, Philippus Nicolai, the Centurists, and Osiander (u) Apud Brier. Protest. Apol. Tract. 1. sect. 7. subdiu. 9 à n. 11. ad 29. show out of his writings, these particulars: That, the Roman Church appointeth her watch over the whole world: that the Apostolic See is the Head of all Churches: that the Bishop of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See: that S. Gregory challenged to himself power to command Archbishops, to ordain, or depose Bishops: that he assumed to himself right for citing Archbishops to declare their causes before him, when they were accused, and also to excommunicate & depose them, giving commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them: that in their provinces he placed his Legates to examine, and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See: that he usurped power of appointing Synods in their provinces, and required Archbishops, that if any cause of great importance happened, they should refer the same to him, appointing in provinces his Vicars over the Churches to end smaller matters, and to reserve the greater causes to himself. All this is testified by your own brethren: to which Doctor Sanders (x) Visib. Monarch. l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind, out of S. Gregory's own works, and in his own words: as, that the See Apostolic by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches: That all Bishops if any fault be found in them, are subject to the See Apostolic: That she is the Head of faith, & of all the faithful members: That if any of the four Patriarches had done against the Popesletters, that which was done by the Bishop Salona, so great a disobedience could not have passed without a most grievous scandal: That the See Apostolic is the head of all Churches: That the Roman Church, by the words which Christ spoke to Peter, was made the Head of all Churches: That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the faith of the See Apostolic: that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church: That to return from Schism to the Catholic Church, is to return to the communion of the Bishop of Rome: That he which will not have S. Peter (to whom the keys of heaven were committed) to shut him out from the entrance of life, must not in this world be separated from his See: That they are perverse men, which refuse to obey the commands of the See Apostolic. I conclude therefore with Doctor Sanders, that he which readeth all these particulars, and more of the same kind that are to be found in the works of S. Gregory, and yet with a brazen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Universal Bishop, so, as if he could not abide, that any one Bishop should have the chief seat and supreme government of the whole militant Church; that man (saith he) seems to me, either to have cast of all understanding and sense of a man, or else to have put on the obstinate perverseness of the Devil. How comes it then to pass, that you are not ashamed to urge here, and else where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregory's refusing the name of universal Bishop, as an argument to disprove his authority, and jurisdiction over the universal Church, especially since it hath been so often, and so fully answered by us? But because here you insist so much thereon, I will for the reader's satisfaction briefly declare, in what sense Pelagius, and S. Gregory refused that title, and how to better your argument, you abuse, and falsify our Authors. The title of Vniversalis Episcopus, Universal Bishop, may be taken two ways: first for a Bishop, that challengeth an universal power over all other Bishops, claiming to himself a right of hearing, and determing all Ecclesiastical causes in his own, and their Dioceses, leaving them no other right to exercise any Episcopal jurisdiction & power, but only such as they shall receive from him as his Vicars. In this sense S. Gregory conceived john Patriarch of Constantinople to style himself Universal Bishop, as it appeareth out of his plain and express words in divers of his Epistles (z) L. 4. ep. 32.34. & 36.38. & l. 7. ep. 70. to which the margin will direct you. And in this sense he calleth the name of universal Bishop, A profane and Antichristian title. 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae, so, that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the government of the universal Church and the determining of all such causes as appertain to her in general, without taking away, or hindering the ordinary power and right of other Bishops, and leaving each of them in their several places & degrees with full power and authority to judge and determine all Causes Ecclesiastical belonging to their Dioceses, and within them. In this sense the title of Universal Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new, or profane, or any way unlawful, but agreeth to the Pope, no less than the title of Bishop of the universal Church. And therefore as S. Gregory (a) Ep. ad omnes Episc. styleth himself Bishop of the universal Church, so likewise when Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria writing to him (b) L. 4. ep. 36. gave him the title of universal Bishop, he acknowledged (c) L. 4. ep. 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept thereof, and that, the Council of Chalcedon, and the following Fathers had given it to his predecessors. But yet he refused it out of his great humility, as also he denied himself to be a Priest (d) L. 4. ep. 31. , and as S. Paul called himself the greatest of sinners (e) 1. Tim. 1.15. , and thought himself unworthy to be called Apostle (f) 1. Cor. 15. ●. : And chief lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense unlawful, & injurious to other Bishops, in which he conceived john Patriarch of Constantinople to usurp it: And finally, that thereby he might better repress his insolency. This doctrine is delivered by Baronius and Bellarmine, of whom (because they declare Vniversalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae) you say (g) Pag. 94. : They would gladly confound these two titles, thereby to prove their Popes to be proper Monarches over the whole Church, because some predecessors of S. Gregory have been called Bishops of the universal Church, which is their perverse error refuted by one of their learned jesuits. But you must pardon me, if I tell you, that this is a shameful untruth: for Baronius and Bellarmine deliver the same double acception of Vniversalis Episcopus, which I have declared; and likewise affirm, that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope, but not in the other: which is not to confound, but to distinguish, that confusion and mistake may be avoided. And the thing itself is evident: for if the title of Vniversalis Episcopus might not be taken in a sense unlawful, S. Gregory would not have condemned it in john of Constantinople, as a new, profane, & Antichristian title. And again, if it might not be taken in a sense lawful, neither the Council of Chalcedon, nor the following Fathers (h) Apud S. Greg. l. 4. ep. 36. would have given it to the Bishops of Rome. The former sense is unlawful because it taketh away all ordinary power and jurisdiction due to other Bishops in their Dioceses. The second is lawful, because it leaveth to them their ordinary power and jurisdiction. From whence it followeth, that as S. Gregory in this second sense did instile himself Episcopum Vniversalis Ecclesiae; (i) Ep. ad omnes Episcop. so if Vniversalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense, it is also lawful, and due to the Bishops of Rome: and in this sense he taketh it when he saith, that the Council of Chalcedon and the following Fathers gave it to his predecessors. But the former sense he condemned as profane and Antichristian, & reprehended in john of Constantinople. And Salmeron (for it is he whom you call the learned jesuit) is so far from refuting this double sense of Vniversalis Episcopus delivered by Baronius and Bellarmine, that in the very place which you nominate (k) Tom. 12. Tract. 78. he expressly delivereth the same: but you (to make good your word) falsily him: for (say you (l) Pag. 94. he confesseth that a Bishop of the universal Church, is one, that hath care of the whole Church, which term may agree to every Bishop. This cannot be excused from an untruth: for Salmerons words are: Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesia is est, qui vacat curae & regimini Vniversa Ecclesia: at Episcopus Vniversalis est, qui solus omnibus praeest, omnia curare vult. He is Bishop of the universal Church that hath the care and government of the Universal Church: by which words Salmeron rightly proveth that which is averred by the two Cardinals, to wit, that as the Popes before S. Gregory were styled Bishops of the Universal Church, so they had not only a charitable care, which belongeth to every Bishop, and to every lay man, and woman, but also the government of the whole Church, which by virtue of their office of supreme Pastors belonged unto them. This explication of Salmeron you cannot digest: & therefore though you set down truly part of his Latin words in your margin, yet in your English of them you fraudulently leave out regimini, government, to persuade your readers (which either understand not or else seldom look into your Latin margins) that the ancient Popes had not the government of the whole Church, but only a charitable care of her good, such as every Bishop, & lay man is bound to have. Having thus falsified Salmeron, you do as much for Platina, whose words you set down thus (m) Pag. 97. : Bonifacius tertius à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, ut sedes Petri, sicut est caput omnium Ecclesiarum, ita diceretur & haberetur: quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur. And in your text you english them thus: Boniface did obtain of the Emperor Phocas, that Rome should have the same title of Head-ship over all other Churches, which the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged to his See. In these few English words you have no less than three falsifications. For, 1. Sedes Petri, you translate not the See of Peter, but Rome, which signifieth not the Church but the City, that so you may the better pretend that the Roman Church is not the See of Peter, nor the Pope S. Peter's Successor. 2. Platina saith, that The See of Peter is, Caput omminm Ecclesiarum, The Head of all Churches: and this in your english you omit, to insinuate that the Roman Church is not Head of all Churches, by any right it hath to that title from Christ, but only by the concession of Phocas, and that obtained with much importunity by Bonifacius 3. You say, Boniface obtained of the Emperor Phocas that Rome should have the same title of Head-ship over all Churches, which the Bishop of Constantinople challenged to his See. And these words you set down in a different character, as the words of Platina, which is another imposture: for Platina's words are: Boniface obtained of Phocas that the See of Peter, as it is, so it should be called and esteemed to be, the Head of all Churches: which is not to say that Phocas gave that title to the Roman See, but that it belonged unto it by right, and that Phocas preserved the right of that See, ordaining, that the Patriarch of Constantinople, who did falsely challenge to his Church a Head-ship, and to himself a title of Universal Bishop, should desist from that unjust claim, and that the Roman See, as it is, so it should be called and held to be the Head of all Churches. Phocas therefore did not first give the title of Universal Bishop to the Pope, but preserved it to him, as his right: for it had been given to him long before by the Emperor Martian in the Council of Chalcedon (n) Act. 3. . and by the Clercks' of Alexandria, whose petitions presented in the same Council bear this title (o) Ibid. : To the most holy and most blessed Universal Archbishop, and Patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy general Council. And in the Council of Constantinople under Menas the petitions of the Regulars of Constantinople, and of Syria, & of the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch and Jerusalem, to Pope Agapete were inserted with this inscription (p) Act. 1. : To our holy and blessed Lord the Archbishop of old Rome, and universal Patriarch Agapetus. And the Angelical Doctor writeth (q) Opuse. count. error. Graec. c. 3●. : It is read in the Council of Chalcedon, that the whole Synod cried out to Leo Pope; Long live the most holy, Apostolic, and universal Patriarch Leo. Hereby appears how falsely you say (r) Pag. 9●. , that the title of Universal Bishop was not absolutely ascribed to Pope Leo in the Council of Chalcedon, but with a great restriction as thus: Universal Bishop of great Rome, which is as much, as to deny him to be the Bishop of the Universal Church, even as when the now Roman Emperor is instiled, The universal Emperor of Rome, he is thereby distinguished from the Emperor of Turkey of Persia, and others. Who fee not the futility of this cavil? for as none of these Emperors are Universal over the world, so neither do they instile themselves, nor are by others instiled Universal Emperors. But in the Council of Chalcedon the Pope is not only styled Patriarch of Rome, but also Universal Archbishop, and Universal Patriarch absolutely, without any addition, or restriction; which showeth him to be not only Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome, but also of the universal Church: for else those titles absolutely, and without addition could not agree to him; as the title of Universal Emperor without addition, agrees not to the Emperor of Rome, of Persia, or to any other, whose Empire is not absolutely Universal throughout the world, as the jurisdiction of the Pope is, & of whom that famous Bishop of Patara in Lycia said to justinian the Emperor (s) Apud Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. : that albeit there were many Kings in the world, yet not one of them, as the Pope, who is over the Church of the whole world. 2. You revile the Roman See with most unseemly terms, and are extremely out of patience with Phocas, for repressing the insolency of the Bishop of Constantinople, and righting the Pope. Your words are (t) Pag. 97. : The Head of the Pope's universal jurisdiction under that title, as it were under a poisoned Mitre, hath grown far more loathsome by impostumes, and swollen with tyranny, than it could possible be at the first usurpation thereof; being become no less intolerable, then was that Emperor Phocas, of whom Pope Boniface with much importunity received that title: which Emperor your Cardinal Baronius noteth to have been a bloody Tyrant. So you, who by calling Phocas a bloody Tyrant, would diminish the dignity of the Roman See, as though that See had not had for her protectors and devoted Children, the most godly and religious Emperors of the Christian world (u) Of this see Coccius to. 1. l. 7. art. 8. : Yea, by how much more pious they have been, so much the more devoted have they been to the Chair of S. Peter. And although Phocas his cruelty be not excusable, yet he was not so , but that as he preserved the right of Roman Church, so he performed other works of Christian piety. Such were, his cleansing Rome from all filth of Idolatry, and his causing that famous Temple of Pantheon, which was built in honour of all the heathenish Gods, to be dedicated to Christ, in honour of his blessed Mother, and all the Martyrs. 3. You cavil at Bellarmine (y) Pag. 96. without cause, for saying, that the Bishop of Constantinople by claiming the title of Universal Bishop sought to make himself sole Bishop, and the rest only his Vicars: for Bellarmine saith nothing, but out of the express words of Saint Gregory himself (z) L. 4. ep. 34. & 36. & ●● 7. ep. 70. : Nor is it against this, that divers Bishops of the East, which still held, and exercised their ancient jurisdiction, gave to the Patriarch of Constantinople the Name of Universal: for they did give him the sole name, without yielding to him any part of their Episcopal jurisdiction, which therefore they still exercised as freely, and fully, as before he laid claim to that title. 4. Without, and contrary to all truth, you object S. Leo against the title of Universal Bishop: for he was not only so called by the Council of Chalcedon (as you have heard) but he himself also used that title, (a) Ep. 54. as appeareth out of the Latin Volume of his Epistles, and out of the Greek Copy of the same annexed to the Council of Chalcedon. (b) So noteth Spondanus anno 451. n. 34. To which I add, that speaking of such as you are, he saith (c) Ep. 89. : Whosoever denieth the Supreme Authority of the Roman Chair, cannot diminish the power thereof, but puffed up with the spirit of pride, plungeth himself headlong into hell. 5. I must not omit to advertise you, that you abuse Binius (d) Pag. 9●▪ fathering on him certain words in his Annotation upon the third Action of the Council of Chalcedon as taken out of Baronius: which words Binius hath not: nor doth he in that Annotation so much as once mention Baronius, but showeth out of S. Gregory that the name of Universal Bishop was given to the Popes his predecessors in that Council, and by other Fathers after wards, as also that Syxtus and Zephyrinus used the same title long before that time: and finally that S. Leo writing to Martian the Emperor (e) Ep. 54. styled himself Episcopus Romanae & universalis Ecclesia. Wherefore when S. Gregory saith, that his predecessors used not that title, he only denieth that they used it in a solemn manner always, and in all their inscriptions as john Patriarch of Constantinople did, who (witness S. Gregory) almost in every line entitled himself, Universal Bishop. SECT IU. S. Dionyse his judgement concerning the Supremacy of the Roman Church. CAsaubon (say you (f) Pag. 100 spurs us a necessary Question, Why S. Dionyse the Areopagite professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and government, was so utterly silent in not mentioning the Universal Visible Head of the Church reigning at Rome, if at that time there had been any such Monarchical Head there? Before I answer, I must spur you a more necessary question, why S. Dionyse professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, did not reckon secular Princes, at least in general, whom you not only place in the Hierarchy of the Church, but make Heads thereof? Now to casaubon's question I answer, that S. Dionise treateth not of any Church in particular, nor of the Bishop of any particular See, but of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and orders in general, which he defineth thus (g) De Recles. hierarch. c. 1. Qui Hierarchiam dixit, omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dispositionem dixit. He that names a Hierarchy, names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred orders. And among the sacred orders, he gives the first and chiefest place to Bishops. The divine order of Bishops (saith he (h) Ibid. c. 8. is the first and chiefest of those orders that see God. From this number he excludeth not, but includeth the Bishop of Rome, as being the Head, and Chief of all Bishops: for (as S. Thomas the Master of Divines defining a Hierarchy, (i) 1. p. q. 108. art. 1. corp. saith) A Hierarchy is a holy Principality; by which name of Principality; two things are understood, namely the Prince himself, and a multitude ordered under the Prince. Who is this Prince in the Hierarchy of the Church, but the Prince of the Apostles, whom Christ made Pastor, & Governor of his flock, and whom S. Dionyse did acknowledge for such (k) De diuin. nomin. c. 3. post med. , when speaking of the Apostles and Bishops under the name of Divines, he saith: Peter was present the most ancient and supreme top, or Head of Divines. These passages of S. Dionyse, Casaubon and you either out of ignorance could not find, or if you could and did, why do you conceal them? SECT. V S. Ignatius his judgement of the Roman Church. CAsaubon, and you with him object (l) Pag. 100 out of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, that ancient Bishop of Antioch, that, he being frequent in setting forth the order Ecclesiastical, and dignity of Bishops, forbeareth all mention of S. Peter, or any Roman Pope. What Ignatius his judgement was of the great dignity of the Bishop and Church of Rome, he himself declared, when writing to the Romans, he addressed his Epistle, To the Church sanctified and illuminated in the will of God, which hath done all things according to faith, and the love of jesus-christ our God and Saviour, and which governeth in the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of eminency, worthy of memory, worthy of blessedness, worthy of praise, founded in the love and faith of Christ, having the name of Father etc. Although this holy Martyr writ to the Trallians, Magnesians, Philippians, Antiochians, Ephesians, Philadelphians, and to those of Tharsis & Smyrna, and gave great praises unto them, yet he attributeth to the Roman Church, as her peculiar prerogatives, that, she is illuminated in the will of God, that she is founded in the love and faith of Christ, that she is of eminent dignity, that she hath (by reason of her Bishop) the name of a Father, which is to say, that the rest as children are subject to her, and that she governeth in the region of the Romans: the sense of which words cannot be, that she governeth the Roman Diocese; for no Church governeth itself, but one Church governeth 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 less force, becauss he saith, that she governeth in the region of the Romans: for he saith it not, to limit her government, but to express the place, in which she is seated, and from whence she governeth all other Churches. I conclude therefore that by calling her the Church that governeth, and not limiting her government to anyone Church, or number of Churches, he declareth her to be Head & Governess absolutely of all Churches: for as S. Bernard speaking of this subject, saith (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 stern of government of all the Churches of the whole world. This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words, Casaubon and you peradventure did see; and therefore to give an expedite solution, you reject the whole Epistle, saying: (o) Pag. 100 marg. No man skilful in Greek, would believe it to be written by S. ●gnatius. But this solution is exploded by Euscbius (p) L. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. Hierome (q) L. de Scriptor. , who might be casaubon's and your Masters in Greek, and yet affirm S. Ignatius to be the Author of this Epistle, and transcribe a part thereof yent to be found in it; as also doth S. Irenaeus (r) L. 4. advers. haeres. apud Baron. anno 109. to show the admirable spirit and fervour of that holy Bishop. Having proposed these arguments of Casaubon, you object out of your own observations (s) Pag. 100 , that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians unto obedience to Bishops, instanceth equally in Timothy S. Paul's scholar, as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter. Answer. You may by the like argument prove 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 (saith he) (*) Ep. ad Trallianos. the Bishop, & the Priests. Who then seethe not your argument to be a childish Sophism? SECT VI S. Irenaeus his judgement 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 unto them, that they consult with the Mother Churches, immediately 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 ordained by S. john, as Clemens by Peter. The like argument you make out of Vincentius Lyrinensis. But all of them imposterously, and against yourself. And first to begin with S. Irenaeus: these words, Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs. Habetis Romae Linum, which you allege 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 time to avoid heresy, warned them, that the true faith was to be learned from the Apostolical Churches, that is, from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselves, or by Apostolical men, as Timothy, Polycarpe, and other their disciples, that preached the same faith they learned from the Apostles their Masters. But withal they taught them, that the chief Church they were to adhere unto, and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretics, was the Roman Church. All men (saith S. Irenaeus) (x) L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles (that is the faith delivered by them to their Successors) in every Church, if they be desirous to hear the truth: and we can number the Bishops, that were made by the Apostles in Churches, and their Successors, even unto us, who neither taught▪ nor knew any such thing as raving heretics do broach etc. But because it were a long business to number the Successions of all Churches, we declare the tradition of the most great, most ancient, and most known Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; which tradition and faith it hath from the Apostles coming to us by Succession of Bishops; and thereby we confound all them that any way either by evil complacence of themselves, or vainglory, or blindness, or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought. Lo here how Catholics in S. Irenaeus time did confound all heretics, by the faith of the Roman Church, and by the Succession of Bishops in that See. And he yieldeth the reason, saying (y) Ibid. : for to this Church by reason of her more powerful Principality, all Churches must necessarily agree, that is to say, all the faithful of what place soever: in which (Church) the tradition and faith of the Apostles hath been always conserved. And in confirmation of this, he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that time governed the Church (z) Ibid. : And by that orderly, and never-interrupted Succession, he proveth the Roman Church to have conserved unto his days the faith pure, and entire, as it was preached by the Apostles: By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to us: And this is a demonstration convicing, that it is one, and the same quickening faith, which from the Apostles time until this day, is conserved, and delinered in truth. And again relating to this place, and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church (which he calleth the principal Succession) he declareth all those that withdraw themselves from it, to be Schismatics, or heretics: They that are in the Church (saith he) (a) L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests, which have their Succession from the Apostles, which together with the Succession of their Bishoprikes have received the assured grace of truth, according to the good will of the heavenly Father. And we ought to hold suspected, all others, that withdraw themselves from the like Principal Succession, and join together in some other place. We ought (I say) to hold them as heretics of a perverse judgement, or as Schismatics, and selfe-liking presumptuous fellows, or else, as Hypocrites, that work for lucre and vainglory. If then S. Irenaeus in his days thought it an argument sufficient to convince all Heretics, that they had fallen from the true faith preached by the Apostles, because they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Peter See, to which all the Churches, and faithful of the world must necessarily agree, how much more convincing is the same Argument against Protestants, to whom we show not the Succession of twelve Popes in S. Peter's See, as S. Irenaeus did to the heretics of his time, but almost of 240. You were not ignorant of the force of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus, and therefore lest you might seem to pass them over without answer, you say (b) Pag. 100 marg. fine. : As for the words, Propter Principalitatem, they are answered hereafter. How are they answered? first, you bid us (c) Pag. 253. marg. remember, that Irenaeus was he, which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunicated by Pope Victor. But we know this to be an untruth, and wish you to remember, that you acknowledge so much, & contradict yourself, saying (d) Pag. 131. : Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops. These than are your propositions: Irenaus consented with the Asian Bishops: Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops: Reconcile them. 2. Whereas S. Iraeneus saith (e) L. 3. c. 3. : It is necessary that all Churches have recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality, you answer (f) Pag. 253. : This might have been spoken of the Imperial power of that City, to which the subjects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort, for paying of tributes; and the Governors of Provinces, to yield an account of their offices. But the very words of S. Irenaeus show the falsehood of this answer: for he mentioneth not the City, but the Church of Rome. Ad hanc Ecclesiam etc. To this Church (saith he) all Churches must of necessity resort. Again, they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and payment of tributes were the subjects of the Roman Empire only: But S. Irenaeus tells you, that omnes undique fideles, that is, All the faithful, and all the Churches, not only of the Roman Empire, but of all the world are necessarily to repair to the Church of Rome; showing thereby, that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire: for (as Prosper truly said (g) De ingrat. c 2. & de vocat. gent. l. 2. c. 6. , Rome the See of Peter is greater by the fortress of Religion, then by the throne of (temporal) power: and being made the Head of Pastoral honour to the world, possesseth by religion, what, she doth not by force of arms. 3. You answer (h) Pag. 253.254. : Be it Ecclesiastical power, yet was not the necessity of recourse unto it, absolute, and perpetual, but occasional for that tyme. This is as untrue as the rest: for the necessity of resorting to the Roman Church (saith S. Irenaeus) (i) L. 3. c. 3. is by reason of her more mighty principality, or (which is all one) by reason of the great dignity of the See Apostolic, which (saith S. Augustine) (k) Ep. 162. hath always flourished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world. And therefore so long as she shall be S. Peter's See, which shall be till the end of the world: so long the necessity of all other Churches resorting to her, and agreeing in faith and communion with her, shall still continue. SECT VII. Tertullian his judgement of the Roman Church. TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretics the same argument of the never interrupted succession of Bishops in the Roman See, (l) L. 3. Carm. count. Marcio. c. ultimo. reckoning all the Popes by name until his time against Martion and all heretics, to prove them to be such. It is manifest (saith he) (m) Praescrip. c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and original Churches, founded by the Apostles is true, and to be held as certain, being that the Churches received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, and that whatsoever is contrary to this, is to be accounted false, and erroneous. And speaking of heretics (n) Ibid. c. 32. : If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolical, let them show the original of their Churches; let them unfold the order of their Bishops, in such sort, that by a Succession derived from the beginning, they prove their first Bishop to have been some one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolical men that persevered with the Apostles unto the end. This Tertullian saith the Smyrnaeans in his days could do, showing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. john; and that the Roman Church could do the like, showing Clement ordained by S. Peter. And the same she can do at this day, showing that all her Bishops unto Vrban the eight which now possesseth that Chair, had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor, and first Bishop in that See; and that from him they can lineally derive their pedigree; whereas no heretics could ever show any such descent, as Protestants at this day cannot. And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholic Church upbraiding them, and all heretics in this manner. (o) Ibid. c. 37. Who in God's name are you? When, and from whence came you hither? What do you among mine, being none of mine? By what right O Martion dost thou cut down my woods? What leave hast thou, O Valantine, to turn my streams and fountains another way? By what authority dost thou remove my bounds, O Apelles? (O Luther, O Caluin, O Zuinglius?) The possession is mine: I have it of old I enjoyed it before you: I can derive my pedigree from the very first Authors to whom the thing did properly belong: I am the right beyre to the Apostles: According to their will and testament, according to their trust and charge given, my Tenure standeth. As for you, they always disinherited you, and rejected you as aliens, yea and as enemies. In this very manner may Catholics with great reason upbraid you, who as you cannot show any Succession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles; so you are thereby convinced not to be their heirs, but strangers and enemies to them, and to the Churches founded by them. Again, Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to find out the true faith, & doctrine delivered by the Apostles; saith (p) Ibid. c. 36. : Go to: If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affair of thy salvation, repair to the Apostolical Churches etc. If thou be a neighbour to Italy, thou hast Rome, from whence we also have authority. O happy Church, into which the Apostles poured all their Doctrine together with their blood; where Peter is equalled to our Saviour's passion, where Paul is crowned with john Baptists lot, where john the Apostle being plunged into boiling oil, and yet not hurt therewith, was banished into an island. Let us observe what this Church hath learned, what she hath taught. Tertullian was an African, a Priest of the Church of Carthage, and yet speaking of the Roman Church, saith: From whence we, that is (as Macerus expoundeth) all the African Churches, or all Catholics have authority at hand for our defence. Wherefore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth, that the Roman Church even from her first foundation had great authority above all Churches of the world; and that all men are to learn from her the Doctrine of faith, delivered unto her by the blessed Apostles. And this is the reason why Tertullian speaking of Martion and Valentinus (q) Ibid. c. 30. , proveth them to be heretics, because they had fallen from the faith into which they had believed in the Roman Church. Nam constat etc. For (saith he, and his words no less agree to Luther and Caluin, then to Martion and Valentinus) it is manifest that they first believed the Catholic Doctrine in the Roman Church until in the time of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius, for their turbulent spirit of novelty, wherewith they did also pervert their Brethren, they were often excommunicated, and at length cast out for ever to perpetual ruin. By this it appeareth, that the Roman faith was then held to be the Catholic faith, and the Roman Church, (which Tertullian calleth, The Catholic Church) (r) L. 4. cont. Marcio. c. 4. the Head and Mistress of all Churches in the world: for Martion was borne at Sinope in Pontus, and for his heresy and lewdness of life excommunicated by his own Father a holy Bishop, who refusing to absolve him he went to Rome to seek absolution: but (his Father opposing) obtained it not. Valentine was as Egyptian borne, and having fallen into heresy in Cyprus, came to Rome in the time of Higinius Pope, and feigning himself to be a Catholic, was received into the Communion of the Roman Church, but falling often bacl into heresy, as a dog returning to his vomit, was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius, as you have heard Tertullian report. And why did these heretics (as also Cerdon at the same time) when they sought absolution from heresy, come from so remote countries subject to other Patriarches, and why from all the Eastern Church, and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular, but because they knew her to be the Head & Mistress of all Churches, that had power to absolve all those which had been excommunicated by any other Bishops whatsoever, and to be the original and centre of Catholic Communion, and that so long as they remained out of her bosom, they neither were, nor should be esteemed Catholics, nor to be in state of salvation? Herby it appears how little reason you had to say out of Beatus Rhenaus (s) Pag. 131. 1ST. ▪ though Tertullian give an honourable testimony to the Church of Rome, yet be did not esteem her so highly, as we see her accounted of at this day. And since you acknowledge that Rhenanus his mouth (for that and other his inconsiderate speeches) is gagged by the Index expurgatorius, you show little judgement in objecting his authority against us. SECT. VIII. Vincentius Lyrinensis his judgement of the Roman Church. What hath been said, showeth the futility of your argument out of Vincentius Lyrinensis, which is like to the two former out of S. Iraeneus and Tertullian. And how little support you have for your cause in the authority of this ancient and learned Father, he will testify for himself: for when the Doctrine of rebaptising Heretics at their return to the Catholic Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea, Agrippinus, & S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage, and many others, wrought so great inconveniences, that it gave a pattern of sacrilege to all heretics, and occasion of error to some Catholics, Vincentius declareth, how Stephen then Pope of Rome suppressed it by his authority. When (saith he (t) L. count. propha. haeres. novat. c. ●. all men every where exclaimed against the novelty of that Doctrine, & all Priests in all places, each one according to his zeal did opppse, than Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolic See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops, but yet more than the rest, thinking it (as I suppose) reason, so much to excel all others in devotion towards the faith, as he did surmount them in the authority of his place. To conclude, in his epistle which then was sent to Africa, he decreed the same in these words: Let nothing be innovated, but that which comes by tradition be observed. And (u) Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had (saith he) such pregnant wits, such eloquent tongues, such a number of Patrons, such show of truth, such testimonies of Scripture, but glossed after a new and naughty fashion, and that it was decreed in an African Council; yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a novelty, was of so great force, that after he had condemned it, all those things were abolished, were disannulled, were abrogated as dreams, as fables, as superfluous. And afterwards (x) Ibid. c. 43. he allegeth as witnesses of his Doctrine, divers Greek Fathers, and addeth to them, the authority of S. Felix Martyr, and S. julius, both Bishops of the Roman Church, whom (to declare their sovereign authority) he calleth The Head of the world▪ And he concludeth: Ibid. c. 45. Lest in such plenty of proofs any thing should be wanting, we have added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolic; the one of S. Sixtus, a venerable man, that now honoresh the Church of Rome; the other of Pope Celestine of blessed menory, his predecessor. And their decrees he calleth Apostolical, and Catholic decrees. SECT. IX. Other Observations of Doctor Morton, out of Antiquity, answered. YOur observations are (y) Pag: 101. & seqq. that S. Athanasius, S. Augustine, the Counsels of Constantinople, of Egypt, and of Cauthage, reckoning divers Bishops to show their agreement in faith with them, name not only the Pope, but other Bishops, and write both to him, & them; and consult with him, and them, as with their fellow Bishops, which you say, is to give the Bishop of Rome so many mates, and to equalise other Bishops with him. But who seethe not what poor stuff these your observations are? For if one concerning matters of faith should consult with his parish Priest, and his Bishop, would it follow, that he equalizeth the parish Priest with the Bishop, and maketh him his mate? Or if you writing to the King and his Counsel, I should lay to your charge, that by consulting with his Majesty, and his Counsel, you give his Majesty so many mantes, as he hath Counsellors, and equalise them in power and dominion with him, would you not think m● a trifling, and indeed a childish opponent? how then shall we think otherwise of you, that by like consequence go about to equalise other Bishops with the Pope, & among themselves? CHAP. XVI. The judgement of the Council of Nice, concerning the authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome. THAT the Council of Nice acknowledged the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Bishops, is proved. 1. Because julius a most holy Pope, in his third Epistle (which S. Athanesius hath inserted into his second Apology) writing to the Arians, and declaring unto them the right of the Roman See, to have the hearing and final decision of the causes of Bishops, faith: Are you ignorant, that the custom is, that we be first written unto, that from hence may proceed the just decision of things? And therefore if any suspicion were conceived against your Bishops there, it ought to have been referred hither to our Church. And then declaring unto them, that this authority of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged by the Council of Nice, he denounceth unto them, that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence, they had done contra Canon's, against the Canons, to wit of the Nicen Council, which he setteth down at large in his second epistle to them; & that as well Athanasius in appealing from their Council to him; as also he, in repealing their acts, & in restoring to their seats Athanasius, & the other Bishops whom they had deposed, and in summoning their adversaries to appear at Rome, & yield account of their proceed, had done, quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est, according to the Canons of the Church. 2. The same is proved by the testimony of Innocentius the first, whom S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and other Fathers of that age, highly commend: He ordaineth (z) Ep. ad Victric. Rhotomag. Epise. , that if any difference arise between Priests, their cause be judged by the Bishops of the same Province; but that greater causes be referred to the See Apostolic, as the Nicen Council hath ordained. 3. The same is proved out of S. Leo the Great, who writing to Theodosius the younger (a) Ep. 4●● , and representing unto him the sacrilegious proceeding of the second Council of Ephesus, which he by his own authority had called and impiously maintained, & that Flavianus the holy Patriarch of Constantinople (which in that Council had been injustly deposed and many ways wronged) fled to him for redress, presenting a Writ of Appeal to his Legates, intreateth his assistance for the calling of a general Council in Italy; adding, that the Nicen Canous necessarily require the calling of a Council after the putting in of an Appeal. This showeth that the Council of Nice decreed the lawfulness of appeals from general Counsels to the Pope. Nor are you ignorant thereof: for afterwards (b) Pag. 308. you bring these very words of S. Leo against Appeals to him, but not without great Eclipse of judgement: for in them two things are clearly expressed: the one, that according to the Nicen canons. Bishops when they are wronged, may lawfully appeal to the Pope: the other▪ that after the putting in of an Appeal to him, a general Council ought to be called, that to the greater satisfaction of all parts, the cause may be fully examined & reiudged by the common consent of the Church: which no more preiudicateth the Pope's Authority, than it doth the Kings, that after an appeal made to Majesty, a Parliament be called for the decision of the cause: for as the King is Head of the Parliament, so is the Pope of a general Council. And hereby it appears how little judgement you show in objecting the African Council, to prove, that the Council of Nice denied appeals to Rome, both because yourself alleging this testimony of the Nicen Council out of S. Leo prove them to be lawful, as also because the African Council is wholly against you, as hereafter shall be proved (c) Below Chap. 27. . 4. That the Council of Nice acknowledged the uninersall authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, is proved out of Socrates, a Greek historian of above 1200. years standing, who speaking of the Arian Council at Antioch (d) L. 2. c. 5. , proveth it to be unlawful, because julius' Bishop of Rome was not there, nor sent any in his steed, although the acclesiasticall canon forbids to rule the Churches without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. And Sozomen (e) L. 3. c. 9 : julius reprehended them (the Arians) that they had secretly altered the faith of the Nicen Council, and that against the laws of the Church, they had not called the Pope to their Synod: for there was a sacerdotal law, which pronounceth all things to be inualide that are done without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome. And Theodoret (f) L 2. hist. c. 4. : julius Bishop of Rome following the canon of the Church, commanded them (the Arian Bishops) to come to Rome, and summoned the Diuin● Athanasius to answer for himself in judgement. And the same is reported by Nicephorus. Now this Canon so uniformly avouched by these Greek historians, which forbiddeth Bishops to be deposed, or any Ecclesiastical decrees to be made without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome, can be of no other, then of the Nicen Council, or else of that of Sardica, which confirmed the decrees of the Council of Nice, and is reputed as an appendix unto it: both because (as you have heard) Innocentius afflirmeth the Council of Nice to have made such a law; as also for that since the Apostles time, until the time of those two Counsels there had been held no other general Council in the Church: And finally because john that learned Disputant of the Latins in the Council of Florence (g) Sess. 20. , in their name answereth Marcus Ephesius▪ the disputant of the Greeks', that the most ancient epistles of julius and Liberius Popes, which julian Cardinal of S. Sabina had showed to the Grecians in that Council did convince, that blessed Athanasius being persecuted by the Arians in their Council at Antioch, writ to Felix, Marcus, julius and Liberius, all of them successively Popes of Rome for a true copy of the Acts of Nice, which were kept entire and incorrupt at Rome, all those that were in the East, being corrupted by the Arians: and that their answer was, They would not send the original acts, which being written in Greek and Latin, and subscribed by the Nicen Fathers, and sealed with their seals were kept by the Bishop of Rome with great veneration but that they would send him copied out severally such Canons as were for his purpose. And moreover he showeth▪ that when Athanasius had appealed from the Council of Antioch to the See of Rome, and that the Arians objected it unto him as a thing unlawful, Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree for the lawfulness of appealing to Rome: and that julius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians for having presumed to call a Council without his allowance; showing them out of a decree of the Council of Nice, that no Council could ever be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome. And lastly Pisanus (h) Apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 345.346. in proof of these Nicene decrees produceth the testimonies of the Council of Constantinople, of Marcus, of Stephanus, and Innocentius Popes, of Athanasius, and the Bishops of Egypt, of other Orientals, of Marianus Scotus, Iuo Carnotensis, and Gratianus. All which with the rest here alleged show your unshamefastness, in urging the Council of Nice against Appeals to Rome, which were so certainly allowed and decreed by it. 5. The same is confirmed out of the Council of Sardica, which being held soon after that of Nice, made three decrees concerning Appeals: The first (i) Cap. 3. , that if in the cause of a Bishop, who conceives himself to be wronged, a new judgement be required, the Bishop of Rome is to give the judges. The second (k) Cap. 4. , that if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops, say his cause ought to be judged again, none is to be installed in his See, until the Bishop of Rome have pronounced upon it. The third (l) Cap. 5. , that a Bishop accused, may have recourse to Rome, by way of appeal. These Canons of Sardica sufficiently declare the belief of the Nicen council touching the authority of the Bishop of Rome: for as Harmen opulus writeth (m) In Epit. Can. : By the advice of the Emperor, and of the Bishop of Rome, the Synod if Sardica was assembled, consisting of 341. Fathers, which confirmed the faith of the Council of Nice, and published the Canons. Wherefore these canons touching appeals extant in the Council of Sardica, are either the very Nicen canons inserted into that of Sardica, or declarations of them: for the Sardican Council consisting for the most part of the same Bishops, that the Nicen did, it is a senseless thing to say, that when those Bishops in their Council at Sardica, so expressly, and so effectually declare the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme judge of all Bishops, they profess a new doctrine contrary to that, which a little before they had professed in the Council of Nice. 6. The authority of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, is yet further declared in the Nicen Council, decreeing thus (n) Can. 39 ex 80. Graec. & Arab. : A Patriarch is so over all those that are under his power, as he that hath the See of Rome is Head, and Prince of all Patriarches: for he is the chiefest, as Peter was, to whom power was given over all Christian Princes, and all their subjects, as being the Vicar of our Lord over all people, and over the univer sall Church. 7. The same is proved by the order of subscribing in the Council: for Victor and Vincentius being not Bishops, but simple Priests, because they were Legates to the Pope, presided in the Council together with Osius B. of Corduba, and subscribed in the first place, before all the Bishops, and Patriarches, which they could not have done, but only in regard they represented his person, who was Superior to all Bishops and Patriarches. 8. Though Constantine the Emperor was a great cause of the Bishop's meeting in the Council of Nice, both because he persuaded that means of Concord, as also because he defrayed their charges, and by his letters called them together, yet he called them not, by his own authority, but (as Ruffinus saith (o) L. 1. c. 1. fin. apud Spond. Anno 325. n. 5. ) ex Sacerdotum sententia, by the determination or decree of the Priests: as in like manner he called an other Council of 275: Bishops at Rome at the same time, in which it is said, Silvester gathered the whole Council with the advice of the Emperor. The same is testified by Damasus in Syluesters life, and by the sixth general Council, saying (p) Act. 18. : Constantine and Sylvester worthy of praise called the famous Council of Nice. And how can it be thought, that it was called by any other authority then of the Pope, seeing S. Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypt in their Council at Alexandria, witness (q) Ep. Synod. ad Felic. , that the Nicen Council made a decree, that no general Counsels should be held without the allowance of the B. of Rome: and this decree it is, which julius Pope (the next but one to Sylvester) alleged against the Arians (r) Ep. ad Orientales. , rebuking them sharply, that they had infringed it, by calling their Council at Antioch without his allowance: which is also testified by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, as you have heard. 9 And as this Council was called by Sylvester Pope, so that it required confirmation from him, we are certified by the Roman Council under Felix the third (s) In ep. Synod. Felic. c. 3. , and by the Council of Nice itself, saying (t) In sum. Conc. Nice. : Placuit etc. It hath seemed good, that all these Acts and decrees be sent to Sylvester B. of Rome. And in their letter to Sylvester (u) Apud Baron. An. 325. ex collect. Crescon. : Whatsoever is determined in the Nicen Council, we beseech you that it may be seconded with the confirmation of your mouth. And that Sylvester accordingly confirmed their decrees, we may learn from a Council of the Bishops of Italy held at Rome, in which he presiding, said (x) Apud Bar. An. 325. & Bin. to. 1. pag. 382. : Whatsoever is determined by the 318. holy Priests at Nice in Bithynia, for the strength of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we with our mouth accordingly confirm: and all those that shall dare to dissolve the definition of the holy and great Council assembled at Nice, in the presence of the most religious and venerable Prince Constantine the Emperor, we anathematise them. And all answered: So be it. SECT. I. Doctor Mortons' Objections, against the precedent Doctrine, answered. THough you either could not, or would not find any thing of all that which hath been alleged out of the Council of Nice in proof of the Pope's authority, yet you could find two arguments to object against it, The first is (y) Pag. 105. & seqq. : The Council of Nice decreeth, that the ancient custom go on, to wit, that the Patriarch of Alexandria, have power over Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed. To this argument Bellarmine hath answered (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. , that the Canon speaks of the Patriarch of Alexandria with restriction, assigning to him the Provinces of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis: and of the Pope, without restriction, not prescribing any limits to his jurisdiction, nor ordaining any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church, but making her, a rule, and pattern for the government of other Churches, commanding, that the B. of Alexandria have power over those three provinces, because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow, or permit. And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the first (a) Ep. ad Michael. Imper. that lived almost 800. years since, and for his learning and sanctity hath deserved the surname of Great. And the same explication is confirmed by the practice both of the Roman, and of the Alexandrian Church. For if according to your construction the Roman Church by this canon be proved to have no superiority of jurisdiction over the Church of Alexandria, or other Eastern Churches, but only over those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west; how comes it to pass, that S. Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, and other Eastern Bishops, which had been personally present at the Council of Nice, being soon after cast out of their Seats by the Arians, did fly to Rome, and appeal to Pope julius for redress, as to their lawful Superior, and judge? Or if this Canon do limit the jurisdiction of the Pope to the Patriarkeship of the West, as it doth that of the B. of Alexandria to the provinces named in the canon; how comes it to pass, that (as Socrates (b) L. 2. c. 1●. Sozomen (c) L. 3. c. 7. and Nicephorus (d) L. 9 c. 8. report) julius by the ancient dignity, and prerogative of his See, and because the care of them all belonged to him▪ restored each of them to their Churches, and rebuking the Arians for their injust proceed threatened to punish them, unless they desisted to innovate; and cited Athanasius, and some of the chief of the Arians, to make their appearance at Rome, on a set day, and answer for themselves in judgement; and that Athanasius obeying, transported himself in all diligence to Rome? And how comes it to pass, that when the Arians in their mock-Councell of Philippopolis required the Fathers assembled at Sardica, to abstain from the communion of Athanasius, & the other Bishops whom they had deposed, those Father's representing all the Catholics of the world, answered, (e) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they never had, nor would now abstain from their communion▪ and principally because julius B. of Rome having examined their cause, had not condemned them? And how comes it to pass, that Peter Successor to S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria (whom Theodosius and Gratian (f) Cod. Tit. 1. l. 1. call, A man of Apostolical sanctity) being in like manner deposed by the Arians, appealed to Rome as to the safest haven of communion (g) S. Hieron. Ep. 16. , and relying on the authority of Pope Damasus his letters, returned to Alexandria (h) L. 4. c. 30. , and by virtue of them recovered his Seat, & expelled Lucius the Arian intruder? Doth not all this show, that the authority of the Roman Church was not limited by the Nicen Council to the Patriarkship of the West? unless you will have us believe, that you understand the sense and meaning of the Council better, than S. Athanasius, and other holy Bishops, which were present at it, and at the Council of Sardica; and better than Peter that renowned Patriarch of Alexandria, that lived soon after these Counsels. In confirmation of this, I add, that the Council of Nice ordaineth (i) Can. 6. : that the ancient custom go on. Now the ancient custom was, that all Churches should resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality (k) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. and because, she is the Chair of Peter, and the principal Church from whence Sacerdotal unity is derived (l) Cyp. ep. 55. ad Cornel. : and because, in her the principality of the Apostolic Chair hath always flourished (m) S Aug. ep. 162. . And if we come to the Patriarches of Alexandria, of whom this Canon particularly speaketh, they did always even before the Council of Nice, acknowledge themselves subject to the B. of Rome, as appeareth by the example of Dionysius Patriarch of that City, who being fallen into suspicion of heresy, long before the Council of Nice, the Catholics of Alexandria had not recourse to the Synods of their own provinces, nor to any other Patriarch of the East, but went to Rome, to accuse him before Dionysius Pope. They went up to Rome (saith S. Athanasius) (n) De scent: Dionys. to accuse him before the B. of Rome, being of his own name. And a little after (o) Ibid. : And the B. of Rome sent to Dionysins, to clear himself of those things, whereof they had accused him; and suddenly he answered, sending his books of defence, and apology. And again (p) De Syn. Arim. & Soleu. : Some having accused the B. of Alexandria before the B. of Rome, to hold the Son for a creature, the Synod of Rome (that is the Pope's Consistory consisting of the neighbour Bishops, and the principal Churchmen of Rome, without whose advice he judgeth nothing of importance) was offended with him, & the B of Rome writ to him the opinion of all the Assistants: and he for his justification addressed to him a Book of defence, and apology. This plainly showeth, that the custom before the Council of Nice, was, that the Bishop and people of Alexandria did acknowledge the Pope of Rome to be their Superior: which custom therefore the Council will have to go on. But that the true meaning of this Canon may the better be understood, it is to be noted, that the entire Acts of the Council of Nice being lost, that which remaineth of them in the vulgar copies, is but fragments. Among the rest this very Canon hath not passed without mutilation: for the beginning of it (as it is related by Dionysius Abbas, an author of 1000 years standing) is: Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum: The Roman Church hath always had the primacy. This beginning troubleth your patience, and to refute it, you say (q) Pag. 108. : They shame not to prefer one vulgar book before all other Greek and Latin Copies: False. For that beginning of the Canon is in like manner extant in an ancient Manuscript of the famous Monastery of S. Vedastus in Atras, written above 800. years since (r) Of this see Pamelius in Annot. ad lib. Cyp. de Vnit. Eccles. n. 16. : and (which taketh away all occasion of doubt) it is so read in the famous Council of Chalcedon (s) Act. 16. . True (say you) (t) Pag. 108. but by the Pope's Legates. But what? Were not the Pope's Legates reverend Bishops, and Precedents of that Council? And when they read this beginning of the Canon, did the Fathers of that Council except against it, as you do? Nay, after they had read and considered it, did they not say (u) Act. 16. ? Ex his quae gesta vel ab unoquoque deposita sunt perpendimus omnem primatum, & honorem praecipuum secundum canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissmo Archiepiscopo conseruari. By those things which have been done, and the proofs which have been produced on both sides, we find that according to the Canons▪ all primacy▪ and chief honour is preserved to the most beloved of God the Archbishop of old Rome. Then which words none can be more effectual, to declare the primacy of the Pope, to be Primacy of authority and jurisdiction, and not of order only as you falsely comment; both because primacy of order is not all primacy, nor is it the chief honour: for the honour due to superiority of government, and jurisdiction, is fare above it. Besides, that as I have already showed (x) Above Chap. 12. and shall in the next Chapter prove (y) Sect. 2. , this your shift of Primacy of Order (to which you often betake yourself, as to your last refuge, when you are pressed with unanswearable arguments) is a mere shift invented to delude ignorant readers, with empty words void of truth. And by this canon it is in like manner evident, that the primacy was not then first given to the Church of Rome, but preserved unto it according to the canons. Your second Argument (z) Pag. 107. to prove, that the later Roman Counsels are bastardly▪ and illegitimate, and that we have little regard to the Council of Nice, is taken out of Theodoret, writing, that Constantine the Great required in that Synod, that, because the books of the Apostles do plainly instruct us in divine matters, therefore we ought to make our determinations upon questions from words which are divinely inspired. And then you tell us, that Bellarmine answereth thus: Co●stantine was a great Emperor indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet unbaptized, and therefore understood not the mysteries of religion. Thus (say you) doth this your Cardinal twit▪ and taunt the judgement of that godly Emperor, and (as the Steward in the Gospel) injustly concealeth from his reader that, which followeth in Theodoret namely, that the greater part of that Council of Nice obeyed the voice of Constantine. So you, as you are won●: for first you falsify Bellarmine, who saith not, that Constantine was yet unbaptized, but that, that is the opinion of you Protestants, and the old Arians: from whence he argueth ad hominem against you, that this testimony of Constantine is not of so great weight, as Caluin and Kemnitius make it: for if he were unbaptized, he could then be no great Doctor of the Church, as being a Neophyte, and therefore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion. What twiting, or taunting of that godly Emperor your find in this answer of Bellarmine, I know not; but I know, that you in holding Constantine to be then unbaptized, both seek to disgrace that godly Emperor, and withal to uphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretics, who to make him a Patron of their heresy, gave out that he was not baptised until a little before his death, and that then he received his baptism from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia, the chief ringleader of the Arian faction. But that your dealing may the better appear, it is to be noted, that Bellarmine is so fare from twiting, or taunting that godly Emperor, that he admitteth of his testimony: Admitting (saith he) (a) L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admiss● the authority of Constantine, I say, that in all those doctrines which concern the nature of God, there are extant testimomes in Scripture, out of which if they be rightly understood, we may be fully and plainly instructed; but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the unwritten tradition of the Church. Wherefore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speech of Constantine, declareth in the next Chapter, that in the Council of Nice Scriptures were produced on both sides, but the Arians were not convinced with them▪ because they expounded them otherwise then the Catholics, and therefore were condemned by the unwritten tradition of the Church piously understood: to which condemnation no man ever doubted, but that Constantine assented. So Bellarmine. And hereby it appears, that when you say, Bellarmine citeth Theodoret, & yet (as the Steward in the Gospel) injustly concealeth that which followeth in him, namely, that the greater part of the Council obeyed the voice of Constantine, you wrong Bellarmine, and a buse Theodoret, who in those words relateth not to the determining of controversies by Scriptures, but to Constantine's exhortation made to the Bishops of peace, and concord among themselves, which (saith Theodoret) the greatest part of the Council obeyed, embracing mutual concord, and true doctrine, though divers Arians disagreed, some of whose names he there expresseth. This you injustly conceal, like the ill Steward in the Gospel, that you may pick a quarrel with Bellarmine. In confirmation of this I might add, that (as S. Augustine (b) L. 5. de Baptism. c. 23. and Vincentius Lyrinensis (c) Cont. haer. c. 9 & 10. have testified) the heresy of Rebaptisation could not be disproved by Scripture, but was condemned by Tradition. And finally I might ask you, why you, like the bad Steward, conceal what Theodoret writeth in that very place, namely, that what Constantine said, he spoke not to the Bishops, as their Head, but, as a son that loved peace offered up his words to the Priests as to his Fathers, and that he would not enter into the Council but after them all, nor sit down but with their leave, and in a low chair. Did he (trow you) believe himself to be Head of the Church? CHAP. XVII. The second General Council held at Constantinople, believed the supreme authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome. SECT. I. By what authority this Council was called. BELLARMINE in proof of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, allegeth, that the Fathers of the first general Council of Constantinople, (which was the second general of the whole Church) in their Epistle to Pope Damasus, say: They were gathered by his Mandate, and confess that the Church of Rome is the Head, and they the members. This (say you (d) Pag. 109. is all that is objected, but upon a mistake. What then is the mistake? Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his works, afterwards observed, that it was not the Epistle of the second general Synod, but of the Bishops which had been present at the Synod, and met again the next year after at Constantinople. But if this Epistle were not of the Synod, why do you, speaking of it not without contradiction, say (e) Pag. 100L. : The general Council of Constantinople do indite an Epistle (f) Pag. 110. margin. , and inscribe it thus? And why do you mentioning the inscription of the same Epistle call it, Synodicae Epistolae inscriptio, The inscription of the Synodical Epistle? And why doth Theodoret (h) L. 5. hist. c. 9 style it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano missus, A Synodical writ sent by the Council of Constantinople & c? But howsoever, you alleging that Bellarmine acknowledgeth his own mistake, is a mere cavil, nothing availing your cause: for be it, that those Bishops writ not their Epistle, whiles they were assembled in Council, but when they met the next year after at Constantinople, yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine allegeth out of their Epistle, unless you will make them all liars. But let us go on. Bellarmine saith (i) Recogn. pag. 46. in hoc Concil. , it is sufficiently proved out of the sixth general Council, that this of Constantinople was called by the command of Pope Damasus: you answer (k) Pag. 109. that, in proof thereof he referreth himself to another Council, against the universal current of histories, which with general consent set down the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme, and first compulsary causes for the collecting of Counsels. So you, but falsely as hath been already proved (l) Chap. 1●. ●. 8. . And to go no further for examples, That very sixth general Council which you mention, beareth witness for Bellarmine against you, saying: As soon as Arius arose, the Emperor Constantine, and Sylvester worthy of praise assembled the great and famous Council at Nice. And that Constantine did not call that Council by his authority, hath been proved, (m) Ibid. , and is confirmed out of the sixth Council itself, which was called by the authority of the Pope, as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to Donus (n) Inter praeambul. 6. Synod. apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 6. , in which he earnestly intreateth him to send Legates in his name, with sufficient instructions, and authority, for the celebration of a Council, to repress heretics, and restore peace to the Church; promising withal to see them securely conveyed to Constantinople, to receive them with due honour, and the Council being ended, to return them home with safety. Donus being dead before this letter came to Rome, it was received by Agatho his Successor, who yielding to so pious a desire of the Emperor, caused divers Synods to be held in the West to examine the Monothelites Doctrine. Which being done, he called a Synod at Rome to establish more firmly the Catholic faith against those Heretics, and then sent his Legates to Constantinople, upon whose arrival the Emperor (as knowing that without the authority of the See Apostolic no Council could be valid) signified by letters (o) Extat apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 7. to the Patriarches of Constantinople and Jerusalem, that the Pope having yielded to his desire of calling a Council, had sent his legates representing his own person, and with them order, and instructions how to proceed therein: and therefore wished them with their Metropolitans and Bishops, to resort to Constantinople. All which showeth how untruely you say, that Emperors are the supreme, and first compulsory causes for the collecting of Counsels: for indeed how can that authority belong to them, who have no more, than the sixth Council showeth? Which being ended the Pope's Legates, though none of them were Bishops, but two of them Priests, and the third a Deacon, as they had presided in the Council, so they subscribed in the first place, before all the Bishops, and Patriarches, and the Emperor in the last place after all, and in these words, Legimus & consensimus (p) Apud Bin. to. 3. pag. ●7. , showing thereby, that he had no authority of a judge in the Council, but that his duty was (as it is also of other Emperors) to agree unto what the Bishops by their authority, as judges had determined. 2. To prove that the Emperor was the supreme and first com●ulsaty cause of collecting the second general Council at Constantinople, you produce Theodoret as a witness (q) Pag. 109. 110. , that not Damasus, but he was the absolute Commander. If Theodoret say, that the Emperor commanded, he saith it not to show, that he commanded by his own authority, but by the power he had received from Damasus; so, that his command and convocation was only executory of Damasus his authority: for why else do not those Bishops say, that the Emperor called them? and why do they say to Damasus, You called us, as your own members by letters sent to the Emperor, but because Damasus was he that chiefly called them, and the Emperor no otherwise, then by virtue of Damasus his letters sent unto him to that effect? Even as Basilius the Emperor in like manner called the eight general Council by the Mandate of Pope Adrian's letters (r) Apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 881. : Volumus etc. We will (saith Adrian to the Emperor) that a full Council be held at Constantinople, by the industry of your Piety, in which our Legates presiding etc. And this would have been no less clear concerning the calling of the second general Council at Constantinople, if what you set down in your Latin and Greek marginals, you had sincerely rendered in your English text, which most imported your readers for the understandding of the truth. And the same is yet further proved out of two very ancient Manuscripts, the one of the Vatican, and the other of S. Maria Maior, in which it is said (s) Apud Baron. anno 381. : Damasus confirmed the sentence of condemnation pronounced against Macedonius, and Eunomius, in the second Synod, which by his command and authority was held at Constantinople. And lastly whether Damasus did believe, that the authority of calling Counsels belonged to the Emperor or to himself, may be gathered out of another Epistle of his, written in answer to one Stephen, an Archbishop of Mauritania, and three African Counsels (t) Damas'. Ep. 4. apub. Bin. to 1. pag. 499. , in which having declared, that he had the Episcopal charge, or ministry over the house of God, which is the universal Catholic Church, and that the See Apostoleke is constituted by God over all Priests, and Bishops, he addeth; for as you know, it is not Catholic, that a Synod be held without the authority of the holy See Apostolic, nor a Bishop condemned, but in a lawful Synod assembled by the same authority: nor are any Counsels read to be valid, but only such as have their strength from the Apostolical authority. And hereby you are convinced of an untruth, in saying, (u) Pag. 110. that Damasus his letters were not mandatory to the Orientals, but letters of request to the Emperor Theodosius for obtaining liberty, to collect, and assemble a Synod. For albeit Damasus requested Theodosius to assist him therein, as the duty of a Christian Emperor was to do, yet (witness Theodoret (x) L. 5. c. 8. he with his Roman Synod (without whose advice he dispatcheth no business of moment) sent letters to the Eastern Bishops themselves, to call them to a Council at Rome; which letters they having received by the Emperor, return an answer to Damasus, not taxing him for want of authority to call them, but excusing their not obeying his command, by reason of the shortness of time, & the great inconveniences their long absence would have bred to their Churches newly freed from the persecutions, and troubles of Heretics. Which excuse sufficiently showeth, that they acknowledged in him authority to call them. SECT. II. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and jurisdiction, or of Order only. BEllarmine (y) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. proveth the Pope's authority over the Orientals by their acknowledging him to be their Head and themselves to be his members. You answer, (*) Pag. 110. that the similitude of Head, and members, implieth, no superiority of jurisdiction, but only of Order, that is, of priority of place, of voice, and the like. But this evasion is confuted by the very comparison itself: for the Head hath not only priority of place above the members, but governeth and ruleth the whole body. And therefore your answer is no less contrary to reason, then if you should tell us, that in a political body, as in a College, the Rector, which is Head of the house, hath no other superiority over his fellow-Collegials, but only priority of place, or of voice: nor the Governor of a City over the Citizens, nor the Viceroy over the inferior officers of the kingdom. And so much the more reprehensible is this your sophistry, because you know, that the holy Council of Chalcedon speaking to Leo Pope, saith (z) Inrelat. ad Leon. : You rule over us, as the Head doth over the members. And (a) Ibide : We beseech you to honour our judgement with your decrees, and that as in what concerns the weal we have had correspondency to our Head; so your Sovereignty would fulfil to your Children, what concerns decency. Do not these Fathers here expressly acknowledge Leo to be the ruler and Governor of the Universal Church, and beseech him to confirm and authorise their decrees? If he had not power and authority over the whole Church, why did S. Ambrose (one of the Bishops to whom these Orientals addressed their letter, as the inscription (b) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 9 declareth) speaking of this very Pope Damasus, say (c) In cap. 3. prior. ad Timoth. : Though all the world be Gods, yet the Church is called his house, whereof at this day Damasus is Governor? If the Pope have not jurisdiction over all Bishops, even the greatest Patriarches of the East, and power to annual their decrees, and the decrees of their Counsels, why did S. chrysostom (d) Ep. 1. ad Innocent. , when he was deposed from the See of Constantinople, in a Council held by Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, writ to Innocentius Pope, beseeching him to annul the Acts of that Council, and punish them that had so injustly condemned him? Why did Theodoret Bishop of Cyre, deposed in the second Council of Ephesus, appeal to Pope Leo (e) Ep. ad Renat. & ep. ad Leo. , acknowledging, that the holy Roman See hath the stern of government over all the Churches of the world? If the rule and government of the universal Church belong not to the Pope, why did the Bishop of Patara in Lycia, upon the expulsion of Pope Siluerius from his See (f) Liberat. in Brevi. c. 12. , represent unto justinian the indignity of that fact, saying, that albeit there be many Kings and Princes in the world, yet none of them over all the earth, as the Pope is over the Church of all the world? If the government of the universal Church belong not to him, why did the Emperor Valentinian the third (g) Cod. l. 7. & 8. instile him, Rector of the universaloty of Churches? Why doth the same Emperor and Theodosius decree (h) Constit. Novel. tit. 24. , that all those things shall be laws, which have beve or shall be ordained by the Pope of the eternal City, and that presumption attempt nothing against his authority: for so (say thoy) the peace of the Church shall be maintained by all, if the universality acknowledge her Rector. If the Pope have no superiority over other Bishops, but only priority of place, or of voice, why did Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, with many others of the East, in their wrongs, appeal to julius' Pope, as to their judge (i) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. ? & how came he to replace them in their seats, but (k) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. by the sovereignty of his Church; and (l) Nicepho. l. 9 c. 8. because the charge of all belonged to him? But to return to the Council of Constantinople; Those Fathers in their letter to Damasus, made sufficient acknowledgement of his authority over them (m) Apud Theodoret. l 5. c. 9 , when they demanded from him the confirmation of their decrees of faith, and in particular that of the deposition of Timothy Patriarch of Alexandria, condemned for heresy: All these things (say they) being lawfully decreed according to the Canons of the Church, we beseech your Holiness, to approve them. To which petition Damasus answered (n) Apud Theodoret. ibid. c. 10. : Whereas your charity (most honoured children) yieldeth due reverence to the Apostolic See, it shall turn you to great honour etc. But what need was there to require from one the deposition of Timothy, seeing he was long since deposed here, with his Master Apollinarius, by the judgement of the See Apostolic, and in the presence of Peter Bishop of Alexandria? SECT. III. Whether the name of Brother, Colleague, and fellow-Minister, which the Pope giveth to other Bishops, and they to him, argue them to be of equal authority, and jurisdiction with him? YOu object (o) Pag 110.111. , that the Fathers of this second Council general writ not to the Pope alone, but to him with other Bishops of the Roman Synod, whom they acknowledge to be their Colleagues and fellow members, and thereby cut the Roman Head into so many pieces, as there were Bishops, to whom they inscribed their Epistle. It is a prime Argument of yours, which you often repeat, and strongly insist on (p) Pag 63. fin. 64.83.84.110.111.116.141.268. , that because Bishops are joined in society with the Pope, or because they call him Brother, Colleague, and fellow-Minister, as also because he writing to them, calleth them, his Brethren & Colleagues, there is no inequality of power between the Pope and them, but that they are all equal with him. Whiles you give to the Pope (say you) (q) Pag. 63. fin. 64. an absolute jurisdiction, cum plenitudine potestatis, over all Bishops, how can you suffer him to be mated, or equaled with others Bishops, as Paul did Peter, by joining in society with him james and john? 2. Here (r) Pag. 110.111. you infer, that because the Oriental Bishops that had been present at the second Council general, writing to Damasus Pope, and other Bishops assembled at Rome, call both him, and them, their Brethren, and Colleagues, they acknowledge not any authority or jurisdiction in the Pope, more than in themselves, or in the other Bishops, to whom they writ. 3. You frame the like Argument (s) Pag. 116. out of the Council of Ephesus, because it calls Celestine B. of Rome, Fellow-Minister. 4. And out of S. Epiphanius (t) Pag. 241. , who called Pope Hormisdas, Brother. 5. And out of S. Cyprian you tell us (u) Pag. 268. , that he never calleth the Pope Bishop of Bishops, Father of Fathers, High Priest of Christ, and Monarch of the universal Church, as he would have done, if he had believed his Monarchy: but contrariwise in all his Epistles, saluteth Pope Cornelius, with only Charissime frater, Most dear Brother, & taketh his Vale, with the same, Most dear brother, farewell. And when in his Epistles to others he falleth into mention of him, he exceedeth not these Epithets, Ourfellow brother Cornelius, Our Colleague, or fellow in office Cornelius: which if it be beheld in a secular glass is, as if a Vassal should salute his King, with, All hail brother Henry, & take his leave with, Farewell brother Henry. Fie fie: What will you make of the Fathers? will you judge them so witless, as not to have understood their Morals. This is your discourse: Grave (I warrant you) and very judicious, but how fare from the purpose, have but a little patience, and you shall hear. And first, to begin with your secular glass; God in the holy Scripture saith to his people (x) Deutero. 17.15. : Thou shalt take a King whom our Lord thy God shall choose out of the number of thy brethren. And again (y) Ibid. vers. 20. : That the King's hart be not lifted up into pride above his Brethren. Wherefore the subjects of a King, are his brethren: and yet because the manner of government used by Kings to keep their subjects in awe, and repress the Violence of Malefactors, is with a Lordly dominion, such as our Saviour describeth, saying (z) Luc. 22.25. The Princes of nations domineer over them, in the stile of the world he should be esteemed unmannerly and saucy, that should presume to say to his Sovereign. All hail Brother Henry, or farewell fellow Henry. And therefore S. Gregory speaking of the worldly greatness, and state of Kings, saith (a) In 1. Reg. l. 4. c. 2. : The things which are contained in the law, that concerneth Kings, are foretold, to the end they may be avoided, rather than followed. And the same is taught us by the example of our Blessed Saviour (b) Marc. 10.45. & Luc. 2.27. who, as he came into the world to serve, and not to be served, so he would not have the Ecclesiastical Monarchy like to that of Secular Princes, but a gentle and brotherly Monarchy, as that of an Elder brother, over his younger brethren: for that is the title which the Apostle gives him, calling him (c) Rom. 8.29. . The first begotten among many brethren. And therefore albe it (as he told his Apostles (d) joan. 13.23. he was their Lord, and Master, yet proposing himself unto them as an example of superiority, accompanied with humility, and teaching them in what manner they ought to govern their inferiors, he said unto them (e) Luc. 22.27. & vers. 25. 2●. : I am in the midst of you▪ as one that ministereth: the Princes of nations domineer over them, but you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as the waiter. This rule S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, and first B. of Rome observed, according to our Saviour's command; and exhorted all Bishops, as his inferiors to observe the same, saying (f) 1. Pet. 5.2. & 3. : Feed the flock of God, which is among you, providing not with constraint, but willingly according to God; nor dominiering in the Clergy, but made examples of the flock from the hart. And out of this pattern of sweet and brotherly government used by Christ, and prescribed by him to his Apostles, and by S. Peter to his Successors in the Roman See, and to other Bishops, the Pope and all other Prelates have drawn theirs, and therefore call and salute each other, by the name of Brethren: in so much that S. Gregory speaking of Bishops saith (g) L. 7. ep. 65. : When crimes exact it not, all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equal. And yet to show, that all Bishops are subject to the Pope, he had said immediately before, I know no Bishop, but is subject to the See Apostolic. And again (h) L. 7. op. 64. : Who doubts, but that the Bishop of Constantinople is subject to the See Apostolic? which the most religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother Bishop of the same City, do continually Protest. In which words he calleth the B. of Constantinople, Brother, and yet declareth him subject to the See Apostolic. And in like manner our Saviour in the Gospel often calleth the Apostles. His brethren (i) Luc. 25.40 & cap. 28.10. & joan. 20.17. : from whence you may infer, that he was not Superior to them in authority, and it will be as good a consequence, as to infer, that the Pope is not Superior in power to other Bishops, because he calls them Brethren. But for the more full declaration of this, it is to be noted, that it was a thing familiar to ancient writers, to use the word Brother, not to exclude the superiority of jurisdiction, but to express the unity of communion. For, 1. the Catholic Bishops of Africa answeated the Donatists in the Conference of Carthage, that Cecilianus who had been Archbishop of that City, and consequently the Head and Superintendent of all the Bishops of Africa, was their Brother: He was (saith S. Augustine) (k) Collect. Carthag. Act. 3. our Brother because of the Communion of Sacraments. 2. In the same sense he called Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage, his Brother (l) De oper. Monach. c. 1. , notwithstanding that he was the spiritual subject of Aurelius, & made B. of Hippo by means of the dispensation, which he had given to Valerius B. of that City, to take him for his coadjutor (m); and he acknowledged himself bound to execute his commands: I have (saith he (m) Possid in vita Aug. c. 8. obeyed your commands my holy Brother Aurelius. 3. Epigonius one of the Bishops of the third Council of Carthage, calls the same Aurelius, (n) De opere Monach. c. 1. His Brother (o) Conc. Carthag. c. 45. , whom yet he there acknowledgeth to have jurisdiction over all the Bishops of Africa. 4. The Council of Carthage writing to Innocentius Pope, to confirm the sentence of condemnation, which both in that, and in the Council of Milevis, had been pronounced against Pelagius, saith (p) Aug. ep. 90. : This, o holy Lord and Brother, we conceived we ought to represent to your Charity, that to the statutes of mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolic. In which words they acknowledge Innocentius to be their Lord and Superior, and to have authority to confirm their decrees, & yet notwithstanding, call him their Brother. 5. john Patriarch of Constantinople calls Hormisdas' Pope, Brother, (q) Ep. add Hormisd. and yet protests to obey the See Apostolic in all things. 6. justinian (r) Cod. tit. 1. l 8. writing to Pope john surnamed Mercurius, calleth the Patriarch of Constantinople, his Brother: and yet both in the same Epistle and in another to the Patriarch himself (s) Cod. tit. 1. l. 7. , he professeth the Pope to be The Head of all the holy Prelates of God. Hereby it appeareth, how ignorantly and falsely you infer, that S. Cyprian equalleth himself in authority with Cornelius Pope, because he styleth himself his Brothrer, or that Cornelius acknowledgeth in himself no authority over Cyprian, because he giveth him the same title. For besides what hath been said, Erasmus a man highly esteemed by you hath taught you (t) Not. in ep. Cyp. ad Cornel. that the word Brother there signifieth not equality, but society of religion. And nothing else is signified by the words, Colleague, and Fellow-minister, when other Bishops are so instiled by the Pope, or the Pope by them. For that ancient Father Vincentius Lyrinensis speaking of Pope Stephen, and other Bishops opposing the doctrine of rebaptisation defended by Firmilianus, and Cyprian, saith (u) Cont. haer. cap. 9 : Then the blessed Stephen made resistance together with, but yet before, his Colleagues, judging it (as I conceive) a thing worthy of him to excel them in faith, so much, as he did in the authority of his place. And Innocentius the first in answer to the Counsels of Carthage and Milevis (x) Inter ep. Aug. ep. 93. : I conceive, that all our Brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to refer what may be profitable in common to all Churches, to any but to Peter, that is to say, to the author of their name and dignity. And the Bishops of Egypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius, their Colleague (y) Athan. Apol. de fuga sua. , who yet was their Head, and had jurisdiction over them, as the Councell of Nice declareth (z) Can. 6. . And lastly the Bishops of the Council of Ephesus, call Celestine Pope, their fellow-minister (a) Par. 2. Act. 1. ; and yet in the same place style him their most holy Father. and make themselves executors of his decrees: Constrained necessarily (say they) by the force of the Canons, and by the letters of our most holy Father, and Fellow-minister Celestine, we are come not without tears, to pronounce this heavy sentence against Nestorius. I conclude therefore, that these words, Brother, Colleague, and fellow-minister, when they are used by the Pope to other Bishops, or by other Bishops to the Pope, signify nothing else, but society of religion and unity of communion: from whence to infer (as you do) that other Bishops are of equal authority with the Pope, is a piece of ignorance, no way suiting with a man of your reading, and altogether unbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop. SECT IU. A frivolous cavil of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine, answered. YOu object (b) Pag. 109. fin. that, whereas Theodoret saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, letter's the years past, Bellarmine against all Lexicons readeth, The mandate of letters. Is not this fine art, trow ye? etc. If any should translate the year past, into Mandate, might it not be suspected, that the man's wits were now in the wain, as being ignorant etc. So you; who by seeking to show your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine, discover your ignorance, and folly. Bellarmine's intent is to show, that the Council of Constantinople was called by the Pope's authority, because the Fathers of the Council writing to Damasus, acknowledge that they were called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by his letters, which Bellarmine translateth, mandato literarum, by command of his letters, following the version of Christopherson; and with good cause: for who is so stupid, as not to understand, that it is all one, to call the Bishops to a Council, by his letters, as the Greek saith, or, by the authority and Mandate of his letters, as Christopherson translated? But to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mandate, neither did Bellarmine so translate, nor would any man, whose wits are not in the wain, have imputed so gross an ignorance to that learned Cardinal, especially, since in two different places, he setteth down the same passage at large, and expresseth both Mandato litterarum, (c) L. 2. de Pont. c. 13. & In Respon. ad Apol. pro iuram. fidel. pag. 375. , and, Anno superiore, saying: Mandato litterarum superiore anno à vestra Reverentia ad sanctissimum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum: by the Mandate of letters sent the last year by your Reverence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius. Which showeth, that if he had left out of the Latin, Anno superiore, (as you citing his words cunningly do) it had not been to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Mandate, but to omit Anno superiore, as a particle wholly impertinent, either to prove, or disprove the Pope's power of calling general Counsels, which no way dependeth on the year, but on the authority and dignity of his place. SECT. V Of the Decree of this second Council general, made in favour of the Archbishop of Constantinople. AGainst what hath been said, you oppose a (d) Pag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Council, ordaining, that the B. of Constantinople have the honour of primacy next after the B. of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome. This Objection reboundeth on your own head: For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtain the second place after the Pope, because Constantinople is new Rome, it is thereby manifest, that before that time, the B. of old Rome had the primacy, above all Bishops: The primacy (I say) not of order only (for this the Bishops of Constantinople never denied to the Pope) but of authority, and jurisdiction over the Patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem: for that authority it was, in which they sought to participate with him, though in the second place after & under him: which they could not have done, unless the primacy of authority over those Patriarches had primitively, and originally belonged to him. So fare therefore is this your Argument from evincing any thing against the Pope's authority, that it confirmeth the same. And so much the more, because the Canon objected (whatsoever the sense of it be, and whatsoever the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it) is of no force: for the Council in which it was made, consisted only of the Bishops of the East, and therefore was not General of itself, but only by the adiunction, and confirmation of another Council of the Western Bishops, held at Rome, under Damasus Pope, at the same time, which neither knew of this Canon before it was made, nor confirmed it after it was made, as S. Gregory hath testified saying (e) L. 6. ep. 31. : The Roman Church neither hath, nor receiveth the Canons, or the Acts of the Council of Constantinople: but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius. And the same is testified by S. Leo (f) Ep. 53. , who reprehending Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, for seeking to renew this Canon in the Council of Chalcedon, saith: The signature of certain Bishops made (as thou vauntest) more than threescore years since, cannot justify thy intention, to the upholding whereof (being of itself from the beginning ruinous, and long since quite fallen) thou hast sought weak and feeble props: for never having bone transmitted by thy predecessors to the knowledge of the See Apostolic, it could be of no force. That this Canon was never allowed by the See Apostolic, you know, but shift it off saying (g) Pag 112. : Truly it were more than marvel, if the Church of Rome should admit any Canon, that may any way derogate from her presumption This your answer is, as if the lower house of Parliament should enact a law against the King's just and lawful authority, or at least without his knowledge: and the King not admitting thereof, you should justify their act, saying (a): It were more than marvel if the King should admit any act that may any way derogate from his presumption: Were this loyalty? Were this good Doctrine? Yet such is yours: for concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, the Pope hath the same place in a general Council, that a King hath in his Parliament. And as no Statute enacted in Parliament can be of force, unless it be confirmed by his Majesty, so no Canon, nor decree of a Council can be of force, unless it be confirmed by the Pope. SECT. VI That no Canon of any Council can be of force, until it be confirmed by the See Apostolic. FOr who knoweth not, that, as Socrates showing the decrees of the Arian Council at Antioch, to be of no force, saith (h) L. 2. c. 5. : julius B. of Rome was not there, nor sent any in his steed, whereas the Ecclesiastical Canon commands, that no decrees be made for the Churches, without the sentence of the B. of Rome. Which Doctrine is else where repeated by himself (i) L. 2. c. 13. , and by Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite, saying (k) L. 4. c. 9 : Counsels must not be held without the allowance of the B of Rome. And by Sozomen, (l) L. 3. c. 9 who writes, that julius rebuked the Arians, for that against the laws of the Church they had not called him to the Synod, there being a Sacerdotal law, which declareth all Acts to be invalid, that are made without the allowance of the B of Rome. The reprehension of julius, which these Historians mention, is exstant in his first Epistle to the orientals, where he saith: The Nicen Canons command that by no means Counsels be held without the B. of Rome. And in his second Epistle (which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology) speaking to the Arians: Are you ignorant that the custom is, that if any exceptions were taken against the Bishops there, we should first have been written to, that what is just might be determined from hence? And how ancient this custom is, Marcellus the first a holy Pope and Martyr testifieth, saying (m) Ep. ad Epise. Antioch. Provin. : The Apostles ordained, that no Synod should be held without the Authority of the See of Rome. Which ordination of the Apostles the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian confirmed by a special law in these words (n) Const. Novel. Theo. tit. 24. : We decree, that according to the ancient custom, nothing be innovated in the Churches, without the sentence of the Reverend Pope of the City of Rome. And in like manner justinian in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople (o) Cod. tit. 1. l. 7. : We preserve the estate of the Unity of the most holy Churches in all things, with the most holy Pope of ancient Rome, to whom we have written the like, because we will not have any thing to pass concerning the affairs of the Church, which shall not be also referred to his Blessedness, because he is the Head of all the holy Prelatet of God. And in his letter to the Pope (p) Cod. tit. 1. l. 8. : We will not suffer that any thing be treated of, belonging to the estate of the Church, though clear and manifest, which shall not also be referred to your Holiness, who are the Head of all Churches. Upon this ground it was, that Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria was accused, and by the Pope's command punished in the Council of Chalcedon (q) Act. 1. , for, that he had temerariously presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolic, which neither was, nor could ever lawfully be done. And Euagrius in the history of the same Council, reports (r) L. 2. c. 18. that the Senators demanding of Leo's Legates, what charge there was against Dioscorus, they answered, that he must yield an account of his judgement, because against right he had usurped the person of a judge, without the B. of Rome's permission. Whereupon by the judgement of the Synod he was commanded as a person guilty to stand up in the midst of the place, and accused of many crimes, as the same Narration declareth. Again from this ground it proceeded, that (as the Fathers of Chalcedon testify (s) Act. 10. , in general Counsels the Legates of the See Apostolic were always wont to speak, and confirm the decrees made, in the first place, before all other Bishops. And as all those Counsels general and particular which have required and obtained Confirmation from the See Apostolic, have ever been held valid, and reverenced throughout the Christian world; so contrarily all those that have wanted this confirmation, have been rejected, and condemned as unlawful, and spurious assemblies. The Council of Ariminum for number of Bishops, was exceeding great; and yet for want of this confirmation, the profession of faith made by them in that Council, as also the Council itself, have ever been reputed invalid. The number of Bishops assembled at Ariminum (saith Damasus with many other Bishops (t) Theod. l. 2. c. 22. Sozom. l. 6. c. 23. ought to have no force of prejudice for as much as that profession of faith was made without the consent of the B. of Rome, whose sentence before others, ought to have been attended. Again, for want of this confirmation the second Council of Ephesus hath always been condemned as a piratical Synod. And that famous Martyr Stephanus junior, speaking of a Council held by the Image-breakers under Constantinus Copronymus, answered (u) Apud Damas'. edit. Pacis an. 1603. part. 2. pag. 491. : How can this Council be called Ecumenical, which was not allowed by the B. of Rome, without whose authority no Ecclesiastical decrees can be made. In like manner Pelagius predecessor to S. Gregory speaking of john B of Constantinople saith (x) Ep. 1. : That intituling themselves Universal, he presumed to call a general Council, whereas the authority of calling general Synods, hath been consigned by a singular privilege to the Apostolic See of blessed Peter etc. And therefore (saith he (y) Ibid. to the Bishops of that Council) all that you have decreed in that no-Synod of yours (for Synod so attempted it could not be, but a Conventicle) I ordain by the authority of blessed Peter, that it be annulled and abrogated. And S. Gregory speaking of this sentence of Pelagius, saith (z) L. 4. op. 38. & l. 7. ep. 70. : Our Predecessor Pelagius of blessed memory, hath disannulled by a sentence entirely valid, all the acts of that Synod, except what concerned the cause of Gregory B. of Antioch. Finally to add more proofs for the confirmation of a truth so certain, were to add light to the Sun, stars to the Heavens, and water to the Ocean. These sufficiently show, that you by confessing, that this Canon of the Council of Constantinople was never admitted by the Church of Rome, discover your folly, in insisting so much on a Canon, which for want of due confirmation is invalid. SECT. VII. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force. YOu ask; (a) Pag. 112. Which of the Fathers, for the space of 60. years after, opposed against this Canon? What one Bishop before Pope Leo thought is not most equal? I answer, that this Canon was so fare from being allowed, either by the Popes, or other Fathers of that time, that because it was not confirmed by the See Apostolic, it presently died: and the Patriarches of Constantinople acknowledged themselves still subject to the Pope, and the Pope exercised his jurisdiction over them, as formerly he had done. For this Council of Constantinople being held in the time of Nectarius Patriarch of that City, S. chrysostom that was his immediate Successor, being deposed at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empress, by a Council of Bishops held at Constantinople under Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, had recourse by letters of appeal to Innocentius Pope, beseeching him to disannul by his letters, and authority, the Acts of that Council; to abrogate their sentence of condemnation injustly pronounced against him, to restore him to his Bishopric, and punish his adversaries according to the Canons of the Church; yet not with such rigour, but that if they did repent, he would be pleased to spare them. All these particulars are the requests of S. chrysostom expressed in his letters to Innocentius (b) Ep. 1. & 2. add Innocent. : in which who seethe not, that he acknowleged in him the power of an absolute judge, not only over himself, but also over Theophilus the greatest Patriarch of the East, and over the whole Council, that had condemned him? chrysostom was no sooner thrust out of his See, and sent into banishment, but his enemies set up Arsacius in his place, who living not much above a year, Innocentius would never admit him to his communion, and after his death commanded his name to be razed out of the records of the Church. After Arsacius succeeded Atticus, chrysostom yet living. Him likewise Innocentius excommunicatated: and notwithstanding that he sent many embassages, to procure absolution he could never obtain it, until he had enrolled the name of chrysostom in the records of the Church, as Innocentius ordained (c) Theod. l. 5. c. 34. . Sun after him succeeded Nestorius, who being fallen into heresy, was by the authority and command of Pope Celestine excommunicated, & deposed in the first Council of Ephesus (d) See the next Chap. sect. 1. . In his place Maximianus a man of excellent virtue was ordained by the Legates of the See Apostolic, and confirmed by Celestine Pope: and who, in acknowledgement of the See Apostolic, writ a famous Epistle to the Orientals. Part of his words you have heard above (e) Chap. 1. sect. 4. . After him succeeded Flavianus, who having condemned Eutyches in a Synod at Constantinople, and being therefore deposed in the second Council of Ephesus by means of Dioscorus, an heretical Patriarch of Alexandria, appealed to Leo Pope. Flivianus (saith Liberatus) (f) In breuiar. c. 22. appealed to the Apostolic See by petition presented to his Legates. The same is testified by Leo himself (g) Ep. 24. , and by Valentinian the third to Theodosius his Father in law (h) In Ep. preamb. Concil. Chalced. . These examples are so many testimonies of your ignorance. You ask, which of the Fathers for the space of 60. years (after the Council of Constatinople) opposed against this Canon, or what one Bishop before Leo thought it not equal? But we contrarily demand of you, which of the Bishops of Constantinople (in whose favour this Canon was made) for the space of 70. years, which passed between the two Counsels of Constantinople, and Chalcedon, did claim any privilege of honour, over the other Patriarches of the East, or any exemption from the Pope's jurisdiction, by virtue of this Canon▪ Or what Pope in those 70. years did think it equal? The examples alleged convince, that the most famous Bishops of Constantinople, which lived in that time, knew the Canon to be of no force; since in the wrongs done them by other Patriarches, and Counsels of the East, they never alleged it in their own defence, but still appealed to the Popes of those times, as to their lawful judges: and the Pope's thought their appeals, to be most equal, and just: & absolving them, condemned their adversaries. And finally, that this Canon took no effect, is a thing evident, by the answer which the Pope's Legates made, when Anatolius B. of Constantinople attempted to have it renewed in the Council of Chalcedon: for having said, that it was not to be found in the Code of the Canons of the universal Church, they added (i) Act. 1●. : If the Bishops of Constantinople have enjoyed it, what would they have more? And if they have not enjoyed it, why do they now require it? CHAP. XVIII. The third Council General, being the first of Ephesus, believed the supreme Authority, and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome, over all Bishops. SECT. I. Of the deposition, and condemnation of Nestorius, by the Command of Pope Celestine▪ and whether the style of ancient Popes were to Command. CELESTINE Pope being informed of the blasphemous Doctrine of Nestorius' Patriarch of Constantinople (who held that in Christ there were two persons, divine, and humane, and that therefore the B. Virgin Mary was the mother of man only and not of God) condemned it first at Rome, and then made cyril Patriarch of Alexandria his Vicar in the East, giving him Commission to publish, and execute his sentence at Constantinople. This he signified to Nestorius' himself (k) Conc. Ephes. to. 1. c. 17. sin. : We have sent (saith Celestine) the form of this judgement, together with the whole process to our holy fellow-Bishop of Alexandria, to the end that he being made our Vicar, may notify this our Decree unto all, And giving Commission to cyril to publish and execute his sentence, he saith (l) Ep. ad Cyril. in Conc. Ephes to. 1. c. 16. : Adding to thee the authority of our See, and using with power the representation of our place, thou shalt execute exactly and severely this sentence, namely, that if within ten days told, after signification of this admonition made to Nestorius, he do not in express words anathematise his wicked Doctrines etc. thy Holiness shall provide for that Church without delay, and declare him to be wholly cut off from our body. Who seethe not that these words of Celestine import a command to Cyrill? And in conformity to this command, cyril writ to the Clergy, & people of Constantinople (m) Conc. Ephes. to. 1. c. ●5. : We are constrained to signify to Nestorius by Synodical letters: that if very speedily, that is, within the time prescribed by the most holy Bishop of the Roman Church, he renounce not the Novelties of his Doctrine, he is to have no more communion with us, not place among the Minister of God▪ And the Council itself proceeding to the sentence of condemnation against him, saith (n) Conc. Ephes. to. 2. c. 20. : Constrained necessarily by the force of the Canons, and by the letters of our most holy Father Celestine, we are come not without many tears, to pronounce this heavy sentence against him. And then they couch the sentence itself in these words (o) Ibid. : Therefore our Lord jesus Christ whom Nestorius hath assailed with his blasphemies, by this holy Synod pronounceth him wholly deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and cast out from all company, and conversation of Priests. These passages prove the authority of the Pope. 1. Over cyril Patriarch of Alexandria whom he made his Vicar, and who acknowledged himself bound by Celestines letters, to condemn Nestorius, and cast him out from among the Ministers of God. 2. Over the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom he first condemned at Rome, and afterwards gave command to cyril, to publish his condemnation at Constantinople, and to substitute another Bishop in his place. And 3. over the Council of Ephesus, in which the Bishops profess (*) Euagr. l. 1. c. 4. , that they were compelled necessarily by the force of the Canons, and by the letters of Celestine, to condemn Nestorius: Which (saith Bellarmine) was to profess that they deposed him by the command of Pope Celestine. False (say you (p) Pag. 114. : There is not the word Command used by the Council etc. No, you know well, that to command, was not the stile of Popes in primitive, and ancient times. S. Gregory B. of Rome 150. years after Celestine, did utterly abhor it. I command (saith he)? Away with the word Command: I have not commanded. And the same you repeat afterwards again (q) Pag. 233. . And to persuade your readers, that the passages alleged contain no Command of Celestine to Cyril, or to the Council, you shift them off saying (r) Pag. 115. ; Those Fathers confess, they were moved, and compelled by Celestines letters meaning by the persuasions of that Orthodox Bishop, and that but only (tùm tùm) in part; for so they say, Both by the Canons, and also by your letters. But this evasion cannot serve: for they say not. They were persuaded by Celestines letters, (there is no mention of persuasion) but that they were necessarily compelled by them, which is to be Commanded: for Persuasions do not necessarily compel, but Commands. And what more clear, then that Celestine did exercise the authority of a judge, and Commander, in ordaining cyril to execute exactly, and severely the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius, if he did not within ten days after admonition given him, anathematise his heretical Doctrine? Was this only to persuade? Was it not most strictly, and properly to command? Unless you will say, that when his Majesty (without using the word Command) gives strict charge to his judges, to condemn a Malefactor, he commands them not, but only persuades them to condemn him. But you say (s) Pag. 115. , Those Fathers were compelled by Celestines letters, and by the Canons: and therefore not wholly by his letters, but only in part. What then? If the judges say, they are compelled by the laws, and by his Majesty's letters to condemn a malefactor, doth it therefore follow, that his Majesty hath no authority to command the judges, or that his letters were not mandatory to them, but only persuasive? with such poor evasions you deceive your disciples. But you say (t) Pag. 114. : We well know, that to command, was not the style of Popes in primitive and ancient times. Pardon us Sir, we well know, that you speak untruly, and ignorantly: for Victor the first Pope of that name who lived in the first age after Christ, commanded the Asian Bishops to celebrate the Feast of Easter, after the manner of the Roman Church, and excommunicated them, that obeyed no● (u) Euseb. l. 5. hist. c. 24. . 2. Anthetus that lived in the beginning of the next age, writ to the Bishops of Andaluzia, & Toledo: These things we command to be observed, according to your desire (x) Apud. Bin. to. 1. pag. 145. . Stephen the first of that name writing to S. Cyprian, commanded that such as were baptised by hetetikes, should not be rebaptised: Let nothing be innovated (saith he) (z) Vincent. Lyr. advers. haer. c. 9 but the ancient to addition abserued. And notwithstanding the opposition of S. Cyptian, of Firmi●ian●●s, and many other learned Prelates, this command of Stephen prevailed, and the contrary doctrine was condemned by the Council of Nice, as heretical. 4. julius' the first of that name, rebuked the Arians (a) Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. because they had rashly depersed Athanasius, and other Catholic Bishops, and commanded that some of them in the name of all, should appear at Rome on a set day, to give ●ccempt of the justice of their sentence, and threatened not to let them pass without punishment, unless they did leave to innovate. And both Theodore● (b) L. 2. hist. c. 4. & S. Athanasius (c) Apol. 2. out of an undoubted Epistle of the same Pope, report, that following the Ecclesiastical law, h● commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome, and su●●●ned Athanasius canonic ally to present himself in judgement: and that as soon as he received the citation, he transported himself in diligence to Rome. What think you of these examples? Was it not the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory, to command, and to command the greatest Patriarches of the East? But let us go on. 5. Anastasius the second of that name speaking to Anastasius the Emperor saith (d) In ep. ad Anastas. Aug. : Let not Pride make resistance to the Apostolical precepts, but those things which are commanded by the Roman Church and Apostolical authority, let them be observed. 6. when Aurelius Bishop of Carthage writ to Damasus Pope for a copy of all the decrees and Statutes ordained by the Roman Church since S. Peter to his time, he sent them to him, saying (e) Ep. 5. ; We wish you to observe them, and command you to publish them, that with due reverence they may be kept by all. The African Bishops acknowledge (f) Ep. ad Bonifac. in Concil. Africa. c. 101. , that they had received from the Pope, Mandata & literas, Mandates and letters. 8. Gelasius a learned & holy Pope maketh express mention of the decrees and commands of the Popes his predecessor for the good of the Church (g) Ep. ●. 9 Leo the great writing to Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople testifieth (h) Ep. 4●. that he bathe enjoined him the execution of his decree. And in his first Epistle which is to all Bishops, he saith: All the decrees and constitutions, as well of Innocentius of blessed memory, as of all our predecessers, we command your Dilection to keep, so, that if any one contemn them, he may know, that pardon shall be denied him. And to the Bishops of Maurirania (i) Ep. 8●. : We command, that the cause of Lupicinus Bishop be heard there, whom we have restored to our communion, he himself earnestly, and often desiring it. These few testimonies of holy and renowned Popes that lived before S. Gregory, are sufficient to show, how ignorantly you affirm, that it was not the style of Popes in the ancient and primitive times to Command. And as the ancient Popes commanded, when it was necessary for them to show their authority; so the Bishops, even the greatest Patriarches, acknowledged in them authority to command, and in themselves subjection, and obligation to obey. For did not S. Athanasius upon Pope julius his citation, obey, taking his journey from Egypt to Rome (k) Theoder. l. 2. hist. c. 4. ? and doth he not profess his subjection to Marcus Pope (l) Ep. ad Marc. , when he saith: We are yours, and with all that are committed to our charge, are, and will ever be obedient to you? And do not the African Fathers writing to Bonifacius Pope promise, to obey his Mandates, until a more diligent inquisition of the Nicen Canons? And do not the Fathers of the Milevitan Council beseech Innocentius the first, to show his authority against the Pelagians? Many (say they) (m) Ep. ad Innocent. oppose against them, in defence of Grace, and the truth of the Catholic faith etc. But we believe, that with the help of the mercy of our Lord jesus Christ, they that hold these opinions so perverse, and pernicious, will more easily yield to the authority of your Holiness, drawn from the authority of the holy Scriptures. And when Paschasinus B. of Lilibaea, & Lucentius of Ascoli, Legates of Leo pope, said to the Council of Chalcedon (n) Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. , We have in our hands the Commands of the blessed and Apostolic Prelate of the City of Rome, whereby he hath vouchsafed to ordain, that Dioscorus sit not in the Council; and that if he offer to do it, he be cast out, because having no right to do the office of a judge, he attempted it, and presumed to hold a Synod, without the authority of the See Apostolic, which never was lawful, nor hath ever benedone. And did not the Council obey the Pope's command, causing Dioscorus not to sit among the Bishops, as a judge, but as a person guilty, to stand in the midst of the place to yield account of hid proceed? And did not the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius, acknowledge, that they had received his commands with due reverence, and thank him that he had vouchsafed to visit them with his Pastoral admonitions? And did not the Bishops of France in the second Council of Tours, say (o) Can. 21. : Our Fathers have always observed, what the authority of the See Apostolic hath commanded? And when chrysostom was deposed by a Council of Bishops at Constantinople, did he not appeal to Innocentius Pope, and petition him in these words (p) Ep. 1. ad Innocent. : Vouchsafe to command, that these things so wickedly done, we being absent, and not refusing judgement, may not be valide, as in truth they are not; and that they which have carried themselves so injustly, may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiastical laws? And when Theodoret B. of Cyre was deposed in the second Council of Ephesus, did he not write to Leo Pope: (q) Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolic Throne, and beseech your Holiness, to secure me appealing to your right, and just judgement, & to command that I transport myself to you, and verify that my Doctrine follows the Apostolic steps? And finally did not the Emperors Theodosius & Valentinian (r) Novel. Theod. tit. 24. publish a law which ordeynes, that to all Bishops those things shall be laws which have been, or shall be ordained by the Apostolic See; in such sort, that whatsoever Bishop being called by the Pope, shall refuse to appear, shall be constrained thereunto by the Governor of the Province. These, and a thousand more examples which may be alleged, convince, that it was the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory's time to command, when necessity required it; and that all Bishops, and generally all Christians acknowledged this power in the Popes, and in themselves obligation to obey. And as for S. Gregory in particular, who (say you): utterly abhorred the word Command, as he was a man of admirable humility, so his government was not dominiering in the Clergy, but according to the commandment of Christ (s) Lue. 2●. 27. , and of S. Peter his predecessor (t) 1. Pet. 5.2. , with great meekness and humility: and therefore writing to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria he wisheth him, L. 7. ep. ●5. not to mention any command of his: for, when crimes exact it not (saith he) all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equal. And in many places of his works he teacheth (x) L. 4. ep. 38. l. 2. Pasto. c. 7. Hom. 18. in Ezechiel. , that, the Ecclesiastical Governor ought to make himself a companion, and equal to his subjects; and whiles they do well, to prefer himself before them in nothing: but yet so, that if they offend, he show his power, and authority in correcting them. This therefore is the reason, why in his Epistle to Eulogius (which you object) he beseecheth him not to say, that he commanded: for being he writ not to him, to tax him of any crime, or offence committed, though by the authority of his place he knew himself to be his Superior, yet by humility, he made himself his equal, and wished him not to say that he commanded: for (saith he) I commanded not, but endeavoured to signify those things, which are profitable. All which notwithstanding, the same S. Gregory to show, that in authority and jurisdiction, he was Superior to Eulogius, and all other Bishops, and had power to command, and punish them, when they ossended, saith (y) L. 7. ep. 64. : For whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople confesseth himself subject to the See Apostolic, I know no Bishop that is not subject to it. And what he professed in words, he practised in deeds, commanding, and exercising his jurisdiction over the Bishops of all Christian nations, as out of his writings, and the confessions of our own more learned brethren, I have formerly proved (z) Chap. 15. sect. 3. . But because you so boldly aver, that he utterly abhorred the word Command (a) Pag. 114. , I will briefly show, how ignorantly, and untruly you speak: for to Anthemius he writeth (b) L. 11. ep. 35. : Because notice hath been given us, that the Bishops of Campania are negligent etc. therefore with this authority we command you, to call them together, and by virtue of our Command, to give them a strict charge, that hereafter they be not slothful, but by their carriage show themselves to have the zeal, and solicitude which becometh Priests, and that they be vigilant in these things which it is fitting for them to do justly according to God, that hereafter no complaints may be made of them. And if you find any of them to be negligent, send him to us without excuse, that he may feel by Canonical punishment, how grievous an offence it is, not to amend those things which are reprehensible. And in the privilege which he granted to the Monastery of S. Medardus (c) L. 12. Epistolarum sin. & alias l. 2. post ep. 38. : If any King, Bishop, judge or secular person whatsoever, shall violate the decrees of this Apostolical and our Command, let him be deprived of his honour, be he of never so high a degree. I know that Bellarmine alleging this decree, you tell us out of Doctor james (d) Pag. 179. (a man of as much credit as yourself) that it is forged, whereas that most holy and learned Pope Gregory the seaventh, which lived 600. years nearer the time of S. Gregory, than Doctor james, and had better means to know, what writings of his were legitimate and what spurious, allegeth it as his undoubted Epistle. And his testimony you disprove no otherwise, then by railing against him, whom yet (as hereafter I shall show (e) Chap. 32. sect. 3. the Historians of that age, and among them the two S. Anselmes of Canterbury, and Luca, highly extol for one of the most admirable Prelates that ever sat in the Chair of S. Peter; and whose sanctity God himself testified with many most famous miracles. But howsoever you carp at this decree of S. Gregory, Bellarmine in the same place (f) Cont. Bar●●●. c. 40. allegeth another of the same tenor, granted by him to an Hospital built in Austum by Brunichildes' Queen, & Syagrius Bishop of that City, which because you know not how to shift of, you slily pass over without mentioning it, notwithstanding S. Gregory's authority and command is no less effectually expressed in it, then in the former. I conclude therefore, that (as this holy Doctor confesseth) (g) L. 4. ep. ●6. he had learned from the Apostle to carry humility in his hart, and yet to preserve the honour and dignity of his place, commanding, and denouncing punishment to offenders, when it was needful. SECT. II. The Council of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the cause of john Patriarch of Antioch. Having showed that the Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius by the commandment of Pope Celestine, and that it was the ancient custom of the best and holiest Popes to Command, when the affair required it, let us go on with you (h) Pag. 115. to the cause of john Patriarch of Antioch, whom the Council of Ephesus durst not judge, but reserved him to the judgement of Celestine (i) Conc. Ephes. to. 4. c. 17. in ep. ad Celestin, Papam. . This again (say we) showeth the supreme authority of the Pope. You deny it, because: Those Fathers in the same Epistle report, that they had divested him of all Sacerdotal power, and deposed him, before they made any relation thereof to Celestine Pope. False. For their words are (k) In eadem ep. : Moved with the indignity of his proceeding, we would have pronounced against him such a sentence, as he had pronounced against those, that were not convicted of any crime. But to the end, that we might with lenity overcome his rashness, we have reserved his sentence to the judgement of you Piety, and in the mean time, we have excommunicated him, & divested him of all Sacerdotal power. These words evidently convince against you, that those Fathers to gain john with lenity, and hoping that he might be reclaimed (as afterwards in the time of Sixtus Pope he was) pronounced not any absolute and final sentence against him, according to his deserts, but reserved that to Celestine, as to his supreme judge: yet they excommunicated him in the mean time, and (as they say to the Emperor (l) Ep. ad Theodos. to. 4. c. 8. tantisper, for a while suspended him from the exercise of his Episcopal function, that he might not hurt others. And the same is gathered out of Celestines Epistle to the Council (m) Apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 628. , in which he saith, that, after their sentence against john, divers things remained to be considered, and determined by him. And this proceeding of the Ephesine Council against john, was afterwards imitated by the sixth Council general, in the cause of Macarius another Patriarch of Antioch, as the Emperor Constantine Pogonate reports in these words (n) In 6. Synod. Act. 18. : Macarius B. of Antioch, and his adhereurs, have been deposed by the consent of the whole Council, and reserved to the discretion of the most holy Pope. It is therefore evident, that both these Counsels acknowledged the giving of the last and definitive sentence against those Patriarches, to belong to the Pope: which is also confirmed by the words of Iwenall B. of Jerusalem uttered in presence of the whole Council of Ephesus: (o) To. 4. c. 4. apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 794. It is fit (said he) that john the right reverend B. of Antioch, honouring this great, holy, and Ecumenical Council, have recourse hither, to justify himself, of what is objected against him, and that he honour, and obey the Apostolic throne of great Rome; especially since the custom of Apostolic tradition and practice is, that the seat of Amioch be perpetually ruled, and judged by that of Rome. I appeal to the reader, whether these Counsels did not acknowledge the supreme power of the B. of Rome, in reserving to him the last sentence in the causes of these two great Patriarches. What then may we think of you, that have the boldness to outface so manifest a truth? SECT. III. Of the ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus, treated in the Council of Ephesus. But there remains one, which you (p) Pag. 116. call, A principal objection, and it is, that whereas Reginus, Zenon and Euagrius Bishops of Cyprus had by a petition presented to the Council of Ephesus made complaint of the Patriarch of Antioch (q) To. 2. Append. 1. c. 4. , That contrary to the ancient custom practised from the time of the Apostles, and contrary to the Canons of Nice, he had presumed to ordain Bishops in that Island; the Council decreed, (r) Ibid. that, no Bishop should encroath upon the liberties of any other, nor draw under his subjection any Province, which belonged not to him from the beginning: and therefore, that if the ancient custom were not, for the Bishop of Antioch, to ordain Bishops in Cyprus, he should not trouble the Bishops of that Island, but leave to them the ordination of their own Bishops. This Decree you will have to exclude the authority of the B. of Rome, as well as of any other. But your Argument is of no force: both because neither this Canon, nor any other of what Council soever, is powerful to limit his authority, nor hath force further than it is confirmed by him, as hath been proved; as also because he is not only Bishop of the Roman Diocese in particular, but of the universal Church. Other Bishops (saith S. Bernard) (s) L. 2. de Confider. c. 9 , according to the Canons, are called to a part of solicitude; he to the fullness of power: the power of other Bishops is confined to certain limits; his is extended also to them that have received power over others. He, if there because can shut Heaven to a Bishop, and depose him from his Bishopric. He, can erect new Bishoprics (t) S. Bernar. ep. 131. where they were not? He, of bishops, can make Archbishops, and contrariwise of Archbishops, Bishops, if reason so dictate unto him. Wherefore albeit as considered in the quality of a particular Bishop of the Roman Diocese, he cannot ordain Bishops out of that Diocese, more than other Bishops can out of theirs, yet as he is Pastor, and Bishop of the universal Church, he can depose and ordain Bishops in other Dioceses, as Agapet deposed Anthymus Patriarch of Constantinople, and ordained Menas in his place. And the Ecclesiastical histories are full of examples of the same nature: which therefore convince, that the Council of Ephesus by that decree intended not to prescribe any limits of jurisdiction to the Pope, but only to command all particular Bishops not to entrench upon the liberties of others: which decree Celestine Pope confirmed with all the rest of that Council (u) Ep. 2. ad Syn. Ephes. , as no way contrary to his Universal authority. SECT IU. Whether it may be gathered out of the Council of Ephesus, that the authority of the Pope is above a General Council. YOu say (x) Pag. 115. : If the Council could not depose Nestorius, without the Pope's mandate, nor durst depose john Patriarch of Antioch, but reserved the cause to the judgement of the Pope, the issue must be directly this, that the Pope is absolutely above a general Council. And was not this (say you (y) Pag 116. more than holdness in your Cardinal (Bellarmine) to infer this supreme authority out of this Council? O egregious imposture! Bellarmine only relateth what passed in the Council, namely that those Fathers durst not pronounce a definitive, and ultimate sentence against the two Patriarches, but reserved it to Celestine Pope, as to the supreme judge of all Bishops. Your guilty conscience telling you, that the issue thereof directly must be, that the Pope is above a general Council, you make that inference out of the Council against yourself, and falsely father it on Bellarmine: for though else where he defend, that the Pope is above a general Council, yet neither there, nor here he makes any such inference out of this Council of Ephesus. And no less imposterous is your alleging the Counsels of Constance, and Basil, against that Doctrine of Bellarmine: for the Council of Basil is a damned Conventicle: and that of Constance, when it defined a Council to be above the Pope, was not a general Council, nor speaketh of him that is certainly known to be true Pope, but of three Popes in time of Schism, when it was doubtful which of them, or indeed whether any of them, were true Pope. Nor was that decree ever confirmed, but expressly condemned by the Counsels of Florence, and Lateran, as (you know) Binius (z) To. 1. Not. ad Concil. Constan. pag. 1662. and Bellarmine (a) L. 2. de Conc. c. 17. have observed. But to prove that the Pope is not above a Council you urge (b) Pag. 116. out of Stapleton, that the contrary was never expressly decreed in any Council. But in this you are as false, as in the rest: for you cite Stapleton in his thirteenth book, De principijs doctrinalibus, whereas in that work, he hath but twelve books in all. But be the proposition his, or whose you please, and be it that no Council hath expressly defined that the Pope is above a Council, doth it therefore follow, that the Doctrine is not true? Is nothing true, but what is defined in Counsels? Who seethe not how inconsequent this your consequence is? CHAP. XIX. The Council of Chalcedon believed the supreme authority of the B. of Rome. SECT. 1. That Leo Pope called the Council of Chalcedon by his Authority, and presided in it by his Legates. OUT of the famous Council of Chalcedon (one of the four which S. Gregory (c) L. 1. ep. 24. reverenced as the 4. gospels) the supreme authority of the B. of Rome over the whole Church, is proved many ways, 1. Because this Council was called by his authority: If it please your Holiness (saith Martian the Emperor to Leo Pope) (d) Extat in Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. that a Synod he held, vouchsafe to signify so much by your letters, that I may direct mine into all the East, into Thracia, and Illyria, to the end that all the most holy Bishops may meet at a set place, where your Holiness shall please to appoint, and by their wisdom declare those things which may be profitable for Christian Religion, and the Catholic faith, as your Holiness, according to the Ecclesiastical rules, shall define. And Pulcheria the Empress writing to the same Pope (e) Extat epist. ibid. : Your Reverence vouchsafe to signify, according as you have ordained, that all the Bishops of the East, of Thracia, and Illyria, may come together into one City, and by your authority determine there in a holy Council, what the Christian faith and your Piety require, concerning the Catholic profession, and the Bishops which have bone excommunicated. And the Bishops of the second Maesia in their Epistle to Leo the Emperor (f) Apud Bi●. to. 2. pag. 154. : Ma●y holy Bishops were assembled in the City of Chalcedon, by the commandment of Leo B. of Rome, who is truly the Head of all Bishops. And Gelasius Pope 40. years after the Council of Chalcedon (g) De Anathem. vinculo. : The See Apostolic delegated the Council of Chalcedon to be held for the common faith, and the Catholic and Apostolic truth. And again (h) Ibid. : The Pope alone ordained, that by his authority the Council of Chalcedon should be held. 2. And, as by his authority he called this Council, so by his Legates he presided in it. My Brethren (saith he) speaking of this Council (i) Ep. 94. presided in my steed in the Oriental Synod. And writing to the Council itself (k) Ep. 47. : Your brotherhood is to conceive, that in these my brethren Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops, Bonifacius and Basill Priests, which are sent by the See Apostolic, I preside in your Synod: And be confident, that I am not absent from you, who am present in these my Vicars. And to Pulcheria the Empress he saith (l) Ep. 5●. : that by those his brethren he sent to the Council instructions in writing, what form they ought to observe in their judgement. And finally the Council itself acknowledged, that the Pope presided in it: You (say they to Leo) (m) In relat. ad Leon. presided in this assembly, as the head doth to members, exhibiting your good will by those that held your place: And the faithful Emperor presided for ornament sake, and to see good order kept, that is, to hinder by his secular power such tumults, and murders as had been lately committed in the second false Council of Ephesus. Who seethe not, that the whole Council in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior, and themselves to be his subjects, since they profess that, he ruled over them, at the head doth over the members. SECT. II. That the Council of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus, and restored Theodoret. THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further proved out of the Council of Chalcedon: For Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople, having reckoned up the enormities of Eutyches, requested Leo Pope to confirm the sentence of condemnation, which in a Councell at Constantinople he had pronounced against him: Moved then (saith he (n) In ep. praeambul. Concil. Chalced. most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches, & with those things which have been done, and are done against us, and against the holy Church, work confidently according to your courage, as it belongs to the Priesthood: and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches, your own, Vouchsafe to confirm by your writings, the condemnation which hath been regularty made against him. Leo according to this petition of Flavianus condemned Eutyches and deprived him of his dignity. Dioscorus (saith the Council of Chalcedon writing to Leo (o) Relat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches innocent, and restored to him the dignity, whereof he was deprived by your Holiness. What else is this, but to say, that albeit Eutiches had been condemned by Flavianus his own Bishop, and lawful judge, yet afterwards, when Flavianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus, appealed to Leo Pope, and Leo declaring him innocent, deposed Eutyches; the Council of Chalcedon embraced this sentence of Leo, and attributed to him the final deposition of Eutyches, as to the supreme judge, that had power to reiudge the judgements of other Bishops? Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius acknowledged, and declared in this very cause of Flavianus: We ought (saith he (p) In ep. praeamb. Conc. Chalced. to preserve inviolable in our days, the dignity of particular reverence to the blessed Apostle Peter, that the holy Bishop of Rome, to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priesthood above all, may have place to judge in matters of faith, and of Bishops etc. For therefore according to the custom of Counsels, the Bishop of Constantinople (Flavianus) appealed to him in the contention which is risen about points of faith. The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Council of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre, who being deposed by the second Council of Ephesus, appealed to Leo, and was restored by him, and thereupon admitted to take his place in the Council of Chalcedon: Let the right Reverend Bishop Theodores come in (say the Emperor's officers) (q) Conc. Chalc. act. 1. that he may have part in the Synod. because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Rishoprick, and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordained, that he assist in the holy Council. Now, that the Emperor ordained not this, as challenging any authority over Bishops, but only as one, that by his officers assisted at the Council, to execute the Pope's decrees, and to see peace, and good order kept, you have heard the Council testify (r) Sect. praeced. ; and he himself declared the same, saying to Pope Leo (s) In ep. praeamb. Concil. Chalced. : Our desire is, that peace be restored to the Churches, by this Council celebrated under your authority. The authority than is in the Pope, not in the Emperor. And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria came to be examined, the Council enquiring of the Pope's Legates, what charge they had against him, Lucentius one of them answered (t) Act. 1. & Euagr. l. 2. c. 18. : Dioscorus must yield an account of his judgement, because having no right to do the office of a judge, he attempted it, and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolic; a thing, which nether was, nor cold ever lawfully be done. And Paschasinus another of the Legates: (u) Act. 1. We have here the commands of the blessed and Apostolic Prelate of the City of Rome, which is the Head of all Churches, whereby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command, that Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria sit not in the Council, but yet that he be admitted to be heard. Whereupon the Council commanded him not to sit as a judge, among the Bishops, but to stand in the midst, as a person accused, to answer for himself. (x) evag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Council having heard his whole cause, condemned him, requesting the Pope's Legates, to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him (y) Act. 3. : We beseech your Holiness who have the place, and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo, to pronounce the sentence against him. Whereupon the Legates Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Bonifacius pronounced it in these words (z) Ibid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome, hath by us, and by this present Synod, together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise Peter the Apostle (who is the Rock, and Head of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the right faith) deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopal dignity, and deprived him of all Sacerdotal function. To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed. And it is to be noted, that whereas many most enormous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsed (a) Ibid. , yet that which the Council judged to exceed all the rest, was, that he had presumed to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of great Rome, Leo: which enormity of his the whole Council exaggerating to Leo, said (b) Relat. ad Leon. : And after, and above all these things, he hath extended his frenzy even against him, to whom the guard of the Vine hath been committed by our Saviour, that is to say, against your Apostolic Holiness, and hath dictated an Excommunication against you, that seek to unite speedily the body of the Church. In which words the Council plainly professeth, that the custody and charge of the whole Church (signified under the name of a Vine) was given to the Pope by our Saviour; and that he, because he is Head of the Church, laboureth to unite the body thereof: which also they profess by acknowledging (c) Ibid. , that he ruled over them, as the Head doth over the members: and therefore beseeching him to confirm their decrees with his authority, they add (d) Ibid. : We pray you to honour our judgement with your decrees; and that as in what concerns the Weal, we have held correspondence to our Head; so your Sovereignty would fulfil unto your Children what is fit and convenient. These testimonies so clear, and pregnant, cannot but convince the understanding of any impartial reader, that the Council of Chalcedon believed the universal authority and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome, whom therefore the same Council often calleth (e) Act. 1.2.3 , Bishop of the universal Church. SECT. III. Whether the title of Universal Bishop, which the Council of Chalcedon gave to the Pope, argue in him no more, but a general care of the good of the Church, such as belongs to every Bishop, and to every Christian. OF all the proofs hereunto alleged you take no notice, two only excepted, namely, of the title of Universal Bishop, and of the metaphor of a Vine, by which the Council expresseth the universal Church, saying (f) In relat. ad Leon. , that the custody thereof is by Christ our Saviour committed to the Pope. These two you call, Two posts to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome. And your answer to them, here (g) Pag. 117.118. and afterwards again (h) Pag. 236. , is, that these attributes import no universal power of jurisdiction in the Pope, but of providence and care, which every Bishop should have in wishing, and to his power endeavouring the universal good of the whole Church. But if the words of the Council import no more, it will follow that the custody of the universal Church (that is the government thereof) was by Christ committed not only to every Bishop, but also to every Christian man, and woman, who should wish, and to their power procure the universal good of the whole Church. But you object (i) Pag. 116.117. & 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France, saith: The universal Church of Christ is committed to you, that you may labour for all men: and that according to Binius his exposition, the meaning of Eleutherius is, that for as much as heretics oppugn the Catholic and universal Church, is belongeth to every Bishop to have an universal care to defend, and support it. And this (say you) is a true answer indeed. But you speak untruly, and interpret falsely: for Binius hath no such word as Universal care: nor doth he speak of Bishops only, but saith, that a care & solicitude of defending the universal Church against heretics belongeth not only to Bishops, but to every Christian, for as much as we are commanded by God (Eccl. c. 4.) to fight fortruth, and justice until death. How do these words of Binius prove that the Pope hath not, or that the Council of Chalcedon acknowledged him not, to have authority, and jurisdiction over the universal Church, but only a charitable care of her good, as S. Paul had, and as every Bishop, and every Christian man, and woman, according to their power are bound to have? for did not that Council give to Pope Leo, the title of Universal Archbishop and Patriarch, or (as you set it down) (k) Pag. 235. of Bishop of the universal Church? but, these words (say you (l) Ibid. were not the words of the Council, but of two Deacons, writing to the Council, and of Paschasinus the Pope's Legate. False: for it was given to him (m) Act. 3. in four different petitions, of Theodorus, and Ischyrion, Deacons of Alexandria; of Athanasius a Priest of the same City; and of Sophronius: And the Council approving thereof, commanded their petitions to be registered in the Acts. Moreover the same title was given him by Paschasinus, who though he were his legate, was a Reverend Bishop; as also by Martian the Emperor, the Council no way excepting thereat. And did not S. Gregory, and after him, the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas, testify, that the whole Council of Chalcedon, with the following Fathers, gave the same title to Leo Pope? And did not Leo (a man of admirable sanctity & learning) instyle himself Bishop of the universal Church? And did not the Regulars of Constantinople, and of Syria, and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch, and Jerusalem, give the same title to Agapetus Pope, in the Council of Constantinople under Menas (n) See all this proved above Chap. 15. sect. 3. ? Again did not the Council of Chalcedon acknowledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishopric of Cyre bordering upon Persia, from which he had been deposed in the second Council of Ephesus (o) Act. ●. ? Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the East (p) Act. 3. ? Did not all those Fathers, being the representative body of the Universal Church, profess (q) In relat. ad Leon. , that Leo Pope did preside & rule over them, as the Head over the members? Is this Authority, common to every Bishop? Or did Eleutherius, or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing? But he that will see, how imposterously you wrist the testimony of Eleutherius against the universal power and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome, and against the meaning of the Council of Chalcedon, let him read the epistle, and he shall find, that Eleutherius a little before the words, which you object, declareth, that althought it be lawful to examine the accusations and crimes objected against Bishops, either before their Metropolitans, or before the Bishops of their own Province; yet that it is not lawful to end them there, for as much as it hath been decreed by the Apostles, & their Successors, that the final decision of Bishop's causes, is to be referred to the See Apostolic, and no others substituted in their places until their judgements be ended at Rome. Can there be a more full expression of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church, then to profess him to be the sole supreme judge of all Bishops? Or can there be a greater imposture, then to object this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary? SECT. iv Whether the Council of Chalcedon did give to the B. of Constantinople privileges equal with the B. of Rome. YOu object here (r) Pag. 118. , and often repeat, that the Fathers of Chalcedon, did give privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal with the Church of Rome. Answer. The Fathers of Chalcedon in absence of the Pope's Legates, & of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and of all the bishops of Egypt, at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first general Council of that City, which was, that, the B. of Constantinople should have the second place of honour, after the B. of Rome. And to this decree was added, that, he should have equal privileges with the B. of Rome after him. But this addition to the Canon, of equal privileges, was surreptitiously made, by the usurpation of Anatolius, to augment his power: for the Fathers of Chalcedon never owned it, as it appears in this, that when they beseeched Leo Pope to confirm their decree, they made to him no mention of Equal privileges, but only said (s) In relat. ad Leon. , We have confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople, which ordained that after your most holy and Apostolic See, that of Constantinople should have the second place of honour; which is to say, that as the B. of Rome had the Primacy absolutely over all the Patriarches: so the B. of Constantinople should have it after him, over all the other Patriarches. So this Canon is reported by Euagrius: It was decreed (saith he) (t) L. 2. c. 4. fin. that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome, should have the primacy before the other Sees. In which sense, and in no other, Socrates (u) L. 5. c. 8. testifieth this decree to have been made in the Council of Constantinople, which was the source of all this pretence. And justinian the Emperor speaking of both these Counsels, saith (x) Noue●. 131. , that in them it was decreed, that, as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelates, so the Archbishop of Constantinople new Rome, should have the second place after the See Apostolic of old Rome, and be preferred before all the other Sees. And long after that time the Emperor Basilius the younger, and Eustathius Patriarch of Constantinople (y) Glaber Rodulph. hist. l. 4. c. 1. desired, that it might be lawful for them to obtain with the consent of the Pope, that the Church of Constantinople might be called Universal; in the compass thereof, as the Pope of Rome, was in the compass of the whole world. By this appears, that although the Fathers of those two Counsels, contrary to the decrees of Nice, endeavoured by this Canon, to make the B. of Constantinople the first, and chiefest Patriarch of the East, and to confer on him, after, & under the Pope, an universal jurisdiction over the other Patriarches; yet they never intended thereby to put any limitation to the Universal jurisdiction of the Pope, over the whole Church; nor any way to exempt themselves, or the Patriarches of Constantinople, from his subjection and obedience. Which is also further proved. 1. By the testimonies of Zonaras, and Nilus, both of them Greek Schismatics, and enemies to the Roman Church. Zonara's saith (z) In Conc. Constantin. 1. c. 3. that, whereas the Council of Constantinople ordained that the Bishop of that City should be the second after the Pope of Rome, some think, that the Preposition (after) importeth not inferiority, and submission, but only posteriority of time: and in proof of this their opinion, they make use of the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which ordains, that new Rome should be honoured with the same ecclesiastical prerogatives, as old Rome; and should be preferred in honour, before all the other Churches, being the second after her. But this (saith he) is refuted by the 130. Novel of justinian, inserted into the third title of the fifth book of the Basilikes▪ which gives the Canon to be otherwise understood. And therefore he concludeth saying (a) Ibid. : From hence it appears manifestly that the Preposition (after) signifies submission, and inferiority. And Nilus B. of Thessalonica (b) De primatu P●pae l. 1. : We are not separated from peace, for attributing to ourselves the primacy, nor for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome: for we never contested for primacy with the Roman Church. 2. The same is proved: for the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the supreme authority of the Pope in the deposition of Eutyches and Dioscorus; in the restitution of Theodoret to his Bishopric (c) See above sect. praeced. ; in confessing (d) In relat. ad Leon. , themselves to be his members, and him to be their Head; in submitting to him their decrees to be confirmed, and in particular this made in favour of the B. of Constantinople: We have (say they) (e) Ibid. confirmed the decree of the 150. Fathers, confiding, that the beam Apostolic reigning amidst you, and you by your ordinary government spreading it to the Church of Constantinople, you may cause it to shine into these parts, because you are wont without envy, to enrich those of your lineage, with the participation of your goods. Again, if we speak of Anatolius in particular, who to augment his own power, was the proiecter of this decree, how can it be thought, that he did not acknowledge himself to be a spiritual subject of the Pope? he I say, who being made Patriarch of Constantinople by Dioscorus, in the false Council of Ephesus, had no right to that See, but only by the confirmation of Leo Pope, which afterwards he obtained: in regard whereof Leo writing to Martian the Emperor against this attempt of Anatolius, said (f) Ep. 54. : It should have sufficed him, that by the help of your Piety, and by the consent of my favour, he hath obtained the Bishopric of so great a City. And what else did Anatolius himself signify, when speaking of the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus, in which Maximus was chosen Bishop of Antioch, he said (g) Cone. Chalced. Act. 10. : My verdict is, that none of the things ordained in the pretended Council of Ephesus remain firm, but that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch; for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo, receiving him into his communion, hath judged that he is to rule the Church of Antioch. 3. Because the Fathers of Chalcedon knowing that without the Pope's confirmation, their decree could be of no force, had recourse to Leo, beseeching him to confirm it. We beseech you (say they (h) In relat. ad Leon. to honour our decrees, with your judgement: and that as we have held correspondence with our Head for matters of weal, so your Soveraingty will yield to your Children in things of decency: for in so doing, the religious Emperor shall be gratified. To this their petition, Leo assented not, but wholly annulled, and abrogated their decree. The Piety of your faith being joined with us, (saith he to Pulcheria the Empress (i) Ep. 55. we annul the plots of the Bishops, repugnant to the rules of the holy Canons established at Nice: and by virtue of the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter, we wholly abrogate them by a general sentence. Another Epistle of the same tenor, he addressed to the whole Council of Chalcedon (k) Ep. 61. : And to Anatolius himself he likewise writ (l) Ep. 53. : Never may my conscience consent, that so depraved a covetousness be furthered by my favour, but rather that it be suppressed by me, & by them that allow not the proud, but consent with the humble. Wherefore this Canon first made in the Council of Constantinople, and afterwards renewed in the Council of Chalcedon, was never confirmed, but still resisted, by the See Apostolic; and therefore hath always remained invalid. That (saith Gelasius) (m) De Anathem. vinculo. which the See Apostolic consented not to, the Emperor imposed it not, nor Anatolius usurped it, but all was put into the hands of the See Apostolic: and therefore what the See Apostolic confirmed of the Council of Chalcedon, hath remained valid; and what that See hath rejected, could never obtain any force: and she hath annulled that only, which the Synodical assembly adjudged to be usurped against order. It resteth therefore, that albeit this decree have many other nullities, yet this one of the want of confirmation from the See Apostolic, abundantly convinceth the invalidity thereof, as hath been already proved. And because Anatolius knew, that if it were once understood, that this Canon was resisted, and condemned by the See Apostolic, it would be condemned by the judgement of all Catholics in the world, he craftily suppressed the letters of condemnation, as Leo in his answer to the Emperor Martian testifieth (n) Ep. 59 : I writ to your Glory, and to the B. of Constantinople letters, which evidently shown, that I approved those things, which had been defined in the Council of Chalcedon, concerning the Catholic faith. But because, by the same letters I reproved those things, which by occasion of the Synod had been unlawfully attempted, he (Anatolius) rather chose to conceal my applause, then to publish his own ambition. And to Pulcheria the Empress (o) Ep. 60. : Whereas the most religious Emperor hath willed me to write letters to all the Bishops, which assisted at the Council of Chalcedon, to confirm what was there defined concerning the rule of faith I have willingly performed it, lest the deceit full dissimulation of some might breed any doubt of my sentence; although by means of the B. of Constantinople, to whom I had largely testified my joy, what I had written might have come to the knowledge of all, if he had not rather chosen to conceal my contentment, then to publish the rebuke of his own ambition. Wherefore it is evident, that as this Decree, when it was first made in the Council of Constantinople, remained invalid, for want of Confirmation from the See Apostolic (p) See above Chap. 17. sect. 5. & 6. ; so for the same want, it took no effect, when it was renewed in the Council of Chalcedon; in so much, that Anatolius was enforced to desist from his claim, and excuse the attempt he had made, laying the blame on others, as it is clear out of these words of Leo to him (q) Ep. 7●. : This thy fault, which to augment thy power, thou hast committed, (as thou sayest) by the persuasion of others, thy Charity had blotted out better, and more sincerely, if thou hadst not imputed wholly to the Counsel of thy Clergy, that, which could not be attempted without thy allowance etc. But (dear Brother) I am glad, that thy Charity protesteth thou art now displeased with that, which even then ought not to have pleased thee. The profession of thy love, and the testimony of the Christian Prince is sufficient to re-admit thee into common grace: nor doth thy amendment seems late, that hath gotten so reverend a surety. This recantation of Anatolius showeth, that his attempt of having the second place after the Pope, and enjoying the like privileges after him, was unlawful, and proceeded merely from his ambition. SECT. V Falsifications and untruths of Doctor Morton, discovered; and his Arguments answered. What you produce in defence of this Canon, are either falsifications, untruths, or frivolous cavils: for first you falsify Azor (r) Pag. 118. . His words are: The Canons and decrees of Counsels which are either of faith or of the law of God, or of nature the Pope can neither annul, nor alter: but if the decrees and Canons be of those things which belong to human right, he may annul them, or alter them in whole, or in part: And this (saith he) is the common opinion of Divines, and Canonists. You very honestly mangle his words, not mentioning the first part of them in which he saith, The Pope can neither annul, nor alter the decrees of Counsels which are of matters of faith, or of things commanded by the law of God, or nature. And whereas he adds, that, the Pope can annul, or alter the Decrees of Counsels, which are of human right, you in your english leave out those words (which are of human right) to persuade your Reader, that Azor saith, and that our Divines and Canonistes with common consent allow, the Pope power to change the Decrees of faith, and annul the precepts of God, and of nature; whereas he speaketh only of laws, that concern Ecclesiastical discipline, which according to divers occasions, and circumstances, may be altered, for the good of the Church. If this be not an imposture, what is? 2. You object (s) Pag. 12. 1●9. ; The Fathers of Chalcedon thought that the Church of Rome got the primacy, not by divine, but by humane right, to wit, because Rome was the chief Imperial seat. Answer. There are two causes of the primacy of the Roman Church: the one immediate; the other mediate. The immediate cause is the dignity of S. Peter, wherewith Christ honoured him, when he made him the foundation of his Church (t) Math. 16.18. , and the Pastor of his flock (u) joan. 21. vers. 15.16.17. . And so much the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged, when they called the Pope's Epistle, The speech of the See of S. Peter (x) In allocut. ad Imperat. , and when they said to Leo (y) In relat, ad Leon. : Dioscorus hath extended his frenzy against him, to whom the custody of the Vine (which is the Catholic Church) was committed by our Saviour, that is to say, against your Apostolic Holiness. The same truth the Milevitan Council, in which S. Augustine was Secretary, had professed not long before, acknowledging the Pope's authority to be of divine right, when speaking to Innocentius, they said (z) Aug. ep. 92. , that, his authority was taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures. And Gelasius with a Council of 70. Bishop's (a) In decreto de lib. Apocryph. : The Roman Church hath not been preferred before other Churches by the constitutions of Synods, but hath obtained the primacy, by the voice of our Lord, and Saviour in the Gospel. And as the same Gelasius rightly observeth (b) Ep. ad Episc. Dardan. , Milan, Ravenna, Sirmium, Trevers, and Nicomedia, were for a long time seats of the Empire, and yet the Fathers never thought, that any Primacy was therefore due to the Bishops of those Cities. Nevertheless, it may be said in a true sense, that the mediate, and remote cause of the Primacy of the Roman Church, that is to say, the cause which moved S. Peter to place his See at Rome, rather than in any other City, was the dignity of Rome; To the end (saith S. Leo) (c) Serm. 1. de Apost. Pet. & Paul. that the light of truth, which was revealed for the salvation of all nations, might from the Head of the world, be communicated more effectually to the whole body. Of this cause the Father● of Chalcedon speak, when they say (d) Act. 15. . Rome got the Primacy, because it was the chief seat of the Empire. And both these causes are comprehended by the Emperors Theodosius, and Valentinian, in their Law made a little before the Council of Chalcedon, in these words (e) Novel. Theodos. tit. 24. : Three things have established the primacy of the See Apostolic; the merit of S. Peter, who is Prince of the Episcopal society; the dignity of the City; and the Synodical authority. 3. You object (f) Pag. 118. : The Fathers of Chalcedon gave privileges to the Patriarches of Constantinople, equal to the Church of Rome. This we deny: for in the Council of Chalcedon, there was no mention made of equal privileges; this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius, or by the Clerks of Constantinople (g) See this proved above in this Chap. sect. 4. : and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate, when he saith (h) L. 5. ep. 14. : The Council of Chalcedon in one place hath been falsified by the Grecians. And the Fathes of Chalcedon never intended by this Canon, to give the Patriarches of Constantinople any privilege of exemption from their obedience, and subjection to the Pope, but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarches of the East, as hath been proved (i) In this Chap. sect. 4. . And the same is manifest out of the writings of Leo Pope, who though in his epistle to the Fathers of Chalcedon, and in divers others, which he writ to the Emperor Martian, to Pulcheria the Empress, to Anatolius himself, and to divers other Bishops, of this subject, he speak against Anatolius, for his ambitious attempt; yet in none of them doth he say, or insinuate, that those Fathers gave to Anatolius, or that Anatolius himself ever aspired to equality of privileges with the B. of Rome, but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarches of Alexandria, and Antioch, in procuring himself to be preferred before them. The same is yet further proved, because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Goths, and Wandals, the Patriarches of Constantinople making use of the time, and setting this Canon on foot again, procured the Emperor Zeno to establish by a law, that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have the precedency before the other Patriarches. And the like they obtained from justinian after the recovery of Rome, when he ordained (k) Novel. 131. , that the Archbishop of Constantinople should have the second place after the holy See Apostolic, and be preferred before all the other See. Lastly the same is proved by the subjection, which the Patriarches of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope, after the Council of Chalcedon, and by the authority, which he exercised over them: for not long after that time, when Acacius B. of Constantinople, an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon, had fallen into the faction of heretics, the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope, as to their Pastor, & as Superior to their Patriarch. Seeing your Children perish (said they (l) Ep. Eccles. Orient. ad Symach. in volume. Orthodox. impress. Bafil. , in the prevarication of our Father Acacius, delay not, or rather, to speak with the Prophet, stumber not, but make haste to deliver us. And when the same Acacius, for his adhering to Peter Moggus, an heretical invasor of the See of Alexandria, was deposed by Felix Pope, though he stood out, as long as he lived, contemning the Pope's sentence sent unto him to Constantinople, yet the Emperor justine, that succeeded Anastasius, caused Felix his sentence to be executed on him after his death, making his name to be razed out of the Records of the Church, and from the recital in the sacred mysteries: We have given order (saith justine to Hormisdas' Pope, (m) Epist. add Hormisd. that the Reverend Church of Constantinople, and many others, accomplish your desire, in razing out the names of those whom you have commanded to be taken away from the sacred records. And in conformity to this, john Patriarch of Constantinople writing to the same Hormisdas, said (n) Epist. ad Hormisd. : I anathematise Acacius sometime Bishop of this City, and promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries, the names of them, that are excluded from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, that agree not in all things with the See Apostolic. And Theodorus Anagnostes reporteth (o) Ad calc. hist. Eccles. Theodor. ex edit. Robert. Stopha. , that when Anastasius the Emperor urged Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople, to abrogate the Council of Chalcedon, he answered, he could not do it, without a general Council, in which the B. of Rome must be precedent. And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond invaded the See of Constantinople, Agapetus Pope being arrived thither, deposed him even in the City of Constantinople itself, and in the sight of justinian the Emperor, and excommunicated the Empress Theodora, that protected him, and with his own hands ordained Menas in his place: the truth of all which, is averred by justinian himself (p) Novel. 42 , by Marcellinus Comes (q) In Chron. , by Liberatus (r) Breviar. c. 12. , and Victor of Tunes (s) In Chron. edit. per joseph. Sc●lig. . And did not Menas Patriarch of Constantinople make open profession, of obeying the See Apostolic in all things (t) In Conc. Constan. sub Me●. Act. 4. ? And when john the first Pope of that name, was arrived at Constantinople, justine the Emperor inviting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarch of that City, that they might seem both to be of equal dignity, john refused to sit, until according to the prerogative of his See, a throne was prepared for him above Epiphanius (u) Nicoph. l. 17. c. 9 : which passing in the City of Constantinople itself, and in Epiphanius his own Church, and that many years after this decree of the Council of Chalcedon was made, evidently showeth, that it never took effect; since neither Epiphanius, nor any of the other Patriarches here named, living after the Council of Chalcedon, claimed any right of Equal Privileges thereby, but all of them remained subject to the Pope, as before the Council they had been. And that which purreth this out of all doubt, is, that albeit the Patriarches of Constantinople at length obtained that precedency before the other Patriarches of the East, which in the Counsels of Constantinople, and Chalcedon they laboured for, yet nevertheless, even then, they still acknowledged themselves subject to the Pope: witness S. Gregory, who writing to john B. of Syracuse, saith (x) L. 7. ep. ●4. : Who doubts, but that the See of Constantinople is subject to the See Apostolic, which both our Lord the most religious Emperor, and our brother, Bishop of the same City, do continually protest? But whereas we say, that Leo never confirmed this decree of the Council, but only such Canons and decrees, as concerned matters of saith, This answer (say you) (y) Pag. 121. proveth you faithless in all your defence: for if he therefore opposed the decree of that Synod, which oppugned the Papal primacy, and dominion, because it was no matter of faith, he thereby plainly confesseth your Article, which maintaineth the dominion of the Roman Church, not to be at all an article of faith. But, Sir, you wholly mistake your mark: for this decree was no way against the primacy of the Pope, as hath been proved (z) In this Chap. sect. 2. : Nor did Leo refuse to confirm it because it oppugned his primacy, but because by virtue thereof, the Patriarch of Constantinople injustly, and against the Canons of the Nicen Council, sought to make himself superior to the other Patriarches of the East, whose rights the Pope, as supreme Governor of the universal Church, was bound to maintain. Yea this decree was so fare from oppugning his primacy, that from it may be drawn a strong Argument in proof thereof: for why else, was the decree sent to him to be confirmed, but because the Council knew, it could be of no force, without his confirmation? Lastly we say, that this decree could be of no force, because it was made by the usurpation of Anatolius, after the departure of the judges, of the Senators, and of the Pope's Legates. You answer (a) Pag. 121. , that the Pope's Legates were absent, because they would not be present. Why do you not say the same of the judges, and the Senators? You might with as much truth. But for the Pope's Legates, Liberatus (b) Br●u. c. 13. bears witness against you, that they knew not of any such decree, until the next day after it was made. And therefore, whereas you wish us (c) Pag. 121. , to tell you, if we can, where there could be found more impudent boldness in any, than appeared in the Pope's Legates, who offered to face down 400. Bishops in a Council, with a manifest untruth, objecting circumvention in framing the Act? We find no impudence at all in the Pope's Legates, but we find it in a very high degree in yourself, who have the face to deny circumvention in an Act, made by the usurpation of Anatolius, to augment his own power, espying his time, when there was no Patriarch of Alexandria, and all the Bishops of Egypt, who had most reason to oppose it, were absent, being excluded by his means under pretence, that it was not lawful for them to sign the decrees of Counsels, without the will and command of the Patriarches; & in absence of the Pope's Legates, of the Emperor's officers, and of the greatest part of the judges, which were the Bishops that assisted at the Council. You say (d) Pag. 122. , that 430. Bishops concurred to the making of this decree. But you cannot be excused from ignorance, or fraud: for albeit Marcellinus Comes (e) In Chron. , Liberatus (f) Breu. c. ●3. , Photius (g) De 7. Synod. c. 4. and Leo Pope (h) Ep. 5●. bear witness, that 630. Bishops assisted at the Council, yet of all that number, none concurred to the Act, nor signed it, but those of the Patriarkship of Antioch, and of the provinces near Constantinople, which were few more than 200. as the Acts themselves testify (i) Apud Bi●. tom. 2. pag. 134. 135. ; which alone is a sufficient proof, that the decree was not Canonically made, but by surreption and fraud. What Aetius spoke in defence thereof, is not to be regarded: for he being an Archdeacon of Constantinople, & an abettor of Anatolius his claim, uttered divers manifest untruths in favour of this decree: as 1. that the Pope's Legates had notice of it before it was made. 2. That the Fathers yielded the primacy to the Pope, because Rome was the seat of the Empire. 3. The 150. Fathers in the Council of Constantinople, granted to the Bishop of that City privileges equal with the Pope; whereas they make no mention at all of equal privileges, but absolutely place him after the Pope (k) Can. 3. . 4. and that the same Council had adjudged to the Patriarches of Constantinople, the ordination of the Metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thracia; whereas it ordains directly the contrary (l) Can. 2. , namely, that the Bishops of Asia, should govern the affairs of the Diocese of Asia; & the Bishops of Pontus, the affairs of the Diocese of Pontus; and that the Bishops of Thracia (that is to say of Constantinople) should govern the affairs of thracia only: which decree is in like manner reported by Socrates (m) L. 5. c. 8. . And when in the Council of Chalcedon itself (n) Act. 11. , there was speech of having a new Bishop of Ephesus ordained in place of Bassianus, and Stephen, both of them invasors of that See, the Clerks of Constantinople pretending, that this new Bishop ought to be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople, according to the Canon of 150. Fathers in the first general Council of that City, the Bishops of Asia minor prostrating themselves before the Council, protested against it, crying out, that, it was contrary to the Canons, and that of 37. Bishops of Ephesus, which had lived since S. Timothy, until that time, all of them had been ordained at Ephosus, Bassianus only excepted▪ who coming in unlawfully, was by Violence ordained at Constantinople, which caused great tumults, and many murders in the City of Ephesus: & that the like would now fall out again, if their Metropolitan were ordained out of the province. Whereupon the Bishops of the Council cried out (o) Ibid. ; Let the Canons stand; let the Bishop be ordained in the province. This protestation of the Asian Bishops showeth, that when afterwards they subscribed to the contrary, and being asked, said, they did it willingly, they were partly wrought to that answer by Anatolius, and the Clerks of Constantinople abusing the favour of the Senate, and partly moved by a false relation of Eusebius B. of Dorilaeum, a principal abettor of Anatolius his claim, who testified, that the decree was approved by the Pope: I have (saith he (p) Act. ●6. voluntarily subscribed this Canon, because I have read it at Rome to the most holy Pope, and he approved it. And thereupon it was, that the Fathers of the Council said to Leo Pope (q) In relat. ad Leon. : We have taken the boldness to confirm it, as a thing begun by your Holiness. And yet nevertheless this testimony of Eusebius, was full of falsehood and fraud, as Bonifacius one of the Pope's Legates convinced out of the instructions given to him and the other Legates in writing (r) Act. 16. ; one of them being, that, they should not suffer the Canons of the holy Fathers to be violated by any rashness: and that if any trusting in the power of their City, should offer to usurp any thing contrary to the dignity of his person, they should repress them, as justice requireth. Which in like manner Leo himself testified to Maximus Patriarch of Antioch (s) Ep. 62. : If they say that the brethren which I send in my steed to the Synod have done any thing more than what concerns faith, that shall be of no force, because they were sent by the See Apostolic, only to root out heresies, and defend the faith. CHAP. XX. The fifth Council General beliued the supreme Authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome. SECT. I. Doctor Mortons' ignorance, and contradictions concerning this Council. IN your discourse of the fifth General Council, contradictions, ignorance, & untruths march by troops: for 1. (t) Pag. 122. here you suppose the Council of Constantinople under Menas, Archbishop of that City, to be the fifth general: and afterwards you directly affirm the same (u) Pag. 289. marg. lit. 0. , when speaking of the Council under Menas, and alleging the Synodical relation made out of the Epistle of Pope Agapetus extant in the first action thereof, you call it, Concilium secundum Constantinopolitanum, quod erat quintum generale: The second Council of Constantinople, which was the fifth general. And again twice more (x) Pag. 347. lin. 14. & pa. 348. lin. 11. you repeat, that this Council under Menas was a general Council. And yet in another place contradicting yourself you say no less expressly, (y) Pag. 238. lin. 11. that, it was not a general Council. It was then a general Council, and it was not a general Council. Reconcile these two, & eris mihi magnus Apollo. 2. You acknowledge. (z) Pag. 238. & 347. , that this Council under Menas, was held in the inter-regnum, or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus and the election of his successor the year 536. and yet not without contradiction you prove out of Baronius and Binius (a) Pag. ●●2. in 'tis. sect. 6. & pag. 123. lit. m. , that the fifth general Council was held the year 553. which was neither in the vacancy after Agapetus his death, nor in the time of Siluerius his successor, but in the 14. year of Vigilius, full 17. years after the other under Menas. And as these two Counsels differed in time, so they did in matter: for in that under Menas was handled the execution of the second sentence, which Agapetus Pope before his death pronounced against Anthymus: but in the fifth general, was discussed the cause of the Three Chapters. Is it not then great ignorance in you, to confound these two Counsels, the one being particular consisting of 50. Bishops only, & the other general of more than 165. the one held under Menas the year 536, and the other under Vigilius Pope the year 553, and to frame Arguments out of them both, as out of one and the same Council? 3. You say (b) Pag. 189. marg. lit. o. , that the Council under Menas, was the second Council of Constantinople: and yet you had said before (c) Pag. 235. marg. lit. s. , that it was, the fifth Council of Constantinople; neither the one, nor the other being true: for between this, and the first general Council of Constantinople, there were held eleven or twelve other Counsels under divers Patriarches of that City, as you may read in Baronius (d) Apud Spond. Ind. verb. Constantinop. Concil. . 4. To prove this Council under Menas to be a general Council you allege (e) Pag. 347. Binius who saith directly the contrary, to wit, that it consisted of such Bishops only, as were near to Constantinople, and some others then resident in the City, all of them being but 50. in number, whose names are expressed in the beginning of the first action. And the same is testified by Baronius (f) Anno 536. and Bellarmine (g) L. 1. de Conc. c. 5. & l. 2. de Pont. c. 13. , by Zonaras (h) In vita justinian. , and Nicephorus (i) Lib. 17. c. 9 . SECT. II. Doctor Mortons' ignorance further discovered, and his falsifying of Binius. COming to the relation of what passed in the fifth General Council, you say (*) Pag. 122. : Anthimij causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata. Binius Tom. 2. p. 416. post in Synodo Constantinopol. ventilata. Idem Binius in Not. Conc. Constant. sub Menna. This is an egregious falsification: for Binius hath no such words, and therefore your setting them down englished in a different character, as his, is another false sleight, that by fathering them on him, you might ground on his authority, the Argument, which out of them immediately you frame against the authority of the Pope, saying (k) Ibid. This argueth the no-dominion of the Pope over that Council, which will take upon them to examine that cause, which the Pope before had condemned. But these your words besides falsehood, contain excessive ignorance: for Agapetus pronounced two sentences of condemnation against Anthymus. By the one, he deposed him from the See of Constantinople: by the other, from the See of Trebizond. In the former sentence the Council had no hand: for it was definitive, and absolutely perfected, and put in execution. Menas being ordained in Anthymus his place by Agapetus his own hands, before his death. But because Anthymus was not only an usurper of the See of Constantinople, but also guilty of heresy, Agapetus being solicited by the Eastern Bishops, ordained, that whereas upon the sentence of his deposition from the See of Constantinople, his own See of Trebizond had been reserved unto him; if he did not clear himself from the crime of heresy, he should also be deposed from that See, and withal excommunicated, and deprived of all Sacerdotal title, and of the very name of a Catholic. But because Agapetus died, before the time which he gave Anthymus to purpe himself from the imputation of heresy. Menas the Patriarch after his death assembled a Council, not to re-examine, mine, and ventilate the sentence of deposition, which Agapetus pronounced against Anthymus, as you ignorantly mistake, but to put in execution the second sentence, which he had begun, but prevented by death, could not finish. All this is clear out of the petition of the Regulars of Syria, reported in the Council itself, when speaking of the first sentence of Agapetus, they say (l) In Conc. sub Mena. Act. 1. : God sent into this City Agapet, truly, Agapet, that is, truly beloved of God and man, Pope of old Rome, for the deposition of Anthymus, and of the aforesaid heretics, as heretofore he sent great Peter to the Romans, for the destruction of Sim●n the Magician. This reverend person then, knowing by the requests of many of ours, the things injustly attempted upon the Churches, and knowing them by sight, would not so much as admit into his presence Anthymus, transgressor of the Canons, but justly deposed him from the Episcopal See of this City. Lo here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death. And then speaking of the second sentence, they add (m) Ibid. : Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this City, and others of the East, and deputies of others, and we did again present petitions touching Anthymus, and the other heretics, and demanded that Anthymus should certify his belief by writ to the See Apostolic, and should purge himself from all heretical errors; & in this case, return to the Church of Trebizond: or if he would not do it, that he should be finally condemned, and deposed from all Sacerdotal dignity, and action. And a little after (n) Ibid. : These our just requests, the same most holy personage (Agapet) preventing, and seeing that Anthymus had failed to appear, condemned him with the aforesaid heretics, and despoiled him of all office, and dignity Sacerdotal, and of all title Orthodoxal, even till the penance of his errors. The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Council, who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus, speaking of his first deposition, say (o) Act. 4. : The Blessed Pope Agapet of most holy and happy memory, setting with God his hand to the sacred Canons deposed Anthymus from the See, which belonged not to him, pardoning those which had participated, and communicated in the act. And then passing to the second sentence, they add: (p) Ibid. But because that even in doctrine, Anthymus was charged with many accusations, and that many petitions were preferred against, him, by divers reverend personages, to the most religious Emperor, and the most blessed Pope; the same most blessed Pope, after much pain taken with a Fatherly care to regain his soul etc. pronounced a sentence in writing against him, full of Clemency, and seemly holiness, granting him time of repentance; and ordained, that until he had changed his opinion, and satisfied the doctrines canonically defined by the Fathers, be should neither have the title of a Catholic, nor of a Priest. This showeth that the Council intermeddled not at all, with the first sentence of Agapet, by which Anthymus was deposed from the See of Constantinople: but because this second sentence of his deposition from the See of Trebizond, was not absolute, but left depending, and subject to revocation, if he should appear, and purge himself from heresy, the Council taking the cause where the Pope left it, and according to the order given by him, cited Anthymus thrice to appear; and because he appeared not, executed the Pope's sentence on him, deposing him from the Bishopric of Trebizond, and depriving him of the title of a Priest, and the name of a Catholic. We (say they) (q) Act. 4. in sentent. count. Anthym. following those things, which have been rightly examined by the most blessed Pope, ordain, that he as an unprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God, and deprived of the Bishopric of Trebizond, and deprived of all sacred dignity, and action, and (according to the sentence of the most holy Pope) stripped even of the name of a Catholic. Who now seethe not, how ignorantly, and untruly you have said (r) Pag. 122. , that, The cause of Anthymus, which the Pope had condemned, was afterwards ventilated in the Council of Constantinople? For those Fathers neither questioned, nor any way examined either the first or the second sentence of the Pope against Anthymus, but assembled themselves to put in execution the sentence, which Agapet had pronounced, and being prevented by death, could not see executed. All which is so fare from making against the jurisdiction of the Pope over the Bishops of the East, that it is a strong proof thereof. And that it may better appear, how unadvised you are to urge this history against the authority of the Roman Church, it is to be noted, that Anthymus an Eutychian heretic, not contenting himself with his own Bishopric of Trebizond, by the favour of justinian (who as yet knew not, that he was an heretic) and chief by the craft of Theodora the Empress, an Eutychian, and for that cause a great favourer of Anthymus, intruded himself to the See of Constantinople. But Agapet Pope coming thither, deposed him, and with his own hands ordained Menas in his place; which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor: for at that time Constantinople was the seat of justinian, and the Head of the Empire; whereas Rome was oppressed and made a slave under the tyranny of Goths, a barbarous and Arian people. The Church of Constantinople was most flourishing, and glorious; and that of Rome greatly depressed, and afflicted. justinian the Emperor wa● v●ctorious, and triumphant; and contrarily the Pope, brought to such straits, that Theodat an Arian King of the Goths, threatened to ruinated the Roman Church, unless he would go to Constantinople, & solicit the Emperor for peace, and procure him to call his armies out o● Italy: which v●●●ge therefore Agapet could not refuse, though he were so poor, that for the performance thereof, he was enforced to pawn the sacred Vessels of his Church: whereas on the other side, Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empress, from the Bishoptick of Treb●zond, to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople, was very powerful in means, and highly fovored by them both. And yet nevertheless, and that the Empress threatened Agapet if he deposed Anthymus, and promised him great rewards if he would leave him in the See of Constantinople, the holy Pope soon after his arrival, being a stranger, and without support, deposed him, casting him out of that See, even in the very Imperial City, in the presence of the Emperor that favoured him; and excommunicated Theodora the Empress that obstinately maintained him; and with his own hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place, and pardoned Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem, and other Bishops of the East, that had communicated with him. All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus Comes (s) In Chron. , Liberatus (t) Breu. c. 12. , Victor of Tunes (u) In Chron. edit. per Ios. Scal. ad calc. Chron. Euseb. , and justinian himself (x) Nou. 42. : and is so clear an evidence for the supreme authority of the B. of Rome, that it admitteth no colour of answer. SECT. III. Of the matter treated in the fifth general Council. THe matter disputed in this Council was about certain writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus. Ibas, and Theodoret, commonly called, Tria capitula, The three Chapters. Before the Council, Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West, defended the Three Chapters. which the Eastern Bishops opposed: and what both of them did, was upon pious considerations, in defence of the Council of Chalcedon. The Bishops of the East assembled in a Council at Constantinople, condemned the Three Chapters. But Vigilius knowing, that the Western Bishops stood in opposition to their sentence, refused to confirm it, hoping by that means. like a prudent and solicitous Pastor, to work both parts to an accord, and establish peace in the Church. But finding the Emperor, and the Eastern Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree, and that the Bishops of Venice, and the regions adjoining, as also those of Ireland, following his opinion, & relying on his authority, had condemned this Council of Constantinople, and that the Church thereby was in danger to be rend in sunder with Schism: and on the other side considering, that the subject of that Contention, was no matter of faith, and neither the one part, nor the other any way repugnant to the Council of Chalcedon (as S. Gregory hath noted (y) L. 3. ep. 37. , but a thing of itself indifferent, he altered his opinion, and yielded to confirm this decree, purchasing to himself that commendation, which S. Augustine (z) Ep. 162. gives to the most famous Governors of God's people both in the old & new Testament, which is, that, They tolerate for the good of unity, that which they hate for the love of equity, and imitating the example of S. Leo the great, who testifies of himself (a) Ep. 14. that, for the love of peace he yielded to confirm the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch, which Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople without any example, & against the Canons, had presumptuously usurped to himself. Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of levity: for if he altered his mind, he did it upon just causes, for the avoiding of Schism; and following the example of S. Paul, who having first given his voice for the abolishing of circumcision (b) Act. 15.11. , afterwards upon just cause circumcised Timothy (c) Act. 16.3. : and yet again reprehended Peter, that by his dissimulation, he induced the Gentiles to circumcision, and other jewish ceremonies (d) Gal. 2.11. & 14. . You to prove the no-necessity of subjection to the Pope, object the standing out of the Eastern Bishops against Vigilius (e) Pag 123. 124. . But you might by the like Argument prove, that subjects are not bound to obey their Prince, because some of them stand out in rebellion against him. And as little to the purpose is your telling us (f) Pag 123. fin. , that those Bishops condemned all them, that defended the Three Chapters: for contrarily we tell you, that the Bishops of the West in their Council at Aquileia, condemned all those Bishops, and their Council at Constantinople: and had more right to do it, than the Eastern Bishops to condemn them: for they did it in defence of the Pope's authority, whose opinion they followed. Your urging (g) Pag. 123. the persecution which justinian raised against Vigilius, to bring him to confirm the decree of the Eastern Bishops, maketh wholly against you: for why did both he, and the Bishops themselves urge Vigilius so ●uch, to confirm their decree, but because they knew, that no decree of any Council can be of force, unless it be approved by the See Apostolic (h) See this proved above Chap. 17. sect. 6. ? Finally the Pope's authority 〈◊〉 effectually proved out of this Council, for as much as by virtue of Vigilius his confirmation, it hath obtained the force of a lawful Council, and deserved the title of the fifth general; whereas without his confirmation it would not have been received by the Church more than that of Ariminum, or the second of Ephesus, which the See Apostolic hath rejected. And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarch of Constantinople, who though he prefided in this Council, yet acknowledged the right of presiding not to belong to himself, but to Vigilius, when inviting him to the Council, he said (i) Ep. ad Vigil. in quinta Syn. Collat. 1. : Our desire is, to have the Three Chapters examined, your Blessedness presiding over us. SECT iv Doctor Mortons' gloss upon the Word, Obedience. TO conclude your discourse of the fifth general Council, as untruly, & ignorantly, as you began, you say: (k) Pag. 124. Idle and vain is your objection out of that Synod. from one word Obedience, which they professed to the Catholic See, by not discerning between a logical and a moral obedience: for they promised obedience to that See, in all her orthodox, and reasonable persuasions, but not to her peremptory commands, and conclusions: for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his judgement, without submitting to his jurisdiction. So you: where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church, to be of the fi●●h general Council, and allege Bellarmine for your author, who expressly saith, that they are words of the Synod held under Menas, before the fifth general Council. 2. Your gloss upon the word Obedience, is idle, and false: for you wrist it to an improper signification. I deny not, but that the words of Obedience, and Command, may be taken improperly; as if when your equal or inferior requests you, to do a favour for him, or persuades you, to your own good, you answer, I will obey your commands, understanding by his Commands, his requests and persuasions. But that the B. of Rome as being governor of the universal Church hath true power, and authority to Command, according to the most first and proper signification of the word, and that the greatest Bishops, & Counsels have acknowledged in themselves obligation to obey in the same sense, hath been already proved (d) Chap. 18. sect. 1. . False therefore is you gloss, that this Council acknowledged not in themselves obligation to obey the B. of Rome, nor in him authority to command, but only to persuade. You defend an ill cause, which upon no other ground, but only to excuse your disobedience to the See Apostolic, enforceth you to wrest the words of the Council to an improper signification. And as your gloss upon the word Obedience, is false; so is it repugnant even to common sense: for let a general Council be called, of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world; let them condemn an Arius, an Eutyches, or a Pelagius; if your gloss may be allowed, any of these heretics, or any other never so impious, may refuse to submit himself, and obey their decrees, saying, He will obey them in all their Orthodox and reasonable persuasions, but not in their peremptory commands, and conclusions, and so obey them in nothing at all. For what heretic will not say, that the decrees of a general Council against his heresy, are not Orthodox, and reasonable persuasions, but peremptory commands, and conclusions? Cold this evasion justify Arius his disobedience, or excuse him from heresy? No: and so neither can your gloss justify your cause, or satisfy any man of judgement. And as your gloss is false, so is your dealing imposterous: for the words of the Council truly alleged by Bellarmine (out of whom you cite them) are: Apostolicam Sedem sequimur, & obedimus, & ipsius communicatores communicatores habemus; & condemnatos ab ipsa & nos condemnamus We follow and obey the See Apostolic, and her communicants we have for our communicants; and those that are condemned by her, we also condemn. Why then did you say, that we object out of this Council, but one word Obedience? why did you here and afterwards again (m) Pag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine, in both places, cut it of in the midst? Can any Catholic at this day profess more perfect, and exact obedience to the See Apostolic, then to hold all them for Orthodox, and communicate with them all, that communicate with her; and to condemn all them that are condemned by her? This was the obedience of that Council to the Pope; which to shift of and deceive your reader, you mangle the words, leaving out the most effectual part of them; because they show, that if you had been living in those primitive times, that Council would have detested, and condemned you, as it did Anthymus, and other heretics there mentioned, for their disobedience to the See Apostolic, and for not communicating with her. CHAP. XXI. Of the sixth General Council. SECT. I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome. THAT the sixth General Council was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome, I have already proved (n) Chap. 17. sect. 1. . And that it acknowledged the universal jurisdiction of the Pope over the whole Church, is declared by Constantine the Emperor, who speaking to the Roman Synod held under Agatho, calls him, Universal Father, and Universal Arch-Pastor (o) Syn. 6. Act. 18. ; and by the Council itself (p) Ibid. calling him. Bishop of the first See, and of the universal Church. And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Council to the Emperor, they receive it as of the holy Ghost, dictated from the mouth of the holy and most Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, and written by the hand of the thrice blessed Pope Agatho. And again: (q) Ibid. We assent (say they) and agree to the dogmatic Epistle of our most holy Father, the sovereign Pope Agatho (sent to your Highness,) and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers under him. And a little after, speaking of the same Epistle, and acknowledging Agatho to be the Successor of S. Peter, they add: The paper and ink appeared, but it was Peter that did speak by Agatho. One of the things which Agatho spoke in that Epistle (r) Apud Bin. to. ●. pag. 11. was, that the Roman Church hath never been stained with error, & that the whole Catholic Church, all the Counsels, & all the Venerable Fathers, and all the holy Doctors have embraced her authority, and reverenced, and followed her Apostolical Doctrine; which contrarily, the heretics have maliciously derogated from, and persecuted. And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor, and his two sons (s) Ibid. : This your spiritual Mother the Apostolical Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God, shall never be proved to have erred from the tract of Apostolical tradition, nor by any depravation to have yielded to heretical novelties; but as from the beginning of the Christian faith, the received it pur● from her authors the Princes of Christ's Apostles; so she remaineth until the end, according to the divine promise which our Lord and Saviour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the gospels, saying: Peter, Peter, Satan hath required to sift you, as one that sifteth wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy Brethren. Your Clemency therefore consider, that our Lord and Saviour of all, who hath faithfully promised that the faith of Peter shall not fail, admonished him to confirm his brethren; which that my Apostolical predecessors have always assuredly performed, is a thing notorious to all men. And because Theodorus Patriarch of Constantinople, was a Monothelite, & (as Anastasius testifieth (t) In vita Agathon. condemned with Pyrrhus, and the rest of that Sect, in this sixth Council, he addeth; that, Since the Bishops of Constantinople have endeavoured to bring heretical Novelties into the Church of Christ, his Apostolical predecessors of holy memory, have never ceased to exhort, and admonish them to desist from heretical error, lest by holding one will and operation in Christ, they should occasion a beginning of division in the unity of the Church. SECT. II. Whether the sixth Council condemned Honorius Pope, as an Heretic. THese passages of the sixth Council so forcible for the authority of the Roman Church, you mention not, but passing by them, as being not for your purpose, pick out of it a quarrel against Honorius B. of Rome, & that with no small lack of sincerity: for whereas you object out of Bellarmine, that in this sixth Council, as also in the seaventh, and eight, Honorius was condemned as a Monothelite, Bellarmine contrarily proveth out of Honorius his express words, that he was no way guilty of that heresy, but always a Catholic, holding with the Roman Church two wills and operations in Christ. And he confirmeth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr, the greatest Divine of that age, and that lived in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himself in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus' Patriarch of Constantinople, allegeth as witness of this truth Honorius his own Secretary, that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth, and was then still living. Wherefore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Council damned Honorius, as an Heretic; and further proveth it, because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor, which was read in the Council, and not only read, but approved, and admired as the words of S. Peter, and as dictated by the holy Ghost, affirmeth expressly, that none of his Predecessors (one of which was Honorius) was ever guilty of heresy, but that they have always made resistance to heretics, & that the Pope, as Pope, cannot decree any thing contrary to faith. And from thence he inferreth, that the Council did not judge Honorius to be an heretic, nor condemn him as such: else by receiving and reverencing Agathos Epistle, as the words of S. Peter, and as dictated by the holy Ghost, the Council should contradict itself, and condemn both S. Peter, and the holy Ghost of a lie, in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was ever guilty of heresy. And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first, who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor, avoucheth, that, none of his predecessors was ever stained with the least spot, or blemish of heresy, which he would not even for very shame have affirmed so resolutely, if Honorius in the public assembly of a general Council had been anathematised as an heretic. Wherefore Bellarmine rightly inferreth, that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Council, but his name inserted among those heretics whom the Council condemned, by the Greeks', enemies to the Church of Rome. And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greek historian, and out of him by Anastasius Bibliothecarius: which also he confirmeth, because it was the frequent and almost ordinary custom of the Greeks', to corrupt, and falsify Books in hatred of the Roman Church, and in favour of their own errors. S. Leo complains (u) Ep. 83. that they had corrupted his Epistle to Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople. S. Gregory (x) L. 5. ep. 14. ad Narsem. , that they had falsified the Council of Chalcedon, and he suspected the like of the Council of Ephesus. And where in his Dialogues (y) L. 2. c. 38. he hath, Paraclitus à Patre semper procedit, & filio, they in their copies leave out, & filio, and instead thereof, say, & in filio manet; a thing which joannes Diaconus (z) Vita S. Greg. c. 75. observeth, testifiing that Zacharias Pope having translated that work of S. Gregory faithfully, and published it in the East, the Greeks' razed out the name of the Son, in favour of their heresy, that the holy Ghost proceeds not from him, but from the Father alone. Again Nicolas the first remitteth Michael the Emperor to the Epistle of Adrian, if (saith he) it be not falsified after the manner of the Grecians, but kept by the Church of Constantinople, as it was sent by the See Apostolic. And he had reason to say so: for what he allegeth to Photius, out of Adrian's Epistle to Tharasius, is not to be found in that Epistle, as it is read in the eight Synod. And finally this very sixth Council discovered, that the Greeks' had falsified the fifth Council general, fathering on Pope Vigilius, and Menas Patriarch of Constantinople, certain quaternions of their own. If then they have falsified the writings of the Fathers of the third, the fourth, the fifth, and eight general Counsels; what marvel if they have done the like to the sixth, and seaventh, defaining Honorius? and especially, since a little after the sixth Council, they assembled themselves again at Constantinople, by their own authority, and made the Trullan Canons, in hatred of the Roman Church. To this I add, that in the Lateran Council of 105. Bishops, held before the sixth Synod, by Martin the first Pope and Martyr, against the Monothelites, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, and Paul were condemned by name without any mention of Honorius; whom yet those Bishops being grave men and impartial, would not have left uncensured, if he had been guilty of the same heresy; as neither would Paulus Diaconus, Theophanes Cerameus, Photius, and Zonaras in their Catalogues of the heretics condemned in the sixth Council: especially Photius, and Zonaras being professed enemies to the Roman Church. And finally Emmanuel Calleca, a Grecian, with all the Latin historians (a) See Cocc. to 1. l. 7. arc, 13. and Bell. l. 4. de Pont. c. 11. commend Honorius for a Catholic and holy Prelate. These proofs, most of them being brought by Bellarmine, and so unanswerably convincing, that Honorius neither was an heretic, nor condemned by the sixth, or seaventh Council; is it not strange, that you should so confidently assume the contrary, as a thing granted by him, and that it being a matter of fact those Fathers were deceived therein? Good God (say you) (b) Pag. 125. the rare modesty of this man, who will have us believe, that one Bellarmine living now 1000 years since that matter was in agitation, should judge better by his conjecture, of the circumstances of a matter of fact, then could 639. Bishops in their public Synods (iam flagrante crimine) when as yet the cause was fresh, their witnesses living, and all circumstances, which are the perfect intelligencers, visibly before their eyes. So you. And Bellarmine may truly say: Good God, the strange conscience of Doctor Morton, that will speak so untruly! for doth bellarmine bring no other proofs, but his own conjecture? Doth he not produce the testimonies of Honorius his Secretary, and of S. Maximus Martyr, who were living at that time, of Martin the first with a Council of 105. Bishops, of john the fourth, of Nicolas the first, of Theophanes Isaurus, of Emmanuel Calleca, and of all the Latin Fathers, that Honorius never assented to the Monothelites, but (even in those his very Epistles which are objected) defended two wills, and operations in Christ, with all the Catholics of the world? And doth he not prove the same, by the express testimony of Agatho Pope, affirming that, none of his predecessors were ever stained with heresy? and out of the sixth Council itself receiving this testimony of Agatho, as the words of S. Peter, and as an oracle of the Holy Ghost? Again, doth he in all this say, that 639. Bishops were deceived? Nay doth he not prove by the testimony of Theophanes Isautus, and Anastasius, and collect the same out of many other authors, that the condemnation of Honorius, is not theirs, but falsely inserted in their Counsels by the Greeks', according to their ordinary custom of corrupting Counsels, and other books in hatred to the See of Rome? Good God then, the seared conscience of Doctor Morton, who can conceal all this, and lay hold on a few words, which Bellarmine addeth, to wit, that, if any man be so obstinate, that all this cannot satisfy him, he may receive another solution from Turrecremata, which is, that the Fathers of the sixth Synod condemned Honorius, but out of false information, and therefore erred therein, as any Council may in matter of fact. The reason why you omit all the rest of Bellarmine's doctrine, & catch at this solution of Turrecremata, is, to infer that Popes may be heretics, & that not only as private Doctors (which some Catholics grant) but in their public persons, as Popes, because, those Father's condemning Honorius in their public Council did judge him according to his public person. These your words (c) Pag 126. contain a ridiculous fallacy: for when we say, The Pope cannot err, as Pope, or (which is all one) as a public person, or ex Cathedra, the sense is, that he cannot either in a Council, or by himself ordain any heretical doctrine to be received by the Church. Nor could you be ignorant of this: for as Canus (whon ye allege) granteth, that Pope's according to their private persons may be heretics, and that peradventure one or two examples may be given thereof, so in that very place (d) L. 6. c. 8. pag. 214. he addeth, that no example can be given of any Pope, that though he fell into heresy, did ever decree the same for the whole Church, which is the thing you ought to have disproved, to show, that either the sixth, or any other Council judged the Pope according to his public person. And lastly, as for Honorius in particular, Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 11. rightly showeth, that Canus was in a double error, concerning him, whose opinion therefore is to be rejected. CHAP. XXII. Of the seaventh, and eight General Counsels. SECT. I. That these two Counsels acknowledged the supreme Authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome. THAT the seaventh, and eight General Counsels believed the B. of Rome to be the Head, and Governor of the Universal Church, is a truth not to be denied. In the second Action of the seaventh Synod, was read, and approved the Epistle of Adrian Pope to Tharasius, in which speaking of S. Peter's See, he saith: Whose seat obtaining the primacy, shineth throughout the whole world, and is the Head of all the Churches of God. In the eight Synod, the profession which all Schismatical Bishops, returning to the Catholic Church, were to make, is expressed in these words (f) Apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 923. & Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. : The begiuning of salvation is, to conserve, the rule of right faith, and no way to swerve from the tradition of our Forefathers, because the words of our Lord cannot fail saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And the proofs of deeds have made good these words; for as much, as in the See Apostolic the Catholic religion is always conserved inviolable. We therefore desiring not to be separated from the faith and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things, the constitutions of the Fathers, and chief of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolic, anathematise all heresies etc. And a little after. Wherefore following the See Apostolic in all things, and observing all her constitutions, we hope to deserve to live in one communion which the See Apostolic teacheth, in which there is the true and entire solidity of Christian religion: & we promise likewise not to recite in the sacred mysteries, the names of those, which are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, which agree not to the See Apostolic. What you think Doctor Morton, I know not: but sure I am, that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head, and governess of all Churches, you that live out of her Communion, you that refuse to obey her constitutions, you that profess not to follow her doctrine, had lived in time of the seaventh and eight Synods, they would have anathematised you, and condemned your doctrine, as heretical. And this is the reason, why you conceal these, & many other passages of those Counsels, in which the same truth is delivered, and many other points of your Protestant Doctrine condemned. SECT. II. Doctor Mortons' ignorance, concerning the eight General Council. IN your eight Chapter, in the title of the eight Section, you say (g) Pag. 127. The belief of the Article, Viz. The Catholic Roman Church, without subjection whereunto there is no salvation, damneth the eight Council, which you call general, consisting of 383. Bishops, in the year 870. This is your title; in proof whereof, you cite Binius (h) Tom. 3. p. 143. in your margin, but ignorantly, and falsely: for the Council which Binius there setteth down, is not the eight general, held the year 870. under Basilius the Emperor; and Adrian the second Pope of that name, but a particular Synod, consisting of certain Greek Bishops assembled the year 692. by the industry of Calinicus Patriarch of Constantinople, in the time of Sergius Pope, & justinian the younger, in his palace called Trullum, & hath never been esteemed a lawful Council, but always reproved as a false, and erratical assembly, as Binius proveth (i) To. 3. pag. 154. 155. , and I shall presently declare (k) Sect. seq. . Again you say; The eight general Council consisted of 383: Bishops, and give Binius for your Author: But you are mistaken, & wrong Binius: for he (l) Tom. 3. pag. 910. proveth out of Nicetas, and Anastasius who was present at the eight Council, that it consisted only of 102. Bishops. Nor will it serve you for an excuse, that Bellarmine saith, it consisted of 383. Bishop's: for you bring not him for your author, but Binius. who affirmeth, and proveth the contrary. And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh, you might have learned, if you had observed, what Binius noteth out of Anastasius, namely, that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod, though they were not present at it. But let us go on: What was done (say you) (m) Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople, you may understand from your own men. Here I must request you to call to mind, that else where you say (n) Pag. 235. marg. lit. ●. , the Council under Menas was the fifth Council of Constantinople. How then can the eight general Council, which you say was held the year 870. be the fourth Council of Constantinople, since in this other place alleged, you affirm the Council under Menas held the year 553. to be the fifth Council of Constantinople? for thereby you ignorantly make the fifth Council of Constantinople, to have been held above 300. year, before the fourth. SECT. III. Whether the eight general Council condemned the Saturday fast, allowed by the Roman Church. YOu tell us (o) Pag. 1●7. that, we may understand from our Binius, that these Bishops (of the eight general Council) condemned a custom of the saboth fast in lent, then used in the Church of Rome: and thereupon, made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome, from keeping that custom any longer. And you add (p) Ibid. : This Canon (saith your Surius) is not received, because it reprehendeth the Church of Rome, the mother-Church of all other Churches. So you: And your readers, especially of the vulgar sort, by this your expression, what will they conceive, but that the Roman Church did in those times fast the Sundays in Lent? for as by the Saboth day Protestants, especially the vulgar, understand no other day but Sunday, so by the Saboth fast, what will they understand, but the Sunday fast, which was never used, nor allowed in the Roman Church, but condemned in the Council of Gangra, as an heretical observation of the Eustathians (q) See Spond. anno 319. n. 9 . The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast, which, as than it was, so, notwithstanding this Canon, is still used by the Roman Church in Lent, and not prohibited out of Lent. Nor was that Canon made by the eight general Councell, to whom you ignorantly ascribe it, but by the Trullan Synod, as Binius, and Surius testify; whom therefore you abuse, in fathering on them your own ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod, for the eight general Council. And so much the more, because both of them, with all Catholic Divines, hold the Trullan Canons to be illegitimate, and of no force: for as much, as no Legates of Sergius then Pope, were present at that Synod, nor was it assembled by his authority, or consent, but absolutely reproved, and condemned by him, notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers, and other means used by the Empetor, to extort a confirmation from him, and his successors, as Venerable Bede (r) L D● sex aetat, in justinian. iuniore. who lived at that time, Paulus Diaconus (s) L. 6. e. 4. and other historians testify, and you may read in Baronius (t) Anno 692 , Bellarmine (u) L. 1. de , Binius (x) Tom. 3. pag. 152. , and Canus (y) L. 5. de loc. c. vlt. ; who rightly observe, that as not by the Pope, so neither by any of the Patriarches of the East, nor by any authority of antiquity it hath been received, as a true Council, but held to be (and so Bede (z) Loco cis. calls it) Erratica Synodus, An erring Synod; in so much, that the Greek Historians, Theophanes, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, and others, thought best to bury it in silence, never reckoning it among the Counsels, nor making any mention at all of it. And with great reason: for how Almighty God punished both the wicked Patriarch Calinicus, and the Emperor, who pleaseth may read in Baronius (a) Anno 691. . All which being true, as it is, it must follow, that you show great ignorance, or else lack of Conscience, in attributing to the eight general Council a decree of this impious Conventicle, and objecting it against a religious custom of the Saturday fast in Lent, piously observed by the Roman Church, from the Apostles tyme. If it be an abuse, why did not the seven first Ecumenical Counsels take notice of it? Do not the Greek authors with one voice cry out, that in things of this nature which are not repugnant to faith, or good manners, the variety of ancient customs used in divers Churches is to be observed? And did not S. Hierome, being consulted about this very custom of the Saturday fast, long before the Trullan Synod, answer (b) Ep. 28. , Let every country abound in their own sense, and reverence the precepts of their Forefathers, as Apostolical laws? And did not S. Ambrose (c) Spond. anno 384. n. 6. in this very particular, advice Monica S. Augustine's Mother, to observe the custom of whatsoever place she was in? And do not both he, and S. Augustine (d) Apud S. Aug. ep. 86. professedly prove against you, and such as you are, that whereas the Eastern Church from the time of the Apostles fasted not, but feasted on saturdays, contrary to the custom of the Western Church, both of them did it, upon good and pious considerations, declared by the ancient Fathers (e) Apud Baro. an. 692. ? And doth not S. Augustine (f) Loco cit. show, that variety to be a singular ornament to the Church? And do not the Counsels of Agatha (g) C. 22. , and Eliberis (h) C. 26. , subscribe to that custom of the Roman, & other Western Churches? What authority then, had those Trullan Bishops to make themselves judges of the Roman Church, and of all the Churches of the West, over whom they had no authority, as yourself well knoweth? And hereby is discovered your folly, that not contenting yourself with proposing here this Argument so impertinent, and frivolous, you repeat it afterwards again saying (i) Pag. 220. 221. that, S. Augustine approving the custom of the Eastern Church, wounds the Papacy, and signifies that the Roman Church had not then any peremptory authority to determine all causes: for the Roman Church then did, and still doth allow variety of Customs in divers Churches, though sometimes contrary to her own, when they are not repugnant to faith or good manners. Such was the Eastern custom of not observing the Saturday-fast, which therefore she allowed. How then doth S. Augustine wound the Papacy, in allowing the Oriental●s to observe their custom, since the Roman Church agreeth with him, in allowing the same? To prove out of S. Augustine that the Roman Church had not then authority to determine all Ecclesiastical causes, you should have showed, that he held endless, and indeterminable any cause, which she had once determined; or that he allowed, what she had once condemned: which whiles you do not, you spend your breath in vain. Finally, whereas you ask (k) Pag. 127. Whether the Church of Rome would at this day swallow, and digest such an hot morsel, as the Trull an decree was, you insinuate, that then she could, and did swallow that morsel: which how false it is, you have heard; since neither Sergius Pope, nor any of his successors, could ever be brought to confirm that deceee, or the Synod that made it; which alone showeth the transcendent authority of the Roman Church in those days; for want of whose allowance, and confirmation, that Synod was then, and ever since hath been reproved, as an impious Assembly: whose decrees therefore you are ill advised to object in favour of your cause, against the Roman Church. CHAP: XXIII. Doctor Morton defendeth the heretical custom of the Asian Bishops against Victor Pope. BELLARMINE, and other Catholic writers, to prove the authority and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome practised over the Eastern Church, in the first ages after Christ, among other examples, allege the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor Pope against Polycrates, and many other Asian Bishops, for not celebrating the feast of Easter upon the Sunday, as the Roman Church did, but according to the jewish computation, at the full moon of March, on what day soever it sell: whereas (witness Eusebius) (l) Lib. 5. hist. c. 22. the rest of the Churches, throughout the whole world, insisting in the Apostolical tradition, and custom, did never observe their Easter on any other day, then that, on which our Lord arose from death, which was on Sunday. And so it was decreed to be kept, by the Counsels of Palestine, of Rome, of Pontus, of France, of Osraena, of Achaia, and of other Bishops, almost Innumerable (m) Euseb. Ibid. . To which I add out of Tertullian (n) De praescrip. c. 53. , that Blastus by persuading the observation of that jewish custom, did endeavour to bring judaisme again into the Church: which also Eusebius testifieth, saying (o) L. 5. hish. c. 14. : Blastus having drawn many into error, did labour to bring in a new Sect, for the destruction of truth. Upon these grounds Victor excommunicated him, and the Asian Bishops for their obstinate defence of that custom, which Pius his predecessor had forbidden. You object (p) Pag. 130. , that the Asian Bishops stood out a long time against Victor, and contemned his excommunication; and that Polycrates pleading their cause, in his Epistle to Pope Victor, alleged, that they had received their custom from S. john, who leaned an our Lord's breast; that it was practised by Philip the Apostle, and continued by Polycarp, Thraseas, and Sagonius, all of them Bishops and Martyrs; and that Polycrates himself having lived 65. years in the communion of the faithful, was nothing moved with those terrors (meaning of excommunication) which were urged against him, and the rest. And you add (q) Pag. 131. out of Eusebius, that this Act of Victor did not please all other Bishops, who did greatly reprove him for troubling the peace of the Church. These (Sir) are not Eusebius his words, but yours. He saith, that, they did earnestly exhort Victor to peace, & to a diligent care of charity towards his neighbours, and bitterly reproved him, as providing unprofitably for the good of the Church. So indeed Eusebius saith, according to the translation of Ruffinus. And both of them, being Heretics, show their malice against the See Apostolic, in saying, that, other Bishops did bitterly reprove Victor: for coming to give an example of this bitterness, they bring for their pattern, the words of S. Irenaeus, in all which there is not one bitter word, but a gentle remonstrance, full of submission to the person of Victor, and to the authority of his See: for he saith not, that Victor could not, but that, he should not have cut off from the body of the Church so many provinces for so small a cause; which is not to argue him of want of power, but for using his power indiscreetly: Irenaeus (saith Eusebius) (r) L. 5. hist. c. 24. did fitly exhort Pope Victor, that he would not utterly cut off so many Churches, from the body of the universal Church of Christ. And whereas you (s) Pag. 132. traduce Christopherson, our learned Bishop of Chichester, for this translation of Eusebius, it is a cavil sprung out of your ignorance: for the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Eusebius useth, signifieth to cut off from the whole mass or body: and so it is proved out of Ruffinus, who translateth thus: Irenaus reproved Victor, for not doing well in cutting off from the unity of the body, so many, and so great Churches. And so likewise translateth your learned Protestant-brother joannes jacobus Grynaeus, in his Basilean edition of Eusebius. And in the same manner translateth Nicephorus (t) L. 4. c. 38. , all of them as well skilled in Greek, as yourself, to say no more. And indeed how could Irenaeus reprove Victor, for exceeding the limits of his power? he that crieth out (u) L. 3. c. 3. : To the Roman Church, all Churches, and all the faithful, from all places, must necessarily have recourse, by reason of her more powerful principality. Wherefore it was not want of Power that Irenaeus reproved in Victor, but indiscreet using of his power. But that even in this, he was instaken, and that Victor failed not, even in point of prudence, nor used overmuch rigour, appeareth in this, that hereby he repressed the Heresy of Blastus by which many were seduced, as also because the famous Council of Nice, first, & many others afterwards, confirmed his sentence, and condemned the doctrine and practice of Blastus, & the Asians in this point; in so much that all, which since that time have persisted in the contrary custom, have been accounted Heretics, and under the name of Quartadecimani registered for such, by the Fathers, that have made catalogues of heretics. That the Nicen Council had just cause to condemn this Quartadeciman error, you dare not deny; but you deny the same of Pope Victor, & yield a disparity in these words: (x) Pag. 132. Be it known unto you, that the decree of the Nicen Council, which ordained that Easter should be kept upon the Lord's day, maketh nothing for the Act of Victor his excommunicating the Asian Bishops: because as that Council was celebrated 200. years after, so had it far more just and necessary cause, to make such a decree by reason of the heresy of Blastus, who at that time defended an indispensable necessity of observing the jewish ceremonial law. The cause then, for which you approve the decree of the Nicen Councell, and condemn that of Victor in the same cause, is, by reason of the heresy of Blastus, who (say you) at that time (of the Nicen Council) defended an indispensable necessity of observing the jewish ceremonial law: which words present unto us an excellent testimony of your ignorance in ecclesiastical history: for Blastus lived not at the time of the Nicen Council (as you affirm) but 130. years before, in the very time of Victor Pope, and of S. Irenaeus, who writ against him, as S. Hierome testifieth (y) L. de Scriptor. . And so likewise did Tertullian at the same time, saying (z) De praescrip. c. 53. : Blastus seeketh covertly to bring in judaisine; for he teacheth, that Easter is not to be kept otherwise, then according to the law of Moses. And with them agreeth Eusebius reporting (a) L. 5. bist. c. 14. , that Blastus begun to preach and diuulge his heresy in the time of Victor Pope. Wherefore you saying, that Blastus lived not in the time of Victor, but of the Nicen Council, which was more than 100 years after, present us ignorantly with falsehood, instead of truth; & in lieu of impugning the fact of Victor, against your will confirm the same. And by the way I will not omit to advertise the reader of three things. The first is, that whereas you say (b) Pag. 132. . The Nicen Council was 200. years after Pope Victor excommunicated the Asians, you cannot be excused from another ignorant mistake: for it was not much above 120. years after that time; the sentence of Victor being in the year 198. and the Council of Nice, the year 325. The second is, that the sentence of Victor being ratified, and confirmed, and contrarily the jewish custom of the Asians anathematised by the three first general Counsels of Nice, Constantinople (c) Ca 7. , and Ephesus (d) P. ●. act. 6 , as also by the second of Antioch (e) Ca 1. , the first of Arles (f) Ca 1. , and that Laodicea (g) Ca 7. , and they that obeyed not the sentence of Victor, registered for heretics by Philastrius (h) In cattle. Haer. . S. Epiphanius (i) Haer. 50. , S. Augustine (k) L. de Haeres. haer. 29. . Theodoret (l) Haeret. fab. l. 3. cap. 5. , S. Damascen (m) Haeres. 50. , and Nicephorus (n) L. 4. c. 36.37.38. , you nevertheless blush not, to approve that heretical custom, and to say (o) Pag. 157. that, the Britan's and Scots, in observing it, some hundreds of years after it was thus condemned, did much more orthodoxally than the Roman Church: which showeth, that any custom, so it be contrary to the practice of the Roman Church, is to you Orthodoxal, though in itself it be damnable, and anathematised as heretical, by never so many Counsels and Fathers, as this Asian custom observed by the Britain's, and Scots was. 3. And from the same spirit proceedeth your saying (p) Pag. 131. that, Pope Victor was the Schismatic, that troubled the peace of the Church, and not the Asian Bishops; since they for their obstinacy in defending the jewish custom, have been by all orthodox Fathers and Counsels condemned, as heretics: and contrarily Pope Victor (even as M. Whit gift your brother acknowledgeth (q) In his Defence pag. 5●0. was a godly Bishop and Martyr, and the Church at that time, in great purity, as not being long after the Apostles. And whereas, you (r) Pag. 131. appeal to our consciences, and bid us in all our reading show unto you, if we can, that Polycrates, and other Asian Bishops, so excommunicated by Pope Victor, were held by any other Catholic Bishops of those times, to be thereby, without the state of salvation; we contrarily appeal to the conscience of any christian man, whether it be not damnable doctrine, to maintain (as you do) that these Qartadeciman heretics, after they knew themselves to be excommunicated by the Pope, and anathematised by so many Counsels, if they repent not, but persisted obstinately in the defence of their heresy, could be in state of salvation. And lastly whereas you add (s) Pag. 131. that, we full well know, that S. Hierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers numbered Polycrates among those who did advance the Catholic faith, we know that you speak ignorantly and untruly: for S. Hierome in that his Catalogue doth not only number Catholics, but also divers heretics that writ of Ecclesiastical affairs; as Eusebius Caesariensis, whom the same S. Hierome (t) Apol. advers. Ruffin. l. 1. calls, The ringleader of the Arians. And so likewise, he numbereth Novatianus, Donatus, and Photinus, whom in that very Catalogue, he acknowledgeth not only to be heretics, but authors and propagators of several heresies. And in no other condition doth he number Polycrates, whom he commendeth not for advancing the Catholic faith (as you affirm) but having set down a piece of his epistle written to Pope Victor, in defence of his error, saith, He reports it to show the wit, and authority of the man: where, by authority, he understands not authority of right, but of fact, that is, the credit which Polycrates had among the Quartadecimans. CHAP. XXIV. Doctor Morton, in opposition to the Roman Church, defendeth the Heretical Doctrine of Rebaptization. FIRMILIANUS B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, with other Asian Bishops, out of their great hatred to heresy, decreed in their Counsels of Iconium, & Synnada, that Baptism given by Heretics was invalid, and therefore that Heretics returning to the Catholic Church, were to be baptised a new. This Doctrine from Asia, crept into Africa: and Agrippinus B. of Carthage, having laid the first grounds thereof, Cyprian with other African Bishops afterwards embraced the same, so far, that for the authorising thereof, they assembled a Council of 80. Bishops at Carthage. All which notwithstanding, that doctrine, as being contrary to the tradition, and practise of the Catholic Church, was forbidden by Stephen then Pope of Rome, in these words: Nihil innovetur, sed seruetur quod traditum est: Let no innovation be made, but that observed which hath come by tradition. Firmilianus with other Bishops of Asia, notwithstanding this prohibition, persisted still in their error, and were for that cause excommunicated by Stephen. Whereat Firmilianus storming, in his fury spewed out reproachful and contumelious words against him. But Cyprian, although he defended the same error, yet not as a doctrine of faith, nor condemning the contrary, nor censuring the Pope, or the rest that defended it, as any way guilty of Heresy: for as S. Augustine writing against the Donatists, and excusing Cyprian (u) L. 2. de Bapt. t. 18. & l. 2. c. 4. saith: If he held that opinion, it was before it was condemned by a a general Council; to which he would most easily have submitted his judgement, if any such had been held in his tyme. And moreover, if he held it, it was with so great temper, that (as both he himself (x) Ep. ad juba. & in Conc. Carthag. , and S. Augustine (y) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. & 19 & l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9. & alibisaepe. for him, testifieth) for the defence thereof, he never forsook the communion of the Roman Church: but as S. Peter dissented from S. Paul, concerning the circumcision of Gentiles newly converted, and yet both of them still remained in Catholic unity, and peace: so likewise though Cyprian touching rebaptisation differed in opinion from Stephen, yet he still remained in communion with him. And therefore when the Donatists defended their heresy, by the authority of Cyprian, and his Council, S. Augustine answered (h) Cont. Crescon. l. 1. c. 32. & l. 2. c. 31. & alibi saepe. , that Cyprians patronage could not avail them, because they were out of the communion of the Roman Church, in which Cyprian lived and died. This is the controversy, as it passed between Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, and Stephen Pope, briefly related. And you in objecting it against the Pope's authority, show impiety, folly, and falsehood. Impiety, 1. In taking part with Firmilianus & Cyprian, in their opposition to Pope Stephen, and approving their doctrine, which you know to be erroneous, & that soon after being condemned by a general Council, it hath ever since been held for an absolute heresy, not only by Catholics, but also by Protestants. And doth not S. Augustine say (i) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 2. , that, albeit Cyprian Bishop & Martyr were a man of great fame and merit, yet not of greater than Peter the Apostle, and Martyr, in whom the principality of the See Apostolic was so eminent: which showeth that Cyprian ought to have borne respect to Stephen Pope, sitting in the See, & invested in the authority of Peter Prince of the Apostles? And doth he not show (l) L. 2. Cont. Crescon. c. 32. , that Cyprian erred herein, and that the Epistles which he writ of this subject are of no force, because the contrary was decreed by the authority of the whole Church, which is to be preferred before the authority of Cyprian, or of any one man whatsoever? And doth he not (m) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. & seqq. learnedly confute the Epistle which Cyprian writ to Pompeius, in defence of his error? And whereas you to justify Cyprian, object (n) Pag. 134. , that, he gathered a Council of 87. Bishops, which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Council celebrated in Italy, you know that S. Augustine doubted (o) L. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 32. , whether any such Council were ever held: and if it were, whether the greater part of the Votes were not against Cyprian, because the Donatists could reckon but 50. Asian, and 70. African Bishops, that adhered to Firmilianus, and Cyprian (p) S. Aug. cont. Crescon. l. 3. c. 3. whereas many thousands held with Stephen Pope, against them. And the same S. Augustine (q) L. 6. de Bapt. per tot. answereth, and confuteth severally, every one of the verdictes of the Bishops, which were said to be given in that Council assembled by Cyprian. 2. You cannot be excused from impiety, in objecting (r) Pag. 137. against the Pope's authority, the words which Firmilianus and Cyprian in their passion let slip from their mouths against Stephen: for S. Augustine (s) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 25. held them unworthy to be mentioned, and covered them with this excuse: The things which Cyprian in his anger spread against Stephen, I will not suffer to pass under my pen. But as I'm (t) Gen. 9.22. delighted to lay open the shameful parts of his Father, so you glory in publishing the faults of the Saints, when you can espy any error or frailty in them, though afterwards they repent themselves as Cyprian did: for S. Augustine reporteth as most credible (u) L. 2. de Bapt. c. 4. & ep. 48. ad Vincent. that he changed his opinion before his death; and as absolutely certain, that by his glorious Martyrdom, he washed out with his blood, the blemish which he had contracted by defending that error. 3. In making this Argument you show great folly, it being so far from disproving the Pope's authority, that it is an unanswerable proof thereof, as that ancient and learned Father Vincentius Lyrinensis in his golden Treatise against the profane novelties of heresies, convinceth in these words (x) Cap. 9.10.11. : In times past Agrippinus of venerable memory Bishop of Carthage, the first of all mortal men maintained this assertion against the divine Scripture, against the rule of the universal Church, against the mind of all the Priests of his time, against the custom and tradition of his fore Fathers, that Rebaptization was to be admitted, and put in practice. Which presumption of his procured so great damage to the Church, that not only it gave a pattern of sacrilege to all beretikes, but also ministered occasion of error to some Catholics. When therefore all men every where exclaimed against the Novelty of that doctrine, and all Priests in all places, each one according to his zeal did repugn; then Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Bishop of the Apostolic See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops, but yet more than the rest, thinking it, as I suppose, reason so much to excel all others in devotion towards the faith, as he was superior to them in authority of place. To conclude, in his Epistle, which then was sent to Africa, he decreed the same in these words: Let nothing be innovated, but that observed which came by tradition etc. What then was the end of this whole business? what else, but common, and usual? Antiquity was retained, novelty abandoned. But perhaps that new invention wanted patrons; and defenders? To which I say on the contrary, that it had such pregnant wits, such eloquent tongues, such number of defendants, such show of truth, such testimonies of Scripture, but glossed after a new, and naughty fashion, that all that conspiracy & schism should have seemed to me invincible, had not the very profession of novelty itself, so taken in hand, under that name defended, & with that title recommended, overthrown the very ground of so great a schism. To conclude, what force had the Council or decree of Africa? By God's providence, none; but all things there agreed upon, were abolished, annulled, abrogated, as dreams, as fables, as superfluous. And, O strange mutation of things! the authors of that opinion are judged to be Catholics, and the followers accounted heretics: the masters discharged, and the scholars condemned: the writers of those books shall be children of the kingdom of heaven, and the maintainers of them shall burn in bell. All this is of Vincentius Lyrinensis, who tells you that albeit Cyprian, and other his Colleagues, authors of that doctrine, be Saints in heaven, yet they that maintain it now, after it hath been condemned by the universal Church (as you do, justifying Cyprian in his defence thereof against Stephen Pope) shall burn for ever in hell; which I wish you to look to in time, & to observe how properly you are described by Vincentius a little after, comparing such as you are, to Cham, and expressing lively your imposterous dealing in theirs. 4. As in this objection you show folly, arguing against yourself, so you cannot be excused from fraud: for whereas we answer, that Firmilianus and Cyprian, with the other Bishops, that assented to them, when they saw their doctrine reproved, and condemned by the Church, acknowledged their error, & retracted the same by a new decree, contrary to that which before they had made in their Council of Carthage, you shift it of, saying (y) Pag. 138. . I pass it over as a vain presumption; and so it is proved to be. By whom? forsooth by your Revitius, a man of as much credit as yourself. His answer set down by you in Latin in your margin, as also what he bringeth out of Dionysius Alexandrinus, and S. Basil, you may see confuted by Baronius (a) Apud Bisciol. anno 258. pag. 148. , S. Hierome, and other ancient Fathers. The blessed Cyprian (saith S. Hierome (b) Adverse. Lucifer. striven to avoid the miry lakes, & not to drink of strange waters; and upon this subject addressed the Synod of Carthage to Stephen B. of Rome, who was the twenty sixth after S. Peter: but his strife was in vain. And in the end they which had decreed that such as were baptised by heretics, must be rebaptised, returning to the ancient custom, set forth a new decree, saying: What do we? So it hath been delivered to them, by their ancestors, and ours. And Venerable Bede (c) L. quaest. q. 5. : Cyprian with his Bishops in Africa, made a decree contrary to the custom of the Church, that heretics should be rebaptised: but because in his sense (which he conceived to be right) he endeavoured to enrich himself with good works, he deserved to be soon reform, and by the instruction of spiritual men, to be reduced to the universal custom of holy Church. And S. Augustine testifieth (d) L. 3. cont. Crescon. c. 3. that, The oriental Bishops, which had met at Icomium, and Synnada, revoked their decree, and corrected their judgement. And finally Dionysius Alexandrinus certified Pope Stephen (e) Ep. ad Stephan. apud Euseb. l. 7. hist. c. 4. & Nicephor. l. 6. c. 7. that the same was done not only by the Oriental, but also by other foreign Churches every where. Wherefore your objecting of Firmilianus and Cyprian, as opposing the Pope in this convoversy, and inferring that you may likewise oppose him in your Protestant Tenants, is, as if you should prove out of S. Peter's denial of Christ, that it is lawful for you to deny him: for as S. Peter repent his fall, so did those Bishops retract their error. And hereby also appears the fraud of your Revitius, seeking to limit this retraction of Firmilianus and other Bishops, to those of the East only: for you have heard S. Hierome, Bede, S. Augustine, Eusebius and Nicephorus testify, that S. Cyprian with his African Bishops, and all others, ubique locorum, in all place, were reconcileds and this not only among themselves, as Revitius ridiculously glosseth (for they dissented not among themselves) but also with Stephe Pope, returning to the ancient custom & practice of the Church, as he had commanded. Whereupon Dionysius Patriarch of Alexandria writ to him a congratulatory letter (f) Extat apud Author. cit. that he with them all might rejoice in the peace restored to the Church by his means. And in another to Xistus his successor (g) Apud Euseb. l. 5. hist. c. 4. , he declareth the Pope's authority over all those Bishops, beseeching him to pardon their offence, & restore them to his communion: I writ to Stephen (saith he) an Epistle for all those Bishops. To conclude, you add another falsehood, saying (h) Pag. 135. , that we grant Stephen Pope, to have excommunicated not only Firmilianus, with other Eastern Bishops, but also S. Cyprian: and you prove it by the testimony of Cassander, and heretical and prohibited Author, whom you contrary to your own knowledge cite as a Catholic writer, that so you may have some colour to call his lies, our Confessions, as here you do. And indeed what man of common sense, can persuade himself, that the Roman Church would honour S. Cyprian as a glorious Saint, and Martyr, (as she doth) if he had died out of her communion, and especially if he had contemned her excommunication? Lastly I must advertise you of another absurdity, whiles you tell us (i) Pag. 138. that, we should advice in this case rather with Firmilianus, a Bishop living in the days of S. Cyprian, then with S. Augustine, who came 150. years after: for this is to tell us, that we must rather believe Firmilianus, a party, and for a time, guilty both of the heresy of the Quarta decimans, & of Rebaptisation, then S. Augustine, an Orthodox Doctor, and an impartial witness. But yet, if we advice with Firmilianus, he will condemn you. 1. Because he retracted his errors before his death, returning to the communion of the Roman Church, and (witness S. Basil (k) De Spir. S. ad Amphil. c. 29. was admitted among the Catholic Bishops in the Council of Antioch, held against Paulus Samosatenus. And 2. because in his Epistle to Cyprian, he acknowledgeth Stephen to be successor of S. Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid. And the reason which he yieldeth for his not obeying Stephen, is, that he must rather obey God, than man: (l) Extat apud Pamel. pag. 198. : which is a reason, not to be given, but by one, that knows himself bound to obey him that commands, if his command be not contrary to the commandment of God, as he thought Stephens to be, though erroneously, as you have heard. CHAP. XXV. Other Arguments of Doctor Morton our of S. Cyprian, answered. FRom this your main Argument of the opposition of Firmilianus and S. Cyprian, you pass to other objections, showing (as you say) (m) Pag. 134. in tit. sect. 4. the full opposition of S. Cyprian and other Bishops, against Stephen B. of Rome. But seeing you acknowledge (n) Pag. 291. & alibi. the Roman Church to have been pure and free from error for the space of 600. years, and the Popes that lived in S. Cyprians time, to be glorious Saints and Martyrs of Christ (o) Pag 172.178.181.287. , with what conscience do you make S. Cyprian fully opposite to them, and to differ in masters of faith from them? for what else is that, but to make S. Cyprian an heretic, that so he may seem to be like to yourself? Now to your objections of the full opposition of S. Cyprian to Pope Stephen. The first is (p) Pag. 134. , that S. Cyprian impugned the Pope's pretended power of appeals to Rome: in proof whereof you produce ignorantly the examples of Fortunatus and Felicissimus: for they appealed not to Pope Stephen, but to Cornelius, between whom and Stephen sat Lucius another Pope. Again, the objection is impertinent: for the definitions of Counsels confirmed by the Popes, and the decrees of the Popes themselves, ordain, that mayor causes, that is to say, of faith, and of Bishops, be referred to the See Apostolic; but that minor causes, that is, of the lives & manners of Priests, and inferior clerks, be finally sentenced; & ended in their own provinces, by their Bishops, and Metropolitans, or by the Counsels of their Province. This is declared by S. Augustine, who speaking of Cecilianus B. of Carthage, that had been condemned in Africa, by a Council of 70. Bishops, saith (q) Ep. 162: : There was no question then of Priests, or Deacons, or other Clerks of the inferior order, but of the Colleagues, that is so say, of Bishops, who might reserve their causes entire to the judgement of the other Colleagues, and principally of the Churches Apostolic: and therefore that Cecilian might have contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him, for as much as he saw himself united by communicatory letters, with the Roman Church, in which the sovereignty of the See Apostolic had always flourished. This showeth the futility of your objection. For Fortunatus and Felicissimus were not Bishops, but simple Priests, who having been judged by their own Bishops, ought not to have appealed to Rome: and therefore Cornelius rejected their appeal, and excommunicated them (as S. Cyprian declares in that very Epistle, which you object) and returned Felicissimus back into Africa, with other his associates sent by Fortunatus: for Fortunatus himself went not in person to Rome (as you mistake) but sent Felicissimus with other Schismatics like himself. And that S. Cyprian by complaining to Pope Cornelius, of these rebellious sugiti●●s, did not deny his power of appeals, not the subjection of the African Churches to the See of Rome, his words in that very Epistle (r) Ep. 55. three lines before (to go no further) plainly declare; when speaking of these Schismatics he saith: They presume to sail to the Chair of Peter, and the principal Church, from whence sacerdotal Unity is derived, and to carry betters from schismatical and profane persons, not having in mind, that the Romans are they, whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom unfaithfulness can have no access. Your second objection is (s) Pag. 134. that, the Council of Carthage did deny to any whomsoever, the title of Bishop of Bishops. This is an untruth: for the words are not of the Council, but of S. Cyprian, who speaketh only of his fellow Bishops of Africa, assembled with him in that Council: and to them only he directs his speech, wishing them to deliver their opinion freely, without regard to the authority which he as their Primate had over them. But in what sense soever you take the words, they are of no force, as being uttered in an erroneous Council, which the Church hath condemned, which S. Augustine (t) L. 6. de Baptism. per tot. hath confuted, & from which S. Cyprian himself afterwards disclaimed, retracting his error. Your third is (u) Pag. 134. that, S. Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of Pope per antonomasiam, to be proper to the B. of Rome, as we teach: because at the time of his Martyrdom, being demanded of the Proconsul: Art thou he, whom the Christians call their Pope? He answered him: I am. And I answer you, that this is a frivolous objection: for as Onuphrius hath noted (x) Tract. voc. obscur. Eccles. the name of Pope anciently, until after the time of S. Gregory, was common to all Bishops of great Cities, as of Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and the like: and you afterwards showing the futility of your objection, prove the same (y) Pag. 241. . Wherefore S. Cyprian acknowledging that the Christians of Africa (of whom only both he and the Proconsul spoke) did call him Their Pope, and that he was so, did not acknowledge himself to be Pope, per antonomasiam (for in that sense the name of Pope was not then used) but to be B. of Carthage, that is to say, the chief Father, and Primate of all the Christians of Africa. How then proveth this, that the name of Pope, being from the time of S. Gregory appropriated to the B. of Rome, to signify his supreme authority, doth not since that appropriation, declare him to be Pope per antonomasiam? For words signify ad placitum, that which according to the common use and acception of men they import. And finally, that the name of Pope when it is applied to the B. of Rome, importeth a singular dignity, proper to him alone, is convinced by the Epithets which ancient Fathers speaking to him, add to that name, as when they call him Universal Pope: for so he is styled by the Council of Cyprus (z) Ep. Synod. ad Theodor. Pap. , by S. Athanasius, and all the Bishops of Egypt (a) Ep. ad Marc. Pap. . CHAP. XXVI. The Counsels of Carthage and Milevis acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. of Rome. AGAINST the prerogative of appeals to Rome you object (b) Pag. 141. the Council of Milevis, held Anno 402. And yet afterwards you say, that the same Council was held in the year 416. and cite Binius as your Author for both. Binius speaketh of two different Counsels, held at Milevis in those several years, and under different Consuls; and you confound them, taking them both for one, and father your ignorance on Binius. And with like ignorance you affirm (c) Ibid. the decree touching appeals to have been made by the Council of Milevis Anno 402. for the Council held that year, was the first of Milevis, in which the decree concerning appeals was not made, but in the second Anno 416. 2. You must remember, that when Bellarmine in proof of the Pope's universal authority, among other arguments, produceth examples of African Bishops instituted, or deposed by him, as also the ancient custom of appealing to him out of Africa; you answer (d) Pag. 289. & 304. , that the Africans are within the Pope's Patriarkeship (which you call his Diocese) and therefore rather subject to him, then to others. If then the Africans were within the Pope's Diocese, they were subject to him as to their lawful judge, and had right to appeal to him, and he to admit their appeals, and judge their causes. Wherefore if in the Milevitan, or any other Council, or occasion whatsoever, the Africans inhibited appeals out of Africa to the Pope, their inhibition was an act of disobedience, and rebellion against their lawful Superior; and no less a crime, then if the subjects of a temporal Monarch, should forbid appeals to their Sovereign. With what face then can you justify them therein? But the truth is, that you slander them injustly: for as there is nothing more evident, then that the Council of Carthage and this of Milevis held in the cause of Pelagius and Celestius, did fully acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope, and professed their obedience to him, both in words and deeds; so there is nothing more certain, then that they denied not his prerogative of Appeals, without which his authority cannot consist. If the African Bishops did not believe the sovereign power of the See Apostolic, why did S. Cyprian address his Council held in favour of Rebaptisation to Stephen Pope (e) S Hierom. adversely. Lucifer. ? And why did the Council of Carthage, held against Pelagius and Celestius, send their decrees to Innocentius Pope, to be confirmed by his authority, saying (*) Aug. ep. 92. : This our proceeding (holy Lord and Brother) we conceived we ought to represent to your Charity, that to the statutes of our mediocrity, might be added the authority of the See Apostolic for the defence of many men's salvation, & also for the correction of some men's frowardness? Nor do they require this of Innocentius by way of charity only, but require him, as their Pastor, to take compassion on them, Pastoralibus visceribus, with the bowels of mercy, which he as their Pastor oweth to them as to his sheep. And having rehearsed the opinions of Pelagius and Celestius, they conclude: What other things soever are objected by them, we doubt not but that your Reverence, when you have examined the decrees of the Bishops, which are said to be made upon this occasion in the East, will frame such a judgement, whereat we all may rejoice in the mercy of God. Innocentius having received this Epistle, praised the Fathers of the Council (f) Aug. ep. 91. , that, Antiquae traditionis exempla sequentes following the examples of ancient tradition, and knowing: what is due to the See Apostolic, they had sent their decrees to be approved by his judgement; for as much (saith he) as we all that sit in this place, desire to follow the Apostle himself, from whom the Episcopal office, and the authority of this name hath proceeded: the which Apostle we following, do now as well know, how to condemn evil things, as to approve those which are worthy of praise. And then declaring what that is, which the ancient tradition hath delivered, he addeth (g) Ibid. : The Fathers have ordained, not by humane, but by divine sentence, that they should not account any thing that is treated in provinces distant, and far of, to be ended, until first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolic, to the end that the sentence, which should be found just, might be confirmed by the authority of the same See; and that from thence all other Churches▪ as streams flowing from their Mother source, and running with the purity of their original, through the divers regions of the whole world, might take what they ought to ordain, and what to avoid. In like manner the Council of Milevis writ to the same Pope, as to their Pastor (h) Aug. ep. 92. : Because our Lord by the gift of his special grace, hath placed you in the Apostolic See, vouchsafe, we beseech you, to apply your pastoral diligence, to the great dangers of the weak members of Christ. And S. Augustine, who was present at this Council, and Secretary thereof, writ to Hilary of the same subject (i) Ep. 94. : When I did write these things, we knew, that a decree had been made against them (Pelagius and Celestius) in the Church of Carthage, to be directed to the holy and Venerable Pope Innocentius. And we likewise had written from the Council of (Milevis in) Numidia, to the same Apostolic See. And what did they write? We hope (saith the Council (k) Aug. ep. 92. these men which hold so perverse & pernicious opinions, will sooner yield to the authority of your Holiness, drawn from the authority of the holy Scriptures, by help of the mercy of our Lord jesus-christ, who vouchsafeth to govern you consulting with him, and to hear you praying unto him. To this Epistle of the Council Innocentius answered (l) Aug. ep. 93. : You provide diligently, and worthily for the Apostolic honour etc. following, in the consultation of difficult things, the form of the ancient rule, which you know, as well as I, to have been always observed by the whole world. But I omit this, for I think it is not unknown to your wisdom: for why else did you confirm this by your deeds? but because you know, that answers do always flow from the Apostolical fountain throughout all Countries, to those, that ask them: And especially as often, as matter of faith is in question, I conceive that all our brethren and fellow-Bishops ought not to refer what may be profitable in common to all Churches, to any but to Peter, that is, to the author of their name, and dignity, as your Dilection hath done. If you answer, that Innocentius writ this, but spoke untruly in his own cause, S. Augustine will satisfy you, who highly praiseth both these answers of his. Upon this affair (saith S. Augustine (m) Ep. 106. relations were sent from the two Counsels of Carthage, and Milevis, to the Apostolical See etc. And besides the relations of the Counsels, we writ also private letters to Pope Innocentius of blessed memory▪ in which we discoursed more largely of the same subject. And he answered us to every point, as it was convenient, and fitting the Prelate of the Apostolic See should answer. And again (n) Ep. 157. : Pelagius and Celestius having been the authors, or most violent promotors of this new Heresy, they also by means of the vigilancy of two Episcopal Counsels (with the help of God, who undertakes the protection of his Church) have been condemned in the extent of the whole world, by two reverend Prelates of the Apostolic See, Pope Innocentius, and Pope Zozimus, unless they reform themselves, and do penance. Out of this it is evident. 1. That it was the ancient tradition and custom, that Counsels should send their decrees to the Pope to be confirmed by his authority. 2. And that it is so ordained, not by humane, but by divine sentence. 3. That all other Churches of the world compared to the Roman, are as streams, that flow from their mother source, and are to embrace as pure, whatsoever doctrine she delivereth, and reject whatsoever she condemneth. 4. That the Fathers of both these Counsels did acknowledge the Pope to be their Pastor. 5. And that they did believe his authority, to be taken out of the holy Scriptures. 6. That Christ guideth him in his consultations and decrees of faith. 7. That the custom & ancient rule beareth, that in doubts especially of faith, the See Apostolic is to be consulted, and nothing determined, until answer had from thence. Now to your objection (o) Pag. 141. & seqq. , that, the Council of Milevis denied any right of Appeals from Africa to the Church of Rome, which in your eyes is so forcible, that you repeat it afterwards again (p) Pag. 321.322. & seqq. , and descant on it at large against Bellarmine, who showeth (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 24. it to be wholly impertinent, and from the matter: for the question of appeals to the B. of Rome, is not of Priests, and inferior Clerks (of whom only the Council of Milevis speaketh) but of Bishops: for the Council of Sardica, which hath declared (r) Can. 4. & 7. , that Bishops may appeal to the Pope, hath withal decreed (s) Can. 27. that Priests and inferior Clerks are to be judged by their own Bishops: & that if they conceive themselves to be wronged by them, they appeal to other Bishops of the same province. And the same had been ordained not long before by the Council of Nice (t) julius' ep. 1.2.3. apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 399. & seqq. : and afterwards by S. Leo (u) Ep. 84. ad Anastas. Thessaly. , & S. Gregory (x) L. 2. indict. 11. ep. 6. , ordaining that mayor causes be judged in the first instance by a Council of Bishops of the same province; & by way of appeal by the See Apostolic. And to go no further the same was answered by the holy Pope Innocentius, to whom the Council of Milevis sent their decrees to be confirmed. (y) Aug. ep. 92. For when Victricius B. of Rhoan desiring to order the government of his Church according to the Roman discipline, required instructions from him, he (z) Ep. 2. addressed unto him divers rules to be observed: of which the third is, that, If dissensions arise between Priests, or other Clerks of the inferior order, they are to be judged & ended by the Bishops of the same Province, as the Council of Nice hath determined. And for the causes of Bishops, he addeth (a) Ibid. : If they be mayor causes that are in question, let them after the Episcopal judgement, be referred to the See Apostolic, as the Synod of Nice, and the ancient customs ordain. This Epistle of Innocentius was cited by the Bishops of France, in the second Council of Tours 700. years since. And his very words concerning the appeals of Bishops to the See Apostolic are inserted in form of a Law into the Capitulary of Charlemagne. And Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (b) Erodoard. histor. Eccles. Rhem. lib. 3. , repeating the same decree of Innocentius, saith: We Metropolitans travilling in our provincial Counsels, have care after judgement to refer the mayor causes (that is of faith) and of mayor persons (that is of Bishops) to the determination of the sovereign See. And speaking of Priests and inferior Clerks: Let it not please God, that we thould depise the privilege of the first and supreme See of the holy Roman Church, as to weary your sovereign Authority, with all the controversies, and quarrels of the Clergy, as well of the superior, as of the inferior order, which the canons of the Nicen Council and the decrees of Innocentius, and other Popes of the holy See of Rome command to be determined in their own Provinces. From hence it followeth, that the Canon of the Council of Milevis, which you object against appeals to Rome, makes nothing at all for your purpose; your peremptory conclusion is (c) Pag. 141. , that, the Council of Milevis denieth any right of appeals from afric to the Church of Rome. To make this good you should have showed, that the Council of Milevis forbids the appeals of Bishops from Africa to Rome; for of them only the question is. But instead of proving this you produce a Canon, in which (even as it is reported by yourself) no mention is made of Bishops, but only a command given, that Priests, Deacons, or other inferior Clerks appeal not from the Bishops of their own province, either to Rome, or to any other transmarine Church: which no more impeacheth the sovereign power of the Pope, or disproveth his right of appeals out of Africa, than it would impeach the authority of the King of France, if to prevent the multitude of unnecessary suits, and keep his people in awe of their immediate Superiors, his Majesty, and his Courts of Parliament with his assent, should provide by a special law, that in minor causes, no appeals be made from them to himself. To this I add, that Innocentius confirmed this Council of Milevis (d) Aug. ep. 93. , which he would not have done, if it had prohibited the appeals of Bishops to his See, which he himself in his epistle to Victricius claimeth, and proveth out of the Council of Nice to be lawful. And the same is confirmed out of S. Augustine, who was present at the Council of Milevis, and speaking of Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage, that had been injustly condemned by the Donatists in a Council of 70. Bishops, faith (e) Ep. 162. : Cecilian might have contemned the multitude of his enemies conspiring against him, for as much as he knew himself to be in the Communion of the Roman Church, in which had always flourished the principality of the See Apostolic; & that he might have reserved his cause entire, to be judged a new there, because it was not a cause of Priests, or Deacons, or other Clerks of the inferior order, but of a Colleague, that is to say, of a Bishop. This discourse of S. Augustine convinceth that Bishops may appeal to Rome, though Priests, and other inferior Clerks may not. How comes it then to pass, that you say (f) Pag. 323. Bellarmine when he saith, that, S. Augustine in the place alleged doth justify appeals (of Bishops) beyond the sea to Rome, speaks so still, as though be were scarce able to report a truth? Bellarmine may indeed with truth tell you, that when you said (g) Ibid. , The case of Cecilian (which S. Augustine speaketh of) was not a case of appeal, but of delegation (by the authority of the Emperor) to the Pope, and to other Bishops, you speak as one, that is scarce able to report any thing out of him without an untruth: for he speaketh not of what passed de facto, in the case of Cecilian, but of the right that Cecilian had to appeal to the Pope; which right S. Augustine could not have alleged, unless he had believed, that Bishops in their wrongs might lawfully appeal to him. And that the case of Cecilian was not a case of appeal to the Pope, but a delegation from the Emperor, is an untruth that shall be confuted hereafter (i) Chap. 30. sect. ●. From hence Bellarmine collecteth, that albeit the Council of Milevis prohibited the appeals of Priests and inferior Clerks to Rome, yet they neither did, nor could prohibit the Pope to admit of such appeals, if they were made. Against this you reply (k) Pag. 322. that, where there lieth a prohibition against appealing to a judge, that judge is not held a superior judge. False, if it be taken universally without limitation: for a prohibition may be injust, as being made without sufficient authority: such is the prohibition of Protestants forbidding all Appeals to Rome. Again, a prohibition may be made with dependence on the will and confirmation of a Superior; to whom the right of appeals belongeth. Such was the prohibition made in the Council of Milevis; which therefore without the Pope's confirmation was invalid, and is not valid further, than he confirmed it. Wherefore though by confirming it, he did authorise the African Bishops to impose on their Priests & other Clerks, a command of not appealing to Rome, yet by granting them that authority, he cannot be thought to renounce his own right, so fare, as that, if a Priest appeal unto him, he may not admit his appeal, when he shall find it expedient: as it may be, in case the Priest or Clerk can make evidence of his innocency, proving by sufficient witnesses, that he hath been injustly condemned by the Bishops of his own province, out of misinformation, or other motives. CHAP. XXVII. Appeals to Rome, proved out of the African Council, which was the sixth of Carthage. SECT I. The state of the Question. APIARIUS, an African Priest, of the City of Sicca, being of a lewd & scandalous life, was excommunicated by Vrbanus B. of the same City. He traveled twice to Rome, and making his complaints to Zozimus Pope, appealed to his iudgment. Zozimus sent him back into Africa, wishing the African Bishops to examine his cause diligently. And for as much as not only Apiarius, but (as it appeareth out of two Epistle of the African Bishops to Boniface, and Celestine, successors to Zozimus) some Bishops also had appealed unto him out of Africa, and the African Bishops complained thereof, he sent unto them three Legates, Faustinus B. of Potentia, Philip, and Asellus Priests; and with them, the Canons made in the Council of Nice concerning appeals to Rome. The Africans not finding those Canons in their copies of the Nicen Council, sent Deputies into the East, to procure authentical copies from Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople. But when they came, their copies were found to contain no more than 20. which is the number exstant in our Latin editions, and in which there is no mention of appeals to Rome. This objection hath been often urged by Protestants, and as often answered by us: and particularly by the most eminent Cardinals Baronius (l) Anno 419. , Bellarmine (m) L. 2. de Pontif. c. 25. , and Peron (n) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. . In them you may read the solution: It will be sufficient for me to give the Reader out of them, and other Authors, a touch of your unsyncere dealing, whereby he may also come to understand what the issue of this controversy was. First therefore Bellarmine, Peron (o) Loc. cit. , and Brereley (p) Prot. Apol. tract. 1. sect. 7. Subdiu. 2. n. 3. show, that the ancient Fathers and Counsels, and in particular the Africans themselves, whom this matter most concerned, highly commend those three Popes, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, with whom this controversy was, and grace them with titles of great reverence & honour, calling Zozimus, The most blessed Pope Zozimus; Zozimus of venerable memory: that they call Boniface, The venerable Bishop of the Roman Church; The most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome; The holy and blessed Pope; The Reverend Pope Boniface; Boniface of holy memory; The most blessed and our honourable brother, Boniface; and that S. Augustine dedicated to him one of his principal works. And finally that they qualify Celestine with these titles: Our most beloved Lord, and honourable brother, Celestine; Celestine of blessed memory; & that the famous Council of Ephesus calls him, New S. Peter. This showeth the impudence of your Centurists, who (as Peron, and Bellarmine advertise (q) Loc. cit. , upon occasion of this African Controversy, traduce almost all the Popes of those times, inverting and perverting their names, by calling Innocent, Nocent; Boniface, Maleface; Celestine, Infernal; and the most holy and learned Pope S. Leo the great, A roaring Lion, and a hellish Wolf. To this impudence of the Centurists you add your Vote, whiles in your late sermon before his Majesty at Durham, speaking of Vrbane the second, you say (r) Pag. 29. Pope Vrbane called by the nick name of Turbane. So indeed he is nicknamed by yourself: but that he was ever so nicknamed by any one else, I think you cannot show. And to make yourself more like to the Centurists, in this your Grand imposture, you brand Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, with the black mark of Falsaries, charging them with forgery of a false Canon of Nice: which censure you might have spared, if you had considered, that the African Fathers themselves (with whom this controversy was) were so fare from laying any such aspersion on them, that contrarily, they honoured them with titles of great reverence, as you have heard. And how unjustly you charge them with forging a Canon of Nice, may appear by the testimonies of antiquity, whereby I have proved (s) Chap. 16. & 26. that the Canons of appeals to Rome, which Zozimus sent to the Africans, were true Canons of the Nicen Council. But because afterwards (t) Pag. 301. & seqq. you make a digression, to prove, that the Nicen Canons were no more but 20. you shall hear receive your answer before hand. SECT. II. That the Nicen Canons were more than 20. in number: and that the Canons concerning appeals to Rome, were true Canons of the Nicen Council. YOur words are (u) Pag. 302. : Your author's instance in multitudes of particular points, as being handled in the Council of Nice, which they call Canons of that Council; but erring, for want of that pair of spectacles (for so we may call a distinction) which their own jesuit Pisanus reacheth unto them, who distinguisheth thus. The things (saith he) handled in the Council of Nice, were partly Constitutions, or Acts belonging to doctrines, and partly Canons, which concern Ecclesiastical Policy. So now all the examples, which your obiectors have collected out of the testimonies of Fathers and Counsels, as though they had been Canons, are easily answered by the former distinction, to prove them to have been Diatyposes, Constitutions, Acts only, not Canons, as your jesuit Turrian doth also manifest: which we grant, and oppose against all your instances. So you, not without wilful imposture: for though Pisanus observe that in the Council of Nice, there were not only Canons, but Diatyposes, or Constitutions, yet he is so fare from saying, that the Nicen Canons were but 20. in number, that besides the 20. vulgarly acknowledged, he setteth down (x) Apud Bin. pa. 348. other 24. taken out of the second Epistle of julius to the Arians, in which that holy Pope reprehendeth them severely for their proceeding against Athanasius and other Catholic Bishops, whom in their Council at Antioch they had injustly condemned, infringing the Canons of the Nicen Council, which command (saith he) that no Counsels be held, praeter sententiam, without the allowance of the B. of Rome. And this Canon out of the said Epistle of julius is in like manner reported by the Sardican Council, by Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Nicephorus, and other ancient authors, Whose testimonies Pisanus (y) L. 3. in Conc. Nicen. apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 349. 350. setteth down at large. 2. And no less effectual are the words he allegeth of (z) Ibid. pag. 347. john that famous Orator of the Latins in the Council of Florence: for when Marcus the Greek disputant imputed to the holy Pope Zozimus the same crime of forging a false Canon of the Nicen Council, which you now do, & in proof thereof alleged that the Nicen Canons were but 20. in number, john in his own name, and in the name of all the Latins answered, that the most ancient Epistles of julius, and Liberius Popes, which julian Cardinal of S. Sabina had showed to the Grecians, in that Council, did evince, that Athanasius being persecuted and condemned by the Arians, writ to Felix, Marcus, julius, and Liberius, all of them successively Bishops of Rome, for a true copy of the Acts of Nice, all that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians, and that their answer was, They would not send the original Acts, which being written in Greek and Latin, & subscribed by the Nicen Fathers, and sealed with their seals, were kept by the B. of Rome with great Veneration; but that they would send him copied out severally those Canons, which were for his purpose. Moreover he shown, that when Athanasius appealed from the Council of Antioch, to the See of Rome, & the Arians reproached it unto him, as a thing unlawful, Liberius promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree, for the lawfulness of appealing to Rome: and that julius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians, for presuming to call a Council, without the authority of the See Apostolic, showing to them out of a decree of the Council of Nice, that, no Synod was to be held without the authority of the B. of Rome. 3. And in proof of the same verity, he allegeth out of Isidore the testimonies of the Council of Constantinople, of Marcus, Stephanus, and Innocentius Popes, of Athanasius, and the Bishops of Egypt, of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, and other orientals, of Marianus Scotus, Iuo Carnotensis, and Gratian; giving us thereby spectacles to see your imposterous dealing, who are not ashamed to produce his authority for your number of the 20. Nicen Canons, where he professedly proveth the contrary. Yea in that very place which you cite, though he distinguish the decrees of that Council which you cite, into Canons, & Constitutions; yet he presently addeth that Onuphrius reports the Nicen Canons to be 84. in number; but that out of Athanasius, we know them, not to be above 70. or 80. at the most: and that the number of 84. reckoned by Onuphrius peradventure belongs to the Constitutions. So Pisanus. Can you then be excused from a wilful falsification in cutting of his words, and alleging him for your 20. Canons; in that very place, where he addeth immediately out of S. Athanasius, and proveth afterwards out of so many ancient and learned writers, that they were many more? But leaving him, and returning to julius, he in his third Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology, intimating to the Arians the right of the B. of Rome to have the hearing and final dicision of the causes of Bishops, saith: Are you ignorant that the custom is, that we be first written unto, that from hence may proceed the just decision of things? If therefore any suspicion were conceived against the Bishops there, it ought to have been referred hither to our Church. And thereupon he denounceth to them, that in condemning Athanasius without expecting his sentence, they had done contra canon's, against the Canons, namely of the Nicen Council, which he setteth down in his second Epistle to them: and that aswell Athanasius, as other Catholic Bishops whom they had condemned, in appealing from their Council to him, as he in repealing their Acts, in restoring the Appellants to their seats, and in summoning their adversaries to Rome, had done, quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est, according to the Canons of the Church. If therefore the holy Popes julius, Felix, Marcus, and Liberius, that lived soon after the Council of Nice; if S. Athanasius that was personally present; if john the learned Orator of the Latins, speaking in all their names in the council of Florence; if Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Nicephorus and many other ancient writers deserve to be credited; and if they knew how to call things by their proper names, there were in the Nicen Council more than 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 defective) Caluin, M. jewel, and M. Bilson, mentioning a Canon of the Nicen Council concerning the Sacrament; and lastly by Doctor Whitgift (b) Brereley ibid. proving out of the second Council of Arles, S. Hierome, and other approved authors, divers Canons, which are not to be found in those 20. The testimonies which you object for the contrary, urge not: Not that of Pope Stephen, for though he say that in the Roman Church there are 20. Chapters of the Nicen council, yet he immediately addeth, that, it is uncertain by what negligence the rest are wanting: which words you wittingly leave out, mangling the sentence, that so he may seem to favour your opinion of the 20. Canons. Theodoret and Nicephorus speak only of 20. Canons, or laws made pro conformandis moribus, for ordering or reforming of manners; whereas notwithstanding (as Pisanus out of their own words hath observed) else where they acknowledge 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. Wherefore it the two Patriarches cyril, and Atticus knew not of more than 20. Nicen Canons, it was because the Arians having cast out the Catholic Bishops, and possessed their seats, (as we read in Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Nicephorus (c) Brereley ibid. , had corrupted the Canons of that Council; and suppressed those which declared their proceed to be unlawful, & contrary to the Nicen Canons. And howsoever those Patriarches thought, you cannot deny that your 20. Canons were not the only, nor all the true Canons of Nice, unless 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 cyril & Atticus sent out of the East. And the same is yet made more evident out of the Council of Florence, affirming (e) Sess. 20. , that by the testimonies of many ancient, and holy Fathers, the African Council itself did know those Canons which they received out of the East, to be corrupt, and false. It resteth therefore 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, & confirm Counsels, and in particular her right of appeals, as Pisanus hath proved, whom therefore you abusively allege for the contrary. Nor is your dealing better with Turrianus: for albeit he grant that, as in the Council of Chalcedon, so likewise in that of Nice, beside Canons, there were among the Acts, other Decrees or Constitutions, and that of this number are the several Decrees which you set down out of him; yet with what conscience do you conceal the rest? for in the words immediately preceding, he saith: In illis Acts etc. In those Acts was also contained that Canon of Appeals, which Zozimus Pope in the sixth Council of Carthage, witnesseth to be of the Nicen Council; and which after the Nicen Council, was renewed in the Council of Sardica C. 7. And is not this very point here in question? Our dispute is not verbal, whether the decree of Appeals to Rome made in the Council of Nice, were a Canon properly so called, or, a Constitution. Words of this kind are by the best authors used promiscuously. The canons of Counsels are sometimes called Canon's; sometimes Capitula; sometimes Leges; sometimes Decreta; sometimes Constitutiones. The real difficulty between us is, whether appeals to Rome were decreed in the Council of Nice by any either Canon properly so called, or by any Law, or, Constitution. That they were decreed, hath been proved, and that not only ancient writers give it the name of a Canon, but enen Pisanus, and Turrianus, those very two, whom you produce for the contrary. I conclude therefore, 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 real difficulty, by reducing it to a question de nomine. And that which most showeth your folly, is, that by trifling, you wholly overthrew your cause: for you grant (f) Pag. 302. all the examples, which our Authors collect out of the Fathers and Counsels, as though they had been Canons of the Nicen Council, to be Constitutions of the same Council, though not Canons; which is to grant, that in the Nicen Council there was a Constitution whereby Appeals to Rome were decreed: for this is one of the examples, which our Authors collect out of the Epistles of julius, out of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Nicephorus▪ and other ancient writers. And this alone is sufficient to show, that as you deny the same without ground, so you conclude your digression falsely, saying (g) Pag. 303. : that the decree which the Popes alleged for appeals, is not to be found at all, either among the Canons, or the Constitutions of the Council of Nice. SECT. III. Whether if there had been no Canon for appeals to Rome in the Council of Nice, it had been forgery in Pope Zozimus, to allege a Canon of the Sardican Council, for a Canon of Nice. SOme Catholic writers conjecture that the Canons of appealing to Rome, which Pope Zozimus directed to the Africans, were Canons of the Council of Sardica, but sent by him under the title of Nicen Canons. You say (h) Pag. 145. : These Canons of Sardi●a must be judged fictions; and that it is sufficiently proved to be a falsehood, that any such Canons were extant in the Council of Sardica. I cannot but marvel at so great boldness: for, that those Canons were extant in the Council of Sardica, is a truth proved, not only by all editions of the Counsels, and all Catholic writers, but averred by the Magdeburgians, by Osiander, Peter Martyr, and john Caluin (i) Brereley Protest. Apolog. tract. 1. sect. 7. subdia. ●. . It is true, that Caluin accuseth Zozimus of heinous impudence, and fraud, in citing the Council of Sardica, for that of Nice. But his accusation hath no other ground then his hatred to the See of Rome: for were it true (as it is not) that the Canons which Zozimus sent, were not of the Council of Nice, but of Sardica, and that he had sent them as Canons of Nice, it had not been fraud or forgery in him; as it was not in S. Matthew (k) Cap. 27. ●. to cite Hieremy for Zachary, because it was the same Spirit of God that spoke in both those Prophets: And so likewise the Council of Sardica was of no less authority, then that of Nice. Again, the Council of Sardica consisted in great part, of the same Fathers, that the Nicen Council did, and was an explication and confirmation thereof. Wherefore the Sardican Canons might not unfitly bear the name of Nicen Canons, as the Constantinopolitan Creed, because it is an explication and confirmation of the Nicen, bears the name of the Nicen Creed. Moreover the ancient Fathers numbering the Counsels, after that of Nice, ever reckon immediately the first of Constantinople, which they do upon no other ground then because they repute the Council of Sardica, to be an Appendix of the Council of Nice, and therefore as all one with it. For these reasons, Zozimus might without any forgery or falsehood, have cited the Canons of the Council of Sardica, under the title of Nicen Canons, as it is the custom of the Greeks', to cite the Trullan Canons under the title of the Canons of the sixth general Council, because they pretend the Trullan Council to be an Apendix, and supplement of the sixth Council general. And so in like manner S. Gregory of Tours (l) De g●st. Fran. l. 9 c. 33. citing a Canon of the Councall of Grangres, without either fraud or forgery, calls it a Canon of the Nicen Council, because the Council of Gangres was a branch, and slip of the Council of Nice. Finally, and if these Canons were not indeed of the Council of Nice, but of Sardica, how can Zozimus be thought to have used any fraud or forgery, in alleging them, as the Council of Nice, since it had been more advantageous for his purpose, against the Africans, to have alleged them, as Canons of the Council of Sardica? for as much as the fifth general Council beareth witness (m) Act. ●. , that in the Council of Nice, there was no other B. of Africa, but only Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage; whereas in the Council of Sardica, were present and subscribed 30. African Bishops, who are all named in particular by S. Athanasius (n) Apol. 2. ; which might have been a great motive to the Africans, to submit to those Canons, as being approved, and signed by so many Bishops of their own nation. But the truth is, that albeit the Africans had notice of a Council held at Sardica, yet (as Peron learnedly proveth) (o) Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49. , the Donatists had suppressed in Africa the copies of the true Council of Sardica; and those which the Africans had in the time of S. Augustine, and the sixth Council of Carthage, were copies of the Anti-councell which Sozomen mentioneth (p) L. 3. c. 10. held by the Arians at Philippopolis, near to Sardica, which they (to gain credit to it, and to their cause) called The Council of Sardica, and published it in Africa under that name. And this is the reason, why S. Augustine professeth (q) Ep▪ 163. & Con●. Cres●on. l. 3. c. 34. that he knew no other Council of Sardica, but that of the Arians, in which S. Athanasius was condemned; whereas the true Council of Sardica justified S. Athanasius, and confirmed the Council of Nice. This true Council of Sardica you acknowledge to have been a general Council of the whole Church (r) Pag. 144. fin. 14●. . This the Centurists have copied out, and inserted into their fourth Century. And this it is, in which as well they, as also Caluin, Peter Martyr, and Osiander acknowledge the Canons for appealing to Rome, to have been made: whereof if the African Fathers had notice, they would not have replied to Pope Celestine (s) Ep. ad Celestin. : We find it not to have been determined by the Fathers in any Synod, that Legates should be sent from your Holiness, to order matters here: for it is expressly decreed in the Council of Sardica (t) Can. 7. that, if it shall seem good to the B. of Rome, he may send Legates to judge the causes of Appellants in their own Provinces. This showeth, how untruly you deny, that in the Council of Sardica, were extant any Canons for Appeals to Rome. And since your own brethren acknowledge them, with what conscience do you justify the Africans in their denial of them? or blame the Pope for defending his right against them? especially since you confess (u) Pag. 289. & 304. , that the Africans were subject to the Pope, as to their Patriarch. SECT. IV. Untruths and falsifications of Doctor Morton discovered, and his Objections answered. FIrst you object (x) Pag. 145. , that 217. African Bishops (S▪ Augustine being a principal one) show, that the Pope's claim of Appeals, had no patronage from the Council of Nice, but rather, that there was in that Council another Canon to control it, and that maketh much against such appeals, by determining, that Pope's being so far remote from afric, could not be so competent judges in such causes: Except (say they) some will think, that God will inspire one singular man with justice, and deny that grace to innumerable persons assembled together in a Synod. These words, Sir, are not of the Council of Nice, but of the African Fathers in their Epistle to Celestine Pope. Is it not then a mere delusion to object them, as a Canon of the Nicen Council, to control appeals to Rome? They speak not of matters of faith: for the same Fathers a little before had sent to Innocentius Pope, to confirm with his authority, the sentence of Condemnation, which they had pronounced against Pelagius and Celestius, in the Counsels of Carthage and Milevis▪ acknowledging (y) Aug. ep. ●2. that. God did guide him in his consultations of faith, and therefore hoping that those Heretics would more easily yield to his authority, drawn from the authority of the holy Scriptures, then to the authority of their Counsels. Wherefore in the words objected, they speak only of particular and personal causes of fact, civil and criminal, in which (as those Fathers declare) witnesses were to intervene, that could not without much difficulty pass the seas, for the debility of sex, or of age, or other impediments: In regard whereof, they requested the Pope, not to be facile in admitting appeals of that nature. 2. You object (z) Pag. 146.151. : If it were granted, that the Canons for appeals were to be found in the Council of Sardica, yet the Pope's Monarchy would still stand upon but humane authority: for the grant of appeals made in that Synod to julius' Pope, was but upon favour, & not upon duty; not an old custom, but a new constitution: If it please you (say they) so much to honour the memory of Peter, let us write to julius B. of Rome etc. And again: If you all be pleased etc. From these words you infer, that the grant of appeals to Rome is no more but ad placitum; and that, if the Pope for his pretention, could have drawn a two edged sword, ex iure divino, he would not have fought with this wooden dagger of humane Constitution. This wooden Argument you think to be of such moment, that for want of better, you repeat it afterwards again (a) Pag. 302.303. . Your reason I know not: for the very words which you object, show, that the Council of Sardica did not ground appeals to Rome upon humane Constitution, but upon divine right: for what is it, to honour in the Pope, the memory of Peter, but to acknowledge him to be S. Peter's Successor, and consequently Head of the Church? And therefore what in their Canon they express in these words, That we may honour the memory of Peter, let it be written to julius B. of Rome etc. they declare in their Epistle to the same julius, saying: It is very good, and fit, that from all Provinces the Bishops have reference to their head, that is to the See of the Apostle Peter. Wherefore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity, by divine institution (as the African Fathers in the Council of Milevis have declared (b) Aug. ep. 92. , professing the Pope's authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures) so likewise had the right of Appeals implicitly contained in that dignity. And on this right was grounded the custom of appealing to Rome from all antiquity, as it appeareth out of the Epistle of julius' Pope (c) Apud Athan. Apolog. 2. written to the Arians before the Council of Sardica: Are you ignorant (saith he) that the custom is, that we be first written to, that from hence may proceed the just decision of things? and therefore if there were any suspicion conceived against the Bishops there, you should have written to us. And by this right it is, that Athanasius, Paul, and other Bishops of the East being driven from their seats by the Arians, appealed to julius' Pope before the Council of Sardica, and he restored to each of them their Churches, by the prerogative of his See, and because the charge of all belonged to him (d) Socra. l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. ●. c. 7. . Wherefore the Council of Sardica did not then first institute appeals to Rome, as you pretend, but only reduce into a written law, that, which had belonged to the See of Rome by divine right, and had been formerly practised by custom only. And this written Law it is, which Osius proposed to be made, saying: If is please your Charity, that we honour the memory of Peter etc. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said (e) Ep. ad Michael. Imper. : The privileges of the Roman See were given by Christ our Lord, celebrated and honoured by the Counsels, but not given by them. And before him Gelasius an African, and scholar to S. Augustine, with a Council of 70. Bishop's: (f) In Decret. de Apocryph, Scripture. The holy Roman Church hath not been preferred before others, by any constitutions of Synods, but hath obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, saying; Thou art Peter etc. And the same truth had been professed long before that time, by julius' Pope in his first Epistle to the Eastern Bishops, in the cause of Athanasius (g) Extat apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 399. . Nor is it new for a Council, to make a written decree for the presetuation and observance of that, which formerly had been practised in the Church by custom only: why else did the first Council of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans, say (h) Apud Theodore●. l. 5. hist. c. 9 . It is (as you know) a law, both grounded on custom, and on the decision of the Council of Nice? The example of a King wherewith you conclude this point, is against yourself: for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeals to be made unto him, yet it is no derogation to his Royal dignity, to have a written law enacted in Parliament for the preservation of that right, against all such, as shall either injustly deny the same, or at least, shall think the practice of them to be inconvenient. 3. You say (i) Pag. 146. : Antiquity hath denied, that any Canon for appeals was to be found in the Council of Sardica. This is an untruth sufficiently refuted by what hath been said (k) Sect. 2. & 3. , and by your own Confession, pretending that the right of Appeals is not by divine institution, but by humane, because the decree which the Council of Sardica made in favour of them, was a humane constitution. But that you may not seem ●o speak without ground, you falsify Salmeron (l) Pag. 147. : He speaking of the reservation of cases in the inward court of conscience, that is, in the Sacrament of penance, saith (m) In 1. part. 5. disp. 8. : In S. Cyprians time, non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati, No peculiar cases of conscience were reserved to the Pope: You to make him speak of the contention's Court, & to deny, that any Appeals were anciently reserved to the Pope, pervert his words, thus: Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis: In the time of Cyprian, there were no peculiar cases reserved to the conscience of the Pope; or as you english, In the days of S. Cyprian there was no reservation of any such cases (namely of appeals) in use; for of them you speak. Answer now: Is it all one to say, non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati, as Salmeron saith; & to say, non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis, as you say? No: there cannot be a more wilful falsification. For 1. you misplace Salmerons words. 2. You turn Pontifici into Pontificis. And 3 you put conscientiae, into the construction of the dative case, which Salmeron hath in the genitive. How can this juggling be excused? 4. You say (n) Pag. 144. : The African Fathers in the end, descended to a flat and peremptory resolution in opposition of the Papal claim of appeals. This is a flat and peremptory untruth: for the Africans never contested with the Pope, about appeals in matters of faith, but acknowledged that they ought to refer them to him, as appeareth out of the practice of the Counsels of Carthage and Milevis, which sent their decrees of faith to Innocentius Pope, to be confirmed by his authority (o) See above Chap. 26. . Their contestation was about Appeals of the inferior Clergy, in civil and criminal causes. Of them they writ to Zozimus Pope. but he being dead before the arrival of their letters, they writ again to Boniface his Successor, acknowledging that they had received from him, Mandata & literas, Commandments and letters, which, what was it else but to profess him to be their Superior? And withal they represented to Boniface, the great troubles, which the late appeals out of Africa to Rome had brought upon them: & that therefore great caution ought to be used, lest other such, or worse should happen. And because they had not found in their copies of the Nicen Council those Canons concerning appeals, which Zozimus had sent in the instruction of his Legates, they required time to send into the East, for authentical copies of the Nicen Canons: but in the mean time, they observed the commandment of Zozimus, restoring Apiarius to the communion, & to his Priesthood. Apiarius (say they to Boniface (p) Ep: ad Bonifac. craving pardon hath been restored to the communion. And again (q) Ibid. : It hath pleased us, that Apiarius should retire from the Church of Sicca, retaining the honour of his degree. And in their Epistle to Celestine: Apiarius had been formerly restored to his Priesthood. Nor did they show their obedience only in restoring Apiarus: but moreover in attending the coming of the Eastern Copies of the Nicen Council, they promised with great humility, and with all respect protested, to observe from point to point, all that was contained in the instruction of the Pope's Legates. For Daniel, Notary of the Council, having read the first article, which was, that Bishops may appeal to the Pope, Alipius said (r) Conc. Afric. c. 4. : We protest to observe these things, until the coming of the perfect copies. And the second article being read, which was, That the causes of Priests, and inferior Clerks were to be finally determined by the Bishop of their own Province. S. Augustine said (s) Ibid. c. 7. : We protest also to observe this article saving a more diligent inquiry of the Council of Nice. And the whole Council speaking of both these articles, to Boniface Pope, said (t) Cap. 101. in Ep. ad Bonif. : These things which in the foresaid instruction have been alleged unto us, of the appeals of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church, and of the causes of Clerks to be ended by the Bishops of their own Provinces, We protest to observe, until the proof of the Nicen Council: And we trust in the will of God, that your Holiness also will help us in it. By this it appears, that the Canons of Appeals to Rome sent by Zozimus were admitted, and the practice of them in Africa allowed by the whole Council, until the coming of the Nicen copies out of the East: which showeth that their contestation was not about the Pope's right of appeals (else they would have forbidden them absolutely, even in that interim) but about the expediency of them, and the manner of prosecuting them by Legates, and executors sent from Rome. Which is yet further confirmed by these their words to Pope Celestine (u) Ep. ad Celest. : Wherefore premising the office of due salutation, we beseech you affectionately, that hereafter you will not so easily admit to your ears, those that come from these parts, nor vestore to the communion such, as have been excommunicated by us. And a little after: To the end that they, who in their own Province have been deprived of the communion, may not seem to be hastily, and otherwise then is fit, restored to the communion by your Holiness. These words are another remonstrance of their acknowledgement of the Pope's power over them, and of their subjection to him: for they say not to Celestine, that he had not authority to restore the Communion to those that had been excommunicated by them, but humbly beseech him not to do it easily, and without mature deliberation; but rather, that he will send them back into Africa, to be judged upon the place, where their causes might be discussed more exactly, and the truth more certainly known by the attestation of witnesses, which could not without much difficulty and charges pass to Rome. And whereas the Council of Sardica (x) Can. 7. hath decreed that, if a Bishop appeal to Rome, and the Pope esteem is just that the examination of his cause be renowned, it shallbe in the Pope's power, if he please, to send Legates from Rome, to join with the Bishops of the same province from whom the appeal is made, that by them the cause may be tried, and judged a new, the Africans denied not this power of the B. of Rome; nor any way excepted against the sending back of the Appellants into Africa, to have their causes tried again by the Bishops of their own province, but only beseeched him, that he would be pleased not to send Legates, who by prosecuting the causes of Appellants too violently; did sometimes give occasion of complaint. Wherefore beseeching Pope Celestine, they say: (y) Conc. Afric. c. 107 That you will not send your Clerk's executors, to all that demand them, nor permit that we may seem to introduce the smoky pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which propounds the light of simplicity, and the day of humility to them, that desire to see God. The motive which the Africans had to make this petition, was the insolent carriage of Antony B. of Fussala in Numidia, who (as S. Augustine reporteth (z) Ep. 261. for his enormous crimes being deprived of his Bishopric, by procurement of the inhabitants of Fussala, and left with the bare title of Bishop, fraudulently got testimonial letters of his innocency, from the Primate of Numidia, at the very time of this sixth Council of Carthage, and appealed to Boniface Pope; who answered with great caution, that, he should be restored si nulla in eius narratione surreptio intercessisset; if there were no surreption in the relation of his cause. Boniface dying and Celestine succeeding, they of Fussala prosecuted their suit earnestly against him. And he contrarily threatened, that Celestine would send Clerks executors, and (if need were) soldiers to restore him to his Bishopric. He threatened them (saith S. Augustine (a) Ibid. with secular power, as if they were to come to execute the judgements of the See Apostolic, so that the miserable inhabitants being Christians, and Catholics, feared more grievous usage from a Catholic Bishop than they did (when they were heretics) from the laws of the Emperors. This was the cause, why S. Augustine, and this sixth Council of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant Clerks executors to all Appellants. And this convinceth you of an untruth in saying (b) Pag. 145. fin. 151. that, the African Fathers call that Papal presumption (of Appeals) a smoky secular arrogancy, which they will not endure: for it is not the Pope's claim of appeals that they qualify with the name of typhe, or smoky secular arrogancy, but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius, and other Priests, despising and shaking off the yoke of Episcopal discipline; and partly the force & military Violence which the executors, sent from Rome, did sometimes use in executing the judgements of the See Apostolic. For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius, they say (c) Conc. Afric. c. 101. : But we hope by the help of God's mercy, that your Holiness governing in the Roman See, we shall no longer suffer this typhe. And because the executors did sometimes make use of secular forces, they beseech Celestine (d) Ibid. c. 105. , not to grant Clerks executors to all that demand them, lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church. Which is agreeable to the decree of the Council of Ephesus, forbidding john Patriarch of Antioch to make use of any military power to hinder the Bishops of Cyprus from electing to themselves an Archbishop without his consent, lest (saith the Council) under pretence of executing sacred things, the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church. And in the same sense the Author (*) Cap. 26. of S. Fulgentius his life said, that Fulgentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular dominion. And no less untruly (e) Pag. 145. fin. you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine, that, they will not endure the Papal presumption of appeals, there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle. For what they speak, of not enduring, hath no relation to Appeals, but to the crimes of Apiarius. As for the wretched Apiarius (say they) he having been already cast out of the Church of Christ, for his infamous crimes, by our brother Faustinus, we are no more in care; for as much as by the means of the approbation, and moderation of your Holiness, Africa will no longer endure him. 5. You say (f) Pag. 155. : This Council denounced excommunication to all, that think it lawful to appeal beyond the seas. This is another untruth: for the Council speaks not of Bishops, but of Priests, and inferior Clerks only: & so much you contradicting yourself, had acknowledged a little before, setting down the very words of the Council thus (g) Pag. 146. : If any Priest shall think, that he ought to appeal beyond the sea (meaning to Rome) let him not be received any longer into the communion of the Church of Africa. You reply (h) Pag. 155. , that this answer is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Council: for if inferior Clergy were prohibited, much more was the same provision made in behalf of Bishops. This consequence we deny as false sophistry: for albeit they proposed this, among their requests to Pope Celestine, yet they made no decree, nor provision thereof: nor (if they had) could it have been of force, as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Counsels of Nice, and Sardica (i) See above Chap. 26. ; and also to the belief of S. Augustine saying, (k) Ep. 162. that, Cecilian might have appealed beyond the sea, because he was not of the number of Priests, or other inferior Clerks, but of Bishops. And moreover he represented to Celestine Pope (l) Ep. 261. , that whereas Antony B. of Fussala (being deprived of his Bishopric by the Bishops of Africa, and left only with the bare title of Bishop) had appealed to Boniface his predecessor, he would be pleased to confirm the sentence of the Bishops of Africa, because (saith he) there had been many like sentences in Africa, even the See Apostolic pronouncing the iudgment, or confirming the judgement of others, as of Priscus, Victor, and Laurence, Bishops of the Cesarian Province. SECT. V Whether this Controversy of Appeals, wrought in the Africans, any separation of Communion from the Roman Church? TO make your argument more plausible, you say (m) Pag. 148. that by reason of this controversy, between the Africans, and the Bishops of Rome, Aurelius B. of Carthage, & his fellow Bishops of afric (with whom S. Augustine did consent) were for the space of an hundred years separated from the Church of Rome. Of all the untruths uttered in this your discourse of the sixth Council of Carthage, this is the greatest, which therefore you have reserved to the last place: Finis coronat opus. For that the African Fathers, even of this sixth Council of Charthage, during the very time of this controversy, remained still united to the See of Rome, is proved: 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controversy (n) Apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 646. : Our Lord keep your Holiness many years, praying for us, Lord and Brother; which were the very worlds of peace and communion used in Form letters, that were never given to any but to Catholics of the same communion (o) Aug. ep. 162.163. . 2. Out of S. Augustine, who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope, & dedicating one of his chiefest works unto him said (p) Cont. duas ep. Pelag. ad Bonifa. l. 1. . Thou disdainest not, thou who art not high minded, though thou presidest higher, to be a friend of the humble. 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gave of S. Augustine after his death (q) Ep. ad Epise. Galliae c. 2. : Augustine a man of holy memory, for his life & merits, we have had always in our communion: nor hath the rumour of any sinister suspicion, ever so much as touched him: which Epistle of Celestine to the French, is alleged by Pettus Diaconus (r) L. de incarn. & great. , and by Prosper (s) Cont. Collatine c. 42. to justify S. Augustine's doctrine against the Pelagians. 4. And the same Prosper (t) L. de promise. & predict. par. 3. c. 38. calls Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage (under whom the African Council was held) after his death. A Father, and Bishop of worthy memory, and a Citizen of the heavenly country; which praise he would not have given him, if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church: for Prosper in that very book (u) Part. 4. c. 5. saith, that, a Christian communicating with that Church, is a Catholic, but if he be separated from it, he is an heretic, and Antichrist. 5. Capreolus immediate successor to Aurelius, writing to the Bishops assembled in the Council of Ephesus (x) Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. c. 9 : We pray you to resist all novelties, with such constancy, as the authority of the See Apostolic, and the severity of the Prelates assembled in one, may not seem to permit, that the doctrine of those, whom the Church hath long since condemned, come to be borne again. 6. Eugenius another successor to Aurelius, being pressed by the Lieutenant of Hunericus Lord of Africa, to enter into a public disputation with the Arians, answered (y) Victor Vtic. l. 2. ; He would not do it, without writing to his fellow Bishops, and chief to the Roman Church, which is the Head of all Churches. 7. S. Fulgentius saith (z) De incarn. & great. c. 11. : Which the Roman Church, which is the head of the world, holdesh and teacheth, and with her the whole Christian world doth, both without hesitation believe to justice, and also doubts not to confess to salvation. And when the same Saint was going to the wildrnesse of Thebais in Egypt to fast (a) Author vitae S. Fulg. c. 12. to. 6. Bibliothec. Pat. , he desisted from his intent, when coming to Sicily, he understood from Eulalius B. of Syracuse, that those Countries were separated from the communion of the Roman Church, lest desiring a more perfect life, he should run hazard of losing the true faith. And instead of gong into Egypt, he went in pilgrimage to Rome, to visit the Sepulchers of the holy Apostles Peter, & Paul. 8. The African Bishops consulted S. Leo the great in their doubts of faith; and S. Leo writ to them a famous decretal Epistle (b) Leo ep. 87. . 9 Almost all the African Bishops 220. in number being banished into Sardinia by Thrasimundus the Arian King, Symmachus Pope relieved & maintained them at his own charges (c) Paul. Diac. l. 17. rerum. Roman. , which he would not have done, if they had been separated from his communion. 10. Possessor a famous African Bishop writ to Hormisdas' Pope (d) Ep. add Hormisd. : It is fit and expedient that we have recourse to the Herd, as often as the health of the members is treated of: for who hath greater solicitude of his subjects, or from whom is more to be required the stability of faith that is wavering, then from the Precedent of that seat, whose first Governor heard from Christ. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church? 11. Victor Bishop of Utica reporteth (e) L. 1. de persecut. Vandal. that the Arians in Africa did call the Catholics, Romans (as you now call us, Romanists) which they did upon no other ground, then because the African Catholics were of the Roman Communion. 12. And that the possession which the Bishop of Rome were in, of appeals out of Africa, was not interrupted by the sixth Conncell of Carthage, is prou●d out of Ferrandus, a Deacon of that Church (f) Breviar. Can. art. 59 & 60. , which lived soon after that time, & hath registered in his collection of Canons, this, as the fifth, & sixth Canon of the Council of Sardica, That a condemned Bishop may, if he will, appeal to the See Apostolic, and that during the appeal no other can be ordained in his place. By these, and many other evidences (which may be produced) it is manifest, that by this Controversy of Appeals the Africans were not separated from the communion of the Roman Church, and that therefore to affirm (as you do) that they remained in the state of separation for the space of 100 years, until the time of Boniface the second, is a notorious untruth: for all the examples here alleged, are of African Bishops, that lived within the compass of 100 years, after the sixth Council of Carthage. Against this truth, confirmed by so many evident and undeniable proofs, that the African Church was not (in the days of Aurelius Primate of Africa, and S. Augustine) severed by Schism from the Roman Church; you urge the Epistle of Boniface the second, wherein he testifieth, that the African Church was in his days reconciled unto them Roman. In the Body of your Counsels (say (g) Pag. 148. you) there is (h) Apud Suriumtom. 2. Concil. pag. 384. So you quote him falsely, for it is Tom. 1. Concil. pag. 1057. extant the Epistle of Boniface the second, wherein about the year 606. the same Pope complaineth, that Aurelius with his fellow-Bishops of Africa (with whom S. Augustine did consent) had by the instigation of Satan (for so the Epistle speaketh) been separated from the Church of Rome, until now, after an hundred year's space, Eulalius (Bishop of Carthage) acknowledging his offence, seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome. Thus fare the Epistle of your Pope. Do you belicue this Epistle, concerning the Excommunication of the Churches of afric? Then had you best stand aside a while, for scare of knocks. For behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan, angry fellows, that lay about them. 1. Bellarmine (i) Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 25. ; I greatly suspect (saith he) that this Epistle is counterfeit. 2. It is full of fraud, saith (k) Binius Tom. 1. Conc. in hanc Epistolam. Binius. 3. Which (saith Baronius) some wicked Impostor hath feigned etc. Do not you believe this Epistle of Boniface to be true? Then hearken to your (l) Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. c. 89. Lindan: This Epistle (saith he) is not supposititious, but true etc. Thus you. And then finding in Baronius, that during those hundred years, there were whole troops, and armias of African Martyrs, and holy Confessors, you triumph, and bid us take (m) Pag. 150. this your Syllogism to ruminate upon: No true Christian Martyrs die out of the state of Salvation: divers true Christian Martyrs die, out of Obedience to the Roman Church. Ergo, divers dying, out of Obedience to the Roman Church, die not out of the state of Salvation. Thus you dispute in your fancy victoriously, as having by this your discourse, and Syllogism, knocked the Roman Church on the heal. I shall first discover the weakness and vanity of your Syllogism; then show the multiplicity of your falsities and frauds, supposed and cunningly contrived into your relation of the Story; lastly lay open the reasons why that Epistle may be suspected, yea rejected as being Counterfeit. In your Sollogisme, I grant the Mayor Proposition. That no true Martyr dyeth out of the state of Salvation. In your Minor, or Assumption, divers true Christian Martyrs die out of obedience to the Roman Church, I distinguish sundry Kind's of Disobediences. First there is disobedience Heretical, which resists the doctrines & decrees of Faith, delivered by the Catholic Roman Church; yea denieth the prime article of Christian unity, the headship and supreme authority of her Bishop. In the state of this Disobedience there can be no true Martyrdom, no hope of Salvation. Secondly, there is Disobedience Schismatical, which believing firmly the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and acknowledging the Supreme authority of her Bishop, excepts against the present Bishop and Pastor, as not being true Pope, and cleaveth to one opposite unto him: men dying in the state of this Disobedience, cannot possibly be true Martyrs, nor be saved. Thirdly there is Disobedience moral, in matter of good life & manners, against precepts enacted by the Church, for the better avoiding & punishing of ill behaviour. Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saved: for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands, may proceed either from contumacy and contempt, or from error and ignorance. If out of contempt, then is it damnable, so that none dying therein can be Martyrs, or go to heaven. But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance, Salvation and Martyrdom may stand: for their ignorance may be invincible, or else probable, and grounded upon good seeming reasons. Or if it be vincible and faulty, yet may it be abolished by their contrition for all their sins, or falce Martyrij. by the sickle of Martyrdom done away. This supposed, I say, the Disobedience of the African Bishops was not Heretical; because in all matters of saith they were conform to the Church of Rome, and by manifold practice showed, that about doubts, and controversies of this kind, they held it necessary to have recourse to (n) Ep. Concil. Milevit. 92. inter Epist. August. the Pastoral Chair. and care of Peter. to the (o) Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep. 8. Root, and matrice of the Catholic Church; to the Rock which the (p) August. Psal. count. part. Donat. proud gates of Hell do never overcome; to the main indeficient fountain, which with the streams of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians over the whole world. The ancient rules (say they (the four Primates of Africa) (q) Ep. ad Theodor. Papam, Extat in Concil. Lateran. 1. consult. 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075. have ordained, that whatsoever is treated in Provinces distant and fare of, should not be deemed to be ended, until first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolic, to the en that the sentente, which should be found just, might be confirmed by the authority of the same See; and that from thence all other Churches, as streams flowing from their mother source, might take the beginning of their preaching, and the Sacraments of Salvation. Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical: nor was it Schismatical, because they acknowledged the Pope, even that Pope with whom they did disagree, to be their Pastor and Superior, whose (r) August. Epist. 157. Iniuncta nobis à Venerabili Papa Zozimo Ecclesiastica necessitas. lawful Commands they were bound to obey; & that all Mayor causes, all matters & controversies above jurisdiction of greater moment, to wit, such as concern saith, and the life, and government of Bishops, are to be referred unto him, and to be finally and infallibly decided by him. Neither, thirdly, was their Disobedience joined with contumacy and contempt; because though they refused to defer unto the Appeals which Priest, & infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope: yet they do it with great humility and respect, and by way of submissive entreaty, in their (s) Ep. ad Caelestin. apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil. pag. 520. letter to Pope Celeftine: Praefato debitae Salutationis officio, impendio deprecamur, ut deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes, non facilius admittatis: The behoof of due Salutation or Reverence being premised, we humbly beseech you, that those which come from hence (with their Appeals) you will not admit them unto audience over-easily. Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance; for they did not doubt, but the Pope had power to command the Bishops of Africa, to yield unto the Appeals, that were made unto him; but they esteemed the practice of that power not to be (in those circumstances) for the good of the Church of Africa. They saw, by appealing to Rome. that dissolute and unruly Clergymen, would cause much vexation unto the Bishops their lawful judges, prolong the cause, differre the sentence, and many times escape deserved punishment; which impunity might easily grow into liberty, and audacity, and extreme disorder. Wherefore the power given of Christ to his Church, and Vicar on earth being given (t) ●. Cor. 1●. 10. for edifying, not for destroying, they were persuaded, that the Pope could not prudently command them to defer unto such Appeals; and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein. You demand (u) Pag. 150● , whether the Pope of Rome, whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholic, and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subjection for Protestants, with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops; to deny that any aught to be called Bishop of Bishop; and not to yield to his demands in point of jurisdiction upon any pretence of Divine Law, but to exact of him proof by a Canon of an ancient Council? I answer. The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops, to any Archbishop or Primate within Africa, but not to the Roman Bishop; yea they entitle him in express terms (x) Aruob. in Psal. 138. Tertullian. lib. de pudicit. c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Damasum. Bishop of Bishops, the Holy Father of Fathers the sovereign Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors; they call his Authority, the Princedom of the Apostolic Chair, ever vigent in the Roman Church; they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his just commands; that all Christians may, and must Appeal to him about Controversies of Religion and the Catholic Faith; August ep. 1●2. A postolitae Cathedrae principatum. Item, the four Primates of Africa in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Theodor. in Conc. Lateran. 1. Consul. 2. Bintom. 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum & summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro. By which is answered what you allege pag. 46. out of the 26. Canon of the Council of Carthage. yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condemnation given against them by their fellow-Bishops. But that the Pope should admit the Appeals so easily of every African Priest and Clergyman. hereof they doubt whether it be expedient for the African Church. Now Bishops may be sometimes excused, if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burdensome, and hard; specially when they have probable reasons, that it is not prudently commanded, nor will prove for the good of souls. But Protestants, you are disobedient unto the See of Peter, and the Sovereign Bishop of all Bishops in points of jurisdiction, allowed unto him by ancient Counsels. Your disobedience is joined with Contumacy, contempt, contumely, and base language. You deny Appeals unto him in matters, and doubts about Christian Faith. Wherefore you want that dutiful subjection to Peter's chair, without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheep, nor consequently be saved: yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo saith (y) Epist. 93. c. 2. ; Whosoever shall deny unto him (Peter, and his Successor) the Princedom of care and power; shall never be able to depress his dignity, but puffed up with pride shall drown himself into Hell. Your Syllogism then is vain, the Minor thereof being manifestly false, That the African Martyrs died out of obedience to the Roman Church. I come now to your falsifies, and falsifications of the Story, and tenor of the foresaid questioned Epistle of Boniface the Second. Two especially are very exorbitant: first, that the Pope denounced, or thundered out (z) Pag 148. & pag. 150. excommunication against the Churches of Africa: that these (Aurelius and S. Augustine) & all other Bishops of Africa, were excommunicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome. Which notorious falsehood you seek to make good, by a notable falsification (a) Pag. 149. , telling us, That our Costerus, and Turrian, both jesuites, and also M. Harding do greatly magnify our Popes, for discharging their office in excommunicating the Bishops of Africa. You neither cite any words, nor quote any place of Turrian, but refer us in your margin to your Sadeel, whom we trust as little almost as we do yourself. You cite the words of the jesuite Costerus, Bene fecerunt Romani Pontifices etc. but you pervert them, and turn them to another matter and purpose (b) Costerus Enchirid. Controuers. de summo Pontifice pag. 159. . Costerus proposeth your Protestant Argument: The Bishops of Africa in the days of S. Augustine, did bitterly inveigh against Pope Celestine, who after Pope Zozimus, challenged authority over the African Churches; and admitted the Appeals of Clergymen from their Bishops unto him. This is the objection; unto which he makes Answer in the words by you cited, Rectè, & ex officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices etc. The Roman Bishops did well, and according to their duty; and the African Bishops were to blame, who even then (as doth testify Boniface the 2.) were inclining to a defection from the Roman Church, to their own great loss: because soon after they were conquered, and came under the Dominion of the Arian Wandals. Blessed Augustine subscribed not unto those bitter letters, for he did ever bear singular veneration towards the Apostolic see. Thus Costerus; affirming that the Pope did well in admitting the Appeals of the Clergymen made unto him; and that herein he did discharge the office of a good Pastor: but that he did excommunicate Aurelius, and all other Bishops of Africa, and that in so doing he did discharge his duty, this Costerus doth not say. No, nor that the Africans were Schismatically divided from the Church of Rome; burr only that they seemed even then to think upon some such thing. M. Harding in like manner saith (c) Answer to M. Iewel●s Challenge fol. 218. A. ; that the Churches of Africa had continued in Schism, and withdrawn themselves from the obedience of the See Apostolic, through the enticement of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage: but that all the Churches of Africa, or any one Church was excommunicated by the Pope, this M. Harding doth not say. So that the Excommunication of all the Churches and Bishops of Africa by the Pope, is not recorded by any Author; not by Costerus, not by Harding, not by the foresaid Epistle of Boniface the second; it is a mere fiction of your own head. The Africans were no further separated from the Church of Rome, than they eloyned themselves from it, by their own voluntarily departure and fault. But they did not departed from the Obedience of the Roman Church, by denying the Christian faith thereof, nor by denying the Pope's power and jurisdiction over them, but only dissented in a Problematique (d) An expediret ea potestate uti, & omnibus in locis, non sine causa dubitacum est. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. c. 25. §. Ad hoc eorum. Question, about what was fit to be done by the Pope, about the Appeals of African Clergymen of inferior degree. Although this falsehood & falsification may seem gross enough, yet the second is greater. The jesuite Salmeron (say (e) Pag. 149. you) and Sanders, do confidently hold, that all the African Bishops were severed from the Church of Rome, from the days of S. Cyprian until the time of the said Boniface the Author of the Epistle. Can any thing be said or devised more openly, notoriously, & palpably false than this? You say in the words that presently follow the above cited, that, You doubt not but that we stand half aghast. Verily so it is; we stand more than half aghast, (not, that there be different opinions among our Authors about the said Epistle of Boniface the second, but) that Protestants can endure, that such notorious falsities should be so confidently uttered, and laid for grounds, and principles in your discourse, to ius●●ly their revolt from the obedience, doctrine, and discipline of the Roman Church. But the jesuit Salmeron (say you) and Sanders do confidently so hold. If this be true, we shall remain aghast at their madness, & think their writings worthy of the fire: if they do not so hold; if they affirm the contrary in plain terms; if these words All the African Bishops were severed from the Church of Rome▪ from the days of S. Cyprian, until the time of Boniface the second, which you allege in a distinct letter as verbally theirs, be supposititious and forged; how ought Protestant's to remain aghast? What course ought they to take with your writings? Sanders then, to begin with him, doth not say all the Bishops, but the contrary in these very words (f) Sanderus de visibili Monarch. pag. 330. n. 247. : Non ergo, (ut somniant Magdeburgenses, aut potiùs calumniantur) omnes Africani Patres opposueru●t se Pontifici Romano; sed potiùs multi cupiebant rem adipsum referri. In the Controversy about Appellations, all the African Bishops did not oppofe the Bishop of Rome, as the Magdeburgians dream, or rather calumniously report; yea rather many of them desired, that the matter might be referred to the Pope. For though Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage, and Primate of all Africa, may seem to have been somewhat cross, and to have affected an absolute Primacy in matters of discipline and behaviour; yet there be many signs, whereby it appeareth, that others were otherwise minded, yea that Aurelius himself did acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, and appealed to him in matters of faith. Thus Sanders. Who further against your peremptory affirming, that namely S. Augustine concurred with Aurelius in this point, he produceth the words of Bishop Faustinus the Pope's Legate in the Council of Carthage unto Aurelius, requesting him, that about Appeals made by Clergymen of inferior degree unto Bishops, his Holiness would vouchsafe to write to Venerable Pope Boniface, remitting the matter to his deliberation, and conclusion sicut Sanctus Augustinus statuere dignatus est, as Holy Augustine hath been pleased to determine by his suffrage. By which words saith Sanders, it is apparent, that S. Augustine would have had the matter, of Appeals, referred to the Pope, and ordered as he should think best. So that whereas you cite Sanders saying, All the African Bishops were severed from the Church of Rome, his true words import the direct contradictory; Non omnes Episcopi Africani, All the Bishops of Africa did not oppose the Roman Bishop. You also allege him de visibili Monarch. pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose, but only allegeth the words of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation, We anathematise all those that proudly lift up their necks against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church. From these words can you gather your dismal assertion that, All the African Bishops from the days of Cyprian until Boniface the second, that is, for three hundred years, were excommunicated by the Pope, and severed from the Communion of the Roman Church? The jesuite Salmeron saith no more, then (g) Salmeron tom. 12. tract. 68 §. Ad Canonem. that in the days of S. Cyprian, the African Bishops began to be severed from the Roman Church; and that in the days 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 days of S. Cyprian, though he, and fourscore African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen; because he did strongly and constantly oppose their impious doctrine of Anabaptism; yet they never proceeded to make a Schism, and separation from the Roman Church. Contrariwise the very same fourscore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptism, met together again, as S. Hierome doth testify (h) Hieron. Dialog. count. Lucifer. Illi ipsi Episcopi qui Rebaptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt, ad antiquam consuetudinem reu●luti, nowm emis●re decretum. and repealed their decree, which might have caused their separation from the Roman Church: So false is it, that all the Bishops of Africa from the days of S. Cyprian until the time of Boniface the second were severed from the Church of Rome, that even those very Bishops of those days were not severed. By the Epistle of Boniface the second (grant it be true) no more is proved then, that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, superbir● cepit, was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope; and that Eulalius of Carthage did (against the example of his other Predecessors) imitate Aurelius therein; as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface, that he felt himself, Peccatis Aurelij praegravatum, overburdened with the sins of Aurelius. But that all the Christians of Africa, namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution under the Arian Wandalls, were tainted with this bitterness of distaste and Schismatical dis-union against the Roman Bishop, is a fable by yourself newly coined, and vented abroad. Now to the third point proposed, although the Epistle of Boniface do not justify 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 seem to evince, that the same is counterfeit, the relation thereof being incoherent. First you (i) Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second, wherein about the year 606. the same Pope complaineth etc. say, that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome, happened about the year 606. and in the time of Boniface the second. These things hang not together, and consequently are false: for Boniface the second died in the year 531. that is almost an hundred years before the year 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirms, that Eulalius his reconciliation with the Church of Rome was performed in the days of justine the Emperor, & (k) justini elementissimi Principis Orientis sacrarum literarum exemplaria ad vo● destinavimus. that this Emperor writ letters to the said Boniface about it. Now justine the Emperor was dead three or four years 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 days of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius, but Timothaeus, an Heretic, and an Adversary of the Roman Church. You saw this difficulty, and to avoid it, fear not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost (m) Vide titulum Psalmi 58. & Augu. tract. 117. in joan. 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 us of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop. Fourthly in the time of Boniface the second, Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa, during whose reign, there was no Catholic Bishop in Carthage, (o) See Baron. Anno 620. & seqq. nor in any Church of Africa, but only Arians. Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalleto, Antonius de Dominis, in his (p) De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34. London-writings, which he published under your nose, & with your so great approbation and applause, doth so lay about him, against the Epistle of Boniface; that you who are so stiff a defender thereof had best to stand aside for fear of knocks. In the Controversy about Appellations (saith he) (q) Communio inter Africam & Romam non est abrupta. the Communion between Africa and Rome was never broken, as Baronius and Binius do prove very well▪ The reconciliation, or recantation made by the Church of Carthage unto Boniface the Second. which some one hath feigned (r) Mara est impostura. is a mere Imposture, as the said Authors demonstrate. Thus he. May you not number this man among the Children of the Tribe of Dan, and angry fellows, who doth so peremptorily aver the Epistle of Boniface to be a mere forgery, and a grand Imposture, with greater reason, than you have done Bellarmine, for only saying, I suspect it is counterfeit? In fine, these Arguments abundantly show, that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and rejected; and yet all the other Epistles of ancient Popes set down in the Body of our Counsels cells subsist firm, against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be urged. As for Bishop Lindan, he speaketh against them, who discard this Epistle voluntarily, and without evident proofs, 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 known undeniable truths. CHAP. XXVIII. Whether the Britan's, and Scots not celebrating Easter after the manner of the Roman Church, were for that cause separated from her Communion. AMONG other examples of ancient Churches, which you pretend to have been separated from the Church of Rome, and yet in state of salvation, you produce for your last instance (l) Pag. 156. 157. 158. , the Britan's, and Scots, who kept their Easter if not wholly after the jewish manner, yet contrary to the custom of the Roman Church, & of the whole Christian world: Wherein you are guilty of divers untruths. For first, you speak of this their custom, as ancient among the Britan's; whereas Bede (m) L. 2. hist. Anglo. c. 19 recordeth, that Honorius Pope about the year 635. and john the fourth a few years after, writ to the Britan's and Scots, letters full of authority and learning, for correcting this errors & that Pope john in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Extat apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 1029. manifestly declareth nuperrime temporibus istis exortam esse haeresim hanc: that this heresy was very lately sprung up among them: which Florentius Wigorniensis also testifieth, saying (o) In Chron. an. 628. : Eo tempore etc. At that time Honorius Pope did reprove the error of the Quartadecimen in the celebration of Easter, sprung up among the Scots. 2. You attribute this custom to the Britan's & Scots in general. as if they had been all guilty thereof; whereas Venerable Bede attributes it not to all the Britan's, non totis, (saith he (p) L. 3 hist. cap. 25. not to all of them, nor to all the Scots, but especially to such as dwelled in Ireland, and also to some of them that dwelled in Britain. Besides, the whole English Church in a manner was free from that error. 3. You assume (q) Pag. 190. as granted by us, that, the Britan's and Scots were schismatically divided from the Church of Rome, but not heretically. That their opinion was Heretical, you have heard Bede testify, saying, that this heresy was very lately sprung up among them. And who knoweth not, that (as hath been proved (r) Chap. 23. the Quartadecimans had been long before that time anathematised by the three first general Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the maintainers of that error, registered for heretics by Philastrius, S. Augustine, Theodoret, and others? All which notwithstanding, you are not ashamed to say (s) Pag. 157. init. , that, the Britain Church did Orthodoxally in following the Quartadociman rite, contrary to the custom of the Roman Church. 4. Though the Britan's and Scots, in this their observation did disagree from the rest of the Christian world, yet because they did it not, with a schismatical intention, but out of simplicity, and ignorance of the Ecclesiastical computation, they living in a corner of the world, whither no learned Catholic Calculator of times had as yet come unto them, the See Apostolic did still retain them in her communion, deeming this error pardonable in them. And therefore when the Abbot Colmanus in the famous conference held between him, and Wilfridus, concerning this matter, urged in defence of their custom (t) Apud Bed. l. 3. hist. c. 25. , that, they could not believe that their Reverend Father Columba, and his successors, being men so beloved of God, did contrary to the holy Scriptures in celebrating Easter, as until that time they had done, Wilfride answered (u) Ibid. : I deny not, but that your Fathers were servants of God, and beloved of him, whom they loved with a rude kind of simplicity, but with a godly intention. Nor do I think, that this their observation of Easter was greatly hurtful unto them, so long as none had come to them, to inform them of the decrees of more perfection, which they ought to have observed. For I believe, that if a Catholic Calculator had come unto them, they would have followed his admonitions etc. And therefore (saith Baronius (x) Anno 604. n. 5. : It seemed not good to the Catholic Church, to blotout of the Catalogue of Saints, such men, as had lived among them, eminent in sanctity, and whom God had illustrated with miracles. 5. But to prove that the Scottish and British Churches were not subject to the Roman, you allege (z) Pag. 157. marg. Galfridus out of the Centurists, saying: Dinothus a learned Abbot proved with many Arguments, that they owed no subjection to Augustine, whom S. Gregory had sent to preach the faith of Christ to the English. This is a falsification, which therefore you vent in the Centurists name: for Galfridus hath not any one word of the Britan's or Scots no-subiection to the Church of Rome, but only a passionate and choleric speech of the Britan's, not acknowledging any superiority of Augustine over them, seeing he was sent only to the English, and that the authority of their own Archbishop was not taken away by his coming for aught they knew: which question of jurisdiction falleth out daily between Bishops, even where the Pope's authority is most acknowledged. Yea moreover that both the Britan's and Scots acknowledged the authority of the B. of Rome over them, Galfridus against you, and your Centurists beareth witness, reporting (a) L. 9 c. 12. & 11. , that on the day of Pentecost at Chester, King Arthur being present, there was a great meeting of Princes, Lords, and Bishops for his Coronation: And that of three Archbishops, which Britain had at that time, of Chester, London, and York, Dubritius Archbishop of Chester, being Primate of Britain, and Legate of the See Apostolic, did the office of the Church, and crowned King Arthur. If therefore the Pope had his Legate in Britain, and that no less a man then the Primate of all Britain, it is manifest, that the Britan's acknowledged the authority of the See Apostolic o●er them. Which is yet made more evident, because (as your Bale (b) De script. Eceles. fol. 30. confesseth) David that famous Welsh Bishop was canonised by Pope Calixtus the second: and not only Bale, but S. Prosper (c) Chron. ●n. 432.434. , Bede (d) L. 1. hist. c. 13. & 17. and Marianus Scotus (e) Chron. an. 430. write, that Celestine Pope sent Palladius and Germanus learned Bishops into Britain, to extirpate the Pelagian heresy, and to reduce the Scots to true piety; and Patricius who had studied Divinity in Rome, and was a man most excellent in learning and sanctity, to the Irish, and Scots, to defend them from the same heresy. All which showeth that aswell the Britan's as also the Scots, & Irish, even before the coming of S. Augustine, were in the communion of the Roman Church, and that the Pope had supreme care over them in spiritual affairs, since he appointed them Bishops from Rome. justly therefore may we conclude, that your denying the subirction of the British, Scotish and Irish Churches to the See of Rome, at the time of S. Augustine's coming into this Island to preach to the English, is grounded wholly on falsehood, & imposture: as likewise is your affirming that the Africans from the time of Celestine Pope to Boniface the second were separated from the communion of the Roman Church: for setting aside all other Arguments, since you cannot deny, that she in her Calendar of Saints, placeth many most glorious African Martyrs, and Confessors of that time; what man even of common sense can persuade himself, that she would honour them, as Saints, if they had died out of her Communion, and obedience. CHAP. XXIX. Of the great Reverence of ancient Christian Emperors and Kings to the Pope. BELLARMINE (f) De officio Principis Christia. l. 1. c. 4. & 5. proveth that Emperors and Kings own subjection to Bishops in spiritual affairs, as to their Pastors, and especially to the Pope, as to the supreme Covernor of the universal Church, and Father of all Christians. And lest he might seem by this Doctrine to derogate from the Majesty of Emperors or Kings, or any way to lessen the reverence due to their persons and dignity, he proveth by the undoubted testimonies of Scripture, of S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory, and other learned Fathers, as also by the acknowledgement of the most godly Christian Emperors, and Kings themselves, that the Episcopal and Sacerdotal dignity excelleth the Imperial, as fare as gold surpasseth lead, and the Soul the body; that not only Constantine the great, but God himself honoureth Bishops, and Priests, with the name of Angels and Gods; that the Bishop is the Father, the Doctor, & Pastor aswell of the Prince, as of the people; and that Christian Princes, when they speak of the B. of Rome, or write to him, express their acknowledgement of his supreme dignity, by giving him the title of Holy Father, and, Most Blessed Father. From whence it must follow, that as Disciples own obedience to their Doctor, Children to their Father, & sheep to their Pastor, so Christian Princes in the affairs of their souls, own obedience to their Prelates and Pastors, and especially to the Pope, who is the Father, the Archpastor, & chief Doctor of all Christians. Upon this ground S. Gregory Nazianzen for his profound learning surnamed, The Divine, feared not to say to the Emperor (g) Orat. ad ciues suos timo. percul. & Princip. irascent. : Will you hear me with patience, to speak my mind freely unto you? which truly you ought to do for so much as the law of Christ hath made you subject to my power, and to my tribunal for we (Bishops) have an Empire also, and that more perfect than yours, unless you will plead, that the spirit is inferior to the flesh and heavenly things to earthly. But I doubt not, but that you will take in good part this my freedom of speech, you being a sacred sheep of my holy flock and a Disciple of the Grand Pastor, rightly instructed by the holy Ghost, even from your young years. And upon the same ground it was, that holy S. Bernard gave this admonition to Conradus the Emperor (h) Ep. 183. : I have read; Let every soul he subject to higher powers; and he that resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God. Which sentence I greatly desire, and by all means admonish you to observe in yielding reverence to the sovereign, and Apostolic See, and to the Vicar of blessed Peter, as you will have it exhibited to you, by the whole Empire. These learned Fathers did understand right well the honour due to Emperors and Kings, & that by reason of their dignity, they are to be held in great Veneration: and yet nevertheless conceived it not vilifiyng of their Majesty, nor abasing of their Persons, to require from them obedience in spiritual affairs to their Bishops and Pastors; & especially to the Successor of S. Peter, the supreme Bishop of Bishops, and Pastor of all Pastors. This is Bellarmine's Doctrine, and the sum of his discourse; which puts you so fare out of patience, that not being able to confute what he hath so solidly proved, you begin to rail at the Pope (i) Pag. 160.164. for permitting his feet to be kissed, as tasting rankly of Luciferian pride: Which, though it be no Argument either against the faith or supremacy of the Pope, and Church of Rome, but a frivolous cavil no way pertinent to the question in hand, hath been already satisfied to the full (k) Chap. 10. . 2. You go on in the same stream, telling us (l) Pag. 160. , that, we make a barbarous boast our Popes, in not admitting of two Emperors, Henry the fourth, and Frederick Barbarossa to their presence, without a●●●●●●me kind of subvission; the one, by appoathing upon his bare feet; the other, by subiecting his neck unto the Pope's feet; while as the Pope's one may brag of more favour than the first, and his ass, thou the second. So you: but your scoffs rebound upon your own head, and turn to your shame: for Henry the fourth, a most flagitious Emperor, was excommunicated by Gregory the seaventh, moved and solicited thereto, by the many complaints, and extreme importunity of all the Princes Ecclesiastical, and secular of Germany. Henry seeing himself forsaken by them all, and fearing, lest they would deprive him of his Empire, unless he reconciled himself to the Church, and procured absolution from the excommunication he had incurred, came of his own accord to the Pope, and presented himself unto him, in a penitential habit, and barefoot, craving absolution: which after three day's instance the Pope granted him, & having invited him to dinner courteously dismissed him. This in brief is the story related more at large by Baronius (m) Anno 1077. , who having proved, that this penance was no way extorted by the Pope, but freely done by the Emperor, convinceth Ben no (that affirmed the contrary) of a most impudent lie, told, reclamantibus omnibus Authoribus, against the agreeing consent of all Authors. Wherefore you in alleging Baronius for your author, that, we make a barbarous boast of the Popes not admitting this Emperor without approaching on his bare feet, impose falsely on Baronius, as Benno did on the Pope. And as little truth do I find, in that your other tale of Fredericus Barbarossa: for we are so fare from making any boast thereof, that we know it to be a mere fable; in proof whereof, you bring nothing but the bare testimony of Massonius, who whether he report it or no I know not, nor is it worth the examining: for you know him to be a modern, fabulous, and forbidden Author (n) In indice lib. prohib. , and that this fable of his is disproved by Baronius (o) Anno 1177. n. 86.87. , and Bellarmine, (p) in Apol. c. 16. out of the testimonies of Roger Hoveden an historian of that time, & Romualdus Archbishop of Salernum, who being present, and an eye witness of all that passed, writeth, that Frederick falling down prostrate at the Pope's feet, the Pope with tears did most courteously lift him up in his arms. But what if that Pope had carried himself proudly towards the Emperor, is that any Argument to disprove the Doctrine & Primacy of the Roman Church, or any excuse to you for your leaving the Catholic faith, and departing from the Church of Christ? But such Arguments are fittest for a grand Imposture. 3. Because you cannot answer Bellarmine's Arguments, nor deny the truth of his Doctrine, otherwise then by giving the lie to the holy Saints, and renowned Doctors of God's Church, you pass over their testimonies, & his whole discourse out of them, with a fraudulent reticence of the particulars, and think to be even with him, making up by scoffing, what you cannot by arguing: Bellarmine (say you) (q) Pag. 160. sin. 161. in his last work entitled, the Duty of a Christian Prince, dedignifieth, and abaseth Princes, by wresting violently to a general rule of office and duty, all the examples of honour be could rake out of the ashes of Princes, Kings, and Emperors, yielded either to Popes, Bishops, or Priests, in the superlative excess of their humility, zeal, and devotion; and with extreme dotage exacteth very soberly a prebition, and drinking of Bishops, and Priests before them. These are your words, in which you cunningly reduce all Bellarmine's proofs to examples, that by scoffing at the example of S. Martin (for you mention no other) you may seem to have answered all the rest of his proofs, in which not only Princes by their examples, but the holy Doctors with most clear and unanswearable words, aver the truth of his Doctrine. Nor, is it Bellarmine, whom you condemn of extreme dotage, but in him, that most ancient, venerable, & renowned Bishop of Tours, S. Martin, a man of Apostolical sanctity, that was (saith S. Bernard) (r) Serm. in festo S. Martimi. rich in merits, rich in miracles, rich in virtues; that raised three dead men to life, that restored light to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb; that healed the halting and lame, the withered and dry; that escaped great perils by his divine virtue; that repelled the flames of fire opposing his own body against them; that cleansed a leper with a kiss, cured the palsy, evercame Devils; saw Angels, and prophesied things to come. This Apostolical Prelate being earnestly invited to dinner by the Emperor Maximus, when divers of his fellow Bishops assembled in a Provincial Synod were present at Court, and seeing them use base and object flattery to the Emperor, and other temporal Princes, making themselves and their Episcopal Dignity contemptible to the Laity, with no small dishonour to God's Church, and hurt as well to their own, as to laymen's souls, he, in whom alone (saith Severus Sulpitius) (s) Vita 8. Martin, c. 23. Apostolical authority remained, to admonish the Emperor and Princes there present, of their reverence due to their Pastors, and also to let the Bishops & all other Pastors, see their baseness, in vilifiyng themselves to their sheep, giving them occasion to contemn, & disobey them, in things important for the good of their souls: he (I say) when at dinner the Emperors own cup was first presented unto him, by the Emperor's command, having drunk thereof, gave it not to the Emperor, but to his Chaplain, because (saith Sulpitius) he thought no man there more worthy to drink after himself, than his Priest. This is the example of S. Martin, alleged by Bellarmine, reported and commended by Sulpitius, and many other ancient and judicious authors, that have written his life, as an heroical act of true Episcopal magnanimity and gravity. If you, and such as vilify the Episcopal function, and lay it (as S. Ambrose saith (t) Ep. 32. under laymen's feet, relish it not, t●is no wonder: but that being the fact of Martin the mirror of Prelates, you should scoff at it, and at Bellarmine for reporting it in prose of Sacerdotal dignity; who can but wonder, and think you to fail not only in judgement, but even in point of civility, & good manners, that will offer to control S. Martin, and teach good manners not only to him, but to Severus Sulpitius, a man of most noble parentage, borne and bred up in Rome, the Head & Mistress of Civil Policy and Urbanity. But when you say, Bellarmine hath raked out of the asbesof Princes, Kings, and Emperors, all the examples he could, of honour yielded either to Popes, Bishops, or Priests, in the superlative excess of their humility, zeal, and denotion, and wrested them to a general rule of office, and duty, I must crave pardon if I think you to overlath, and that willingly: for Bellarmine could have told you, that the holy Bishop and Martyr Ignatius (u) Ep. ad Philadelph. , so ancient, that (as he writeth of himself) he saw our Saviour in mortal flesh, prescribing that order of obedience in Christ's Church, whereby unity may be preserved in all, admonisheth Princes and soldiers to obey the Emperor; Priests, Deacons, and all the rest of the Clergy and people, whosoever they be, soldier's, Princes yea the Emperor himself, to obey the Bishop, the Bishop Christ, as Christ obeyeth his Father, that so unity may be preserved in all. And in his Epistle to the Christians of Smirna headuiseth them in the first place, to honour God, next the Bishop as bearing his image and then the King. He could have told you, that the 318. Fathers assembled in the Council of Nice, (one of the four, which S. Gregory reverenced as the four gospels) decreed (x) Con. 80 〈◊〉 Grac. & Arab. as a doctrine to be believed by all Christians, that the B. of Rome is above all Christian Princes, and people, as being the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all people, & over all the Christian Church. He could have told you, that when penance was enjoined to Philip the first Christian Emperor (y) Euseb. l. ●. hist. c. 7. for faults that were bruited of him, he willingly performed what was enjoined him by the Priest showing by his deeds, that the fear of God, and a great esteem of Religion lived in him. He could have told you, that the most religious Emperor Theodosius being excommunicated by S. Ambrose (z) Th●●d., ●. c. ●7. was so fare from denying the authority of S. Ambrose over him that he submitted himself with all humility, and craving absolution with hearty repentance and tears obtained it. As Arcadius also in like case did of Innocentius Pope (a) Niceph. l. 13. c. 33. Cedrens. & Glycas in Arcad. . He could have told you, that justinian writ to Pope john: We yield honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Blessedness (which is and ever hath been our desire) and honour your Holiness, as it becometh us to honour our Father. He could have told you of Charles the Great, who as he was inferior to no Prince that ever was, in wisdom and valour; so he most excelled in true piety, devotion, and zeal to God's cause, & most especially in his filial affection, and obedience to the See Apostolic, in so much that he hath left an especial Constitution, as a perpetual monument thereof, to the world (b) Apud Gratis. d. 19 c. 30. & in Conc. Triburieu. c. 30. . He could have told you, that Basilius Macedo being present at the eight general Council, in his Oration to the Fathers there assembled, made (c) Act. 6. append. open profession of his obedience to be Bishop and Church of Rome; and that he gave this memorable advice to the Laity (d) Oras in fine Conc. , that, whereas not they, but Bishops have the charge of government in the Church, with the power of binding and losing, the dignity of Pastors belongs to them: and that as well himself, as all lay-men are sheep to be fed, to be sanctified, to be bound, and loosed from their bonds by them. And if from Emperors he had passed to Kings, he could have told you, that howbeit in the time of Lucius the first Christian King of this Island, there were many Churches sounded in Germany, France, and Spain, yet he desiring to be made a Christian, required not the Sacrament of Baptism from any Bishop of those Countries, nearer at hand, but writ, and sent Ambassadors to Eleutherius Pope, that from him, as from the supreme Pastor and Governor of the universal Church, himself, his Queen, and people might receive so necessary a Sacrament, as they did by the hands of Fugatius, and Damianus, whom Eleutherius scent for that purpose into Britain (e) Bed. hist. Augl. l. 1. c. 4. & de sex aesat. . He could have told you, that Of win King understanding that the keys of Heaven were given to S. Peter, and that the Bishop of Rome was his Successor, resolved not to oppose him, but so fare forth as he knew, and was able to obey his decrees in all things (f) Bed. hist. Augl. l. 3. c. 25. . He could have told you, that Pope Adrian the first being dead, and Leo chosen in this place, Kenulphus King of the Mercians writ to him (g) Continuat. histor. Bode l. 1. c. 12. , giving thanks to God, that he had provided for his flock so solicitous a Pastor, to whose commands (said he) I think fit to lend humbly an obedient ear. And having asked his benediction, he addeth: This benediction, all the Kings of the Mercians, which have gone before me, have obtained. And that which I humbly crave, and desire to obtain from you, O most holy, is that you accept of me, as your adopted Child, as I choose, and with all obedience, reverence you, in the place of a Father. He could have told you, that S. Edward the Confessor writing to Nicolas Pope (h) Alred. Rieval. in vita S. Edward. , addressed his letter to him, with this inscription: To the sovereign Father of the universal Church, Nicolas, Edward by the grace of God, King of England, due subjection. If from England he had passed to other Countries, he could have told you, that the most Christian King of France, Lewis the eleaventh, writing to Pius the second, saluted him with this title (i) Ep. ad Pium 2. : To our most blessed Father, Pius the second, Pope, filial obedieuce. And in the Epistle: We have you that are the Vicar of the living God, in so great veneration, that with a willing mind, we are ready to hear your sacred admonitions (especially in Ecclesiastical affairs) as the voice of our Pastor: for we profess, and know you to be the Pastor of our Lords flock, and we obey your commands. And among the documents which this holy King S. Lewis, on his deathbed left in writing to Philip his Son, this was one (k) Nangius de gest. S. Ludou. & Surius 25. Aug. : Be thou devout and obedient to the Roman Church, as to a Mother; and show thyself dutiful to the Bishop thereof, as to thy spiritual Father. It were not difficult to add more testimonies in the same kind of other Kings of France, as of Charles, and Hugh: of Alphonsus the wise, and Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain: of Leo King of the Armenians; of Sigismond of Poland etc. But these may suffice to persuade any judicious reader, that the most wise, and godly Christian Emperors, and Kings that Christendom hath bred, have believed the Pope to be their Pastor, and spiritual Father, and themselves bound to yield obedience to him in the affairs of their souls; and withal to show the falsehood of your contrary Tenet. CHAP. XXX. Whether Christian Emperors have invested themselves in Ecclesiastical affairs. YOU maintain the affirmative, which you prove with several examples, all of them directly against yourself. SECT. 1. Constantine the Great invested not himself in Ecclesiastical Causes. IN the first place you allege the example of Constantine the great, who was so fare from meddling with Ecclesiastical causes, that being solicited in the Council of Nice, to hear and determine certain controversies of Bishops, he answered (l) Ruffin. l. 1 c. 1.8. Greg. l. 4 〈◊〉 72. Baron. an. 32●. : God hath constituted you Priests, and given you power to judge of us: and therefore we are rightly judged by you; but you cannot be judged by men. Wherefore expect ye the judgement of God alone, and let your quarrels, whatsoever, be referred to his divine judgement: for God hath given you to us, as Gods, and it is not fit, that man should judge Gods, but he alone, of whom it is written (m) Psal. 81.1. God stood in the congregation of Gods, and judgeth Gods in the midst of them. In these words Constantine acknowledgeth the Episcopal power to be above the Imperial, and that a Priest in Ecclesiastical causes hath power to judge of an Emperor, if he be in his Parish: whereas contrariwise the Priest cannot be judged by the Emperor, more than the Pastor by his sheep, or God by men. But you object (n) Pag. 161. Constantine judged the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage. And this you esteem to be so choice an Argument, that afterwards you repeat it twice again, (o) Pag. ●21. & 327. but very unadvisedly; this very example alone being of itself an abosolute demonstration of the falsehood of your Doctrine; for first the Donatists, that required judges from Constantine in the cause of Cecilian, were heretics, who as they had forsaken the communion of God's Church, and (as S. Augustine saith (p) Ep. 1ST. were guilty of the horrible crime of erecting Altar against altars so in their recourse to Constantine they violated the laws of the Church: for, it is (said S. Martin ( (q) Sever. Sulpititius ●ist. s●●●cra l. 2. to the Emperor Maximus) a new and never heard of impiety, that a secular judge should judge a cause of the Church. And S. Athanasius (r) Ep. ad Solit. What hath the Emperor to do with the judgements of Bishops? Hath it ever have heard, since the beginning of the world that the judgements of the Church did take their force from the Emperor (s) Ep. add Constant extat a●ud Baron. anno 355. ? And Osius admonishing Constantius the Arian Emperor: Intermeddle not (O Emperor) in Ecclesiastical causes, nor take upon you to command us in this kind, but rather learn those things from us. To you, God hath committed the Empere; the affairs of the Church to us. And as he that maliciously carpeth at our government, resists the ordinance of God; so take you heed that in assuming to yourself those things which belong to the Church, you make not yourself guilty of a most heinous crime: for it is written give to Cesar those things, which are Caesar's, and those which are Gods, to God. The like reprehension was given to the same Emperor by Leontius, that famous B. of Cesaraea, who had been present at the Council of Nice, & whom Cregorius Presbyter (t) Spoud anno 32●. ●●. ●. termeth. equal to the Angels. I wonder (said he to Constantius) (u) Suid. in Leou●. that you being appointed to order, and governeone thing do meddle with others: you are chief commander in military, and civil affairs and you presume to ordain what Bishops shall do in things that belong to Bishop's alones. And when the Captain of the heretical Emperor Valens required the Priests and Deacons of Edessa, to submit to the Emperor in matters of religion, representing to them, that it was madness to resist so great a Monarch; Eulogius a Priest of the same City answered pleasantly (x) Theodor. l. 4. hi●t. c. ●●. : What? hath Valens together with the Empire gotten also the place and dignity of a Bishop? And when Dalmatius the Tribune with a public Notary, was sent by Valentinian the younger, to summon S. Ambrose to a disputation with Auxentius the Arian Bishop, and others of his sect, in the Emperor's palace, before him, and his Courtiers: (y) L. ●. op. 3●. I answered (saith S. Ambrose to the Emperor) the same, that your Father of glorious memory, not only answered in words upon like occasion but also established by his laws, that in causes of faith, and Ecclesiastical order, Priests only are to judge of Priests: yea further, that if a Bishop should be questioned for his manners, this judgement should likewise appertain to Bishops etc. When have you ever heard, m●st clement Emperor, that lay: men did judge of Bishop in matters of faith? You are yet young in years: you will by God's grace, and the maturity of age, be better informed; and than you will be able to judge what manner of Bishop he is to be accounted, that subjects the right of Priesthood to lay men. Your Father being a man of riper years, said: It belongs not to me to be a judge among Bishops: and will your Clemency now say, that you ought to be their judge? So S. Ambrose. But what need we further proofs? Did not Constantine himself, whom here you object, refuse to hear the causes of Bishops, answering (z) Ruffin. l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l 4. ep. 72. : That Bishops had power to judge of Emperors, but not Emperors to judge of Bishops, showing thereby that he acknowledged himself to have no power of a judge in Ecclesiastical causes? Yea and this very fact of Constantine which you object, is so fare from yielding any precedent for secular Princes to judge Ecclesiastical causes, that it manifestly concludeth the contrary: for when the Donatists required him to give them judges in the cause of Cecilian B. of Carthage, he stood amazed at their impudence. He durst not (saith S. Augustine) (a) Ep. 166. judge the cause of a Bishop. And Optatus (b) L. 1. cont. Parmen. : He answered them with a spirit full of indignation: you ask of me judgement in this world; of me (I say) that do myself attend the judgement of Christ: You would have me to make myself a judge of the Ministers of Christ, I that do myself expect the judgement of Christ. Wherefore though Constantine at the importunity of the Donatists, granted them judges of the Gauls, as they required, he did it not without making this protestation before hand, that it belonged not to him to meddle with the judgement of Christ's Ministers. And notwithstanding that the Donatists who demanded judges, and the judges which Constantine assigned them, as also Constantine himself, were then all actually present in France, yet he caused the Donatists together with the judges which he had given them, to travail to Rome, that according to the ancient custom and laws of the Church (c) Athan. Apol. ●. Sozom. l. 3. c. 9 And See above Chap. 26. the cause might be judged by the Pope's direction, and under his presidency. And this remission of the cause from his own Court to the Pope's tribunal, was not by way of commission or delegation from himself, as from a Superior judge to the Pope, as to an inferior (as you falsely suppose) but by way of remission to him, to whom he knew that judicature in right to belong: for how could the Emperor that professed himself to have no right of a judge in the causes of Bishops, give power and commission unto others, to judge the cause of Cecilian? Wherefore, although S. Augustine in regard of the Donatists' intention, call this remission, a delegation, yet withal he declareth, that the reason of this delegation, was, because the Emperor durst not judge the cause of a Bishop: which showeth, that it was not a delegation of authority, and power, but a relegation or remission of the cause, to whom the judgement thereof in right appertained. Nor doth it import, that he remitted not this cause to the Pope alone, but to him, and other Bishops his Colleagues: for he remitted it not to them equally, but to the Pope, as to the chief judge, and Precedent, and to the others, as to the Pope Assessors. Melchiades (saith S. Augustine (d) Cont. julian. l. ●. c. 2. Bishop of the Apostolic See being Precedent, Reticius was present as a judge, with others. And again (e) Cont. Parmen. l. 1. c. 5. : By the arbitrement of Constantine, the cause was heard by Bishop's judges, over whom presided Melchiades B. of the City of Rome. Behold, how exactly S. Augustine attributes to every one, what belonged unto them. Constantine was an Arbitrator: the other Bishop's present as judge's assessors to Melchiades, and as witnesses of his proceed: Melchiades chief judge, and Precedent. And therefore he, as having full authority, did not content himself with taking for his Assistants, the three French Bishops nominated by the Emperor; but by his own authority, added to them other fifteen of Italy whose names Optatus rehearseth (f) Cont. Parmen. l. 1. : whereas if he had not been absolute judge by his own authority, but only by delegation from Constantine he could not have added any other judges to those three which Constantine nominated. Again, his authority appeared in this, that none of the Assistants, but he in the name of the whole Council, and as Precedent thereof, pronounced the sentence: How innocent (saith S. Augustine (g) Ep. ●●2. was the definitive sentence pronounced by blessed Melchlades, how entire, how prudent, how peaceable? in so much that S. Augustine greatly commendeth him for it, saying (h) Ibid. : O blessed man! O son of Christian peace, and Father of Christian people! Nevertheless, those rebellious Donatists rested not but from the judgement of the Pope, appealed again to the Emperor; which he so much misliked, that he called it (i) Ep. ad Episc. Cathol ad calc. gest. purgat. Cecil. & Felic. , A great frenzy, incredible arrogancy, a thing not fit to be spoken, or heard, a mad impudence of fury, a recourse to a secular judgement from an heavenly, and a contempt of Christ's authority. And yet out of a great desire he had to gain them yielding to their importunity, or (as S. Augustine saith (k) Ep. 166. giving way to their perverseness, and hoping, that what he did would be avowed by the See Apostolic, he granted them another Council of 200. Bishops at Arles, which having duly examined their cause, confirmed the Pope's sentence, & therefore gave them no more satisfaction, than the Roman Council had done. Wherefore from this Council, they had recourse again to the Emperor, beseeching him to take the examination of the cause into his own hands; which he did, but yet, A sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus (l) S. Aug. ep. 162. , with intention to ask pardon afterwards of the holy Bishops, for meddling in a cause, that belonged not to his Court, but to theirs. But what? did Constantine's judgement appease the fury of those obstinate heretics? No: The Emperor (saith S. Augustine (m) Ibid. is chosen judge the Emperor's judgement is despised. But no wonder: for what else could be expected from such rebellious spirits, but that as they had refused to stand to the sentence of the Church, so also they should contemn the judgement of the Emperor? Who is there then, that seethe not how far this history is from proving that Constantine acknowledged in himself any authority to meddle in Ecclesiastical causes since he durst not judge the cause of a Bishop? and charged the Donatists with never heard of impudence, arrogancy impiety fury pernersnesse porensy, and contempt of Christ's authority, in flying from the judgement of the Church to his secular tribunal? And that if in this cause he did any way assume to himself the person of a judge, it was with protestation to ask pardon of the holy Bishops, and in hope it would be avowed by them, for as much as what he did, was out of a desire to quiet the Donatists, and reduce them to the peace and communion of the Catholic Church. And how far this example of the Donatists is from helping your cause, or hurting ours, S. Augustine will yet better inform you (n) Cont. lic. Petil. l. 2. c. 92. & Ep. 166. : for as when they were condemned by the Church, they fled to Constantine, so when they were repulsed and condemned by him, they despised his judgement, and appealed to julian an Apostata from Christian religion, and a professed enemy to Christ, beseeching him to restore unto them the Churches which Catholic Princes had taken from them, and to that end honoured him with this Elegy (o) Ep. 166. That in him alone all justice remained: which gave S. Augustine cause to say unto them (p) Ibid. : If it were in your power, you would not now call against us Constantine a Christian Emperor, because he defended the truth; but you would rather raise julian the Apostata from hell. How far these words of S. Augustine may touch you, for producing this example of the sacrilegious Donatists, as a precedent of your doctrine, and Constantine as a pattern for secular Princes to meddle in Ecclesiastical judgements, I leave to the reader's censure: for if (as you pretend) this example of the Donatists flying from the judgement of the Church to Constantine, be of force to prove, that the Pope's judgement will suffer an higher appeal, why shall it not also be of force to prove, that the judgement of Constantine will suffer an higher appeal to julian the Apostata? for the example of these Donatists is a precedent for the one, as well as for the other. A second history which you object (q) Pag. 16●. to prove, that the Pope's judgement will suffer an higher appeal, is, that in the case of Athanasius. Constantine chargeth all the Bishops of the Province of Tyre, to appear before him without delay, and to show how sincerely and truly the had given their judgements. The case is this: divers heretical Bishops of the East, Arians, Meletians, and Colluthians, assembled themselves at Tyre, to accuse Athanasius of many crimes, which themselves had maliciously forged, and suborned false witnesses to testify against him, that so they might seem to have just occasion to abstain from his communion, & condemn him. Constantine being informed thereof, at the entreaty of Athanasius, calls them to him to yield account of their proceeding, Ergo (say you) the Pope's judgement will suffer an higher appeal. A false consequence: for S. Athanasius fled from the said Council of Tyrus, unto Constantine, not as to his competent judge, but as to the Protector of Innocency, and of the Church, to be maintained in the possession of his Bishopric, honour & life; against which his Arian adversaries were with such violent and insuperable malignity bend, as he had no means to avoid so great mischiefs, tending to the overthrow of Catholic Religion, but by imploring the aid of the supreme secular Power. That in this case Clergymen and Bishops may have recourse unto the arm of temporal Princes, S. Paul (1) Act. 28. Coactus sum appellare Caesarem. shown by his example, as (2) Athanas. Apolog. 2. ad Constantium. S. Athanasius, and (3) August. Epist. 48.50. & 204. S. Augustine, and out of them Suarez (4) Suarez defensio fidei lib. 4. c. 10. n. 5. observeth. Lastly you object (r) Pag. 161. fin. 162. , that, When the cause Ecclesiastical requireth, Constantine proceedeth to denounce punishment by his own authority, against whomsoever that shall honour the memory of those Bishops, Theognis, and Eusebius. These two Bishops were Arians, and great fyrebrands of that blasphemous sect, which had been condemned, & an athematized by the holy Council of Nice; and moreover had committed many other most enormous crimes, some of which Constantine having mentioned in his Epistle to the people of Nicomedia, addeth (s) Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 20. : If any one shall be so temerarious, and audacious, as to go about to praise, and honour the memory of those plagues of the Church (Theognis and Eusebius) he shall presently be punished by me for his folly. These words of Constantine show, that he did not threaten punishment to any Ecclesiastical person, but to the people of Nicomedia, if they should audaciously presume to honour those Heretics, whom the Church had condemned: which was not to assume any Ecclesiastical authority to himself, but to do his duty, and what the laws of God, and his Church require at the hands of every good Christian Prince, which is to defend and maintain the authorities and judgements of the Church. But I must advertise you, of some ignorant mistakes: you say (t) Pag. 161. out of S. Augustine, that Constantine committed the cause of Cecilian to Melchiades Pope. But in three other places (u) Pag. 221. 327. 328. contradicting yourself, and S. Augustine, you say, he committed it to Pope julius, showing therein your ignorance in Ecclesiastical history: for if (as S. Augustine truly saith) it was committed to Melchiades, how could it be committed to julius, who was not chosen Pope, till above 20. years after Melchiades his death, and between whom, and julius, were other two Popes, Sylvester, & Mark? With like ignorance you say (x) Pag. 161. , The Emperor chargeth all the Bishops of the Province of Tyre to appear before him: for Tyre hath not many Bishops, nor is it a Province, but a City in the province of Phenicia, in which the Arians held their wicked Council against S. Athanasius. SECT. II. Doctor Mortons' second Example of Theodosius examined. THat Theodosius acknowledged no subjection to the B. of Rome, you prove by his interesting himself in Ecclesiastical affairs. Of the Emperor Theodosius (say you (y) Pag. 161. we read, that he gave to the Bishop Dioscorus, authority, and superiority of place, to moderate causes in a Council. This you speak of that most godly and religious Emperor Theodosius the elder: for here, and in your Index of the tenth Chapter prefixed before this your Grand Imposture, you name him immediately after Constantine, and before Theodosius the younger: and both in the same Index, and page 167. you expressly declare that the Emperor which you object against us immediately after Constantine is Theodosius the elder. And finally because unless by this Theodosius, you mean the elder, you object nothing at all out of him against us, which yet in the places alleged you profess to do in this Chapter. Wherefore I must make bold to tell you, that in this your instance you discover extreme ignorance in Ecclesiastical history: for Theodosius the elder died the year 394. which was 50. years before Dioscorus was made Bishop. How then could he give to Dioscorus authority and superiority of place, to moderate causes in a Council? If you had not been ignorant, and willing to lay hold of any thing, true or false, to help yourself in the defence of a bad cause, you should have said, that Theodosius (not the elder, but) the younger, savouring the Archheretic Eutyches, and seduced by his high Chamberlain Chrysaphius an Eutychian Heretic, gave authority to Dioscorus an heretical Bishop of Alexandria, & of the same sect with Eutyches, to moderate causes, not in a true Council, but in a sacrilegions Conventicle at Ephesus, in which Eutyches was absolved, his heresy approved; the Catholic Bishops that had condemned him in a Synod at Constantinople, under Flavianus Patriarch of that City, not permitted to speak; all such as were known to be zealous maintainers of the Catholic faith against Eutyches, deposed; others sent into banishment; the Pope's Legates thrust out of the Council; the holy Patriarch Flavianus by the faction of Dioscorus barbarously misused, beaten, and wounded to death; the Bishops that figned, compelled thereto by famine, and force of arms, the Emperor's soldiers ruling all by violence and tyranny, and many other outrageous villainies committed: in so much that this Conventicle hath never deserved the name of a lawful Council, but by all writers is called Synodus Piratica, and Latrocinium Ephesinum, The piratical Synod, and the Ephesine thievery, or (as Socrates termeth it (z) L. 1. c. 9 & 10. Vesanum Ephesi Conciliabulum, The frantic Conventicle of Ephesus: And the Acts thereof were soon after condemned by Leo Pope (a) Ep. 24. , and repealed by the holy Council of Chalcedon (b) Act. 1. . I appeal now to the Reader, whether you have not showed great ignorance, and in the highest degree wronged that most religious Emperor Theodosius the elder, in making him patron of the Eutychian heresy, and charging him falsely with assembling that sacrilegious Synagogue of Ephesus; and most of all, in producing him for your Protestant doctrine against the Roman Church? to which he so firmly adhered, that he held her to be the Head, and centre of Catholic communion. And therefore intending to establish the true faith, and free the whole Empire from the pernicious doctrines of divers heretics, which lived in those days, he made that famous Law, which justinian hath inserted into his Code, and marcheth in the front thereof (c) Cod. tit. 1. L. 1. : Our will is, that all the people ruled by the Empire of our Clemency, shall live in the same religion which the divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion insinuated by him witnesseth until this present day, and which it is manifest, that the high Priest Damasus followeth, and Peter of Alexandria, a man of Apostolical sanctity: that is to say, Peter, who being driven out of his Seat of Alexandria by Lucius the Arian intruder, appealed to Rome (d) Socrat. l. 4. c. 36. , and had been newly restored & confirmed by Damasus in the patriarchal seat of that City. And the same, or not unlike to this law of Theodosius, is that, which Gratian that governed the Empire together with Theodosius, made, to reduce all heretics to the true Church, and faith of Christ: He made a law (saith Theodoret (e) L. 5. hist. c. 2. by which he commanded the holy Churches to be delivered to them, that agreed in communion with Damasus: which commandment (as he further expresseth (f) Ibid. c. 2. init. was without contradiction executed throughout all Nations. By this it appears, that if Doctor Morton had lived in the days of Theodosius, & Gratian, they would have taken from him the Church of Dutham, & delivered it to a Bishop of the Roman Communion. SECT III. Doctor Mortons' third instance of Theodosius the younger, and Honorius, examined. YOu go on, objecting (g) Pag. 162. out of the Gloss in C. Renovantes: Theodosius the younger, and Honorius, both Emperors, say, that the Patriarch of Constantinople hath the same right over those in subjection to him, which the Pope hath ever his. Why do you falsify? The Chapter is taken out of the Trullan Synod under justinian the younger, who lived long after Theodosius & Honorius. Again the words of the Gloss are, Imperator dicit, The Emperor saith: but mention of Honorius or Theodosius there is none: that's your false comment. The Gloss citeth the Emperor in Authentica, de Ecclesiasticis titulis, which was not written by Honorius, nor by Theodosius, but by justinian the elder. And how far he was from equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope, you may understand, not only by other his Laws (h) See Sect. sequent. , but even by this very Authentica, which out of the Gloss you object: We ordain (saith he) (i) Authen. de eccles. tit. c. 2. according to the definitions of the holy Counsels, that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome is to be the first of all Prelates, and that the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, shall have the second place after the holy See Apostelike of old Rome, and shall be preferred before all the other Sees. But you urge: the Gloss allegeth the Emperor saying, that the B. of Constantinople hath the same right over those in subjection under him, which the Pope hath over his. True: but the same Gloss declareth (which you conceal) that this similitude of rights between them, is not in all respects, but in quibusdam, in some, which the Gloss nominateth. If you compare them precisely, as Bishops of their peculiar Dioceses of Rome, and Constantinople, or as Patriarches, he of Constantinople hath the same rights in his Diocese, and Patriarkeship of Constantinople, that the Pope (considered precisely as Bishop and Patriarch) hath over his Diocese of Rome, & Patriarkeship of the West. But besides these two dignities, the Pope is Chief of all Prelates, and Governor of the universal Church; to which titles the B. of Constantinople hath no right, but in regard of them is inferior to the Pope, and subject to him. And so much you might have understood, if from the Gloss, you had turned your eyes to the texts of that, and the precedent Chapter, which declare that the Pope is above the B. of Constantinople, and hath power to depose him, when there is cause. And you might also have called to mind, that many Patriarches of Constantinople have been deposed by divers Popes, & among them Anthymus by Agapet, in the very City of Constantinople, in the presence of justinian, which neither he, nor Theodora the Empress that protected Anthymus would have permitted, if they had not acknowledged the subjection of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to the B. of Rome. SECT. iv Doctor Mortons' fourth instance of Theodosius and Valentinian, examined. THe Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian (say you) (k) Pag. 162. in their letters to Cyrill, require all Bishops without exception, to be present at the Council of Ephesus, as they mean to avoid the sentence of condemnation upon themselves. Whereupon Pope Leo is glad to return an answer, excusing his not coming by the exigence of time, and his other instant occasions, within his own Diocese, which would not permit him to be absent from his See, and therefore hopeth (his own words) to obtain so much pardon, and favour, that his Legates may be accepted of in his stead. These your words are full of ignorance and falsehood: for first, the letters of Theodosius and Valentinian to Cyrill were to call him, and other Bishops to the first Council of Ephesus, which was held & finished in the time Celestine Pope, nine years before Leo was created B. of Rome. Is it not then palpable ignorance, to say, that, Leo is glad to return an answer excusing his not coming by the exigence of time, and his other instant occasions within his own Diocese, when as the letters were written nine years before he had any Diocese at all, and were neither directed to him, nor any way concerned him? 2. If Theodosius and Valentinian called the Bishops to the first Council of Ephesus, it was not by their own authority, but by the authority of Celestine Pope. (l) See above Chap. 18. sect. & 2. & Bar. anno 430. 3. Howbeit Theodosius in the year 449. which was 19 years after the writing of that letter to Cyrill, by his own authority assembled the Piratioall Synod of Ephesus in favour of the Eutychian heresy; yet knowing, that no Council can be valide, which is not celebrated by the consent and authority of the B. of Rome, he writ to Leo then Pope, inviting him to it. And this letter it is, which you ignorantly confound with the other written to Cyrill, who: was dead siue years before the writing of this to Leo. But Leo knowing the error of Eutyches to have been condemned already in a Council at Constantinople, and to be in itself so manifestly impious, that (as he writ to the holy Patriarch Flavianus (m) Ep. 1●. , another Council might no way seem necessary for the condemnation of it; and withal foreseeing the great mischiefs that were like to ensue out of the Council intended by Theodosius, endeavoured to divert him wholly from that purpose, or at least to persuade him, that if a Council were called, it might be held in Italy. But seeing he could draw the Emperor to neither of these conditions, lest on his part any thing should be wanting which might seem available for the destruction of Heresy, and peace of the Church, he sent Legates in his steed to preside in the Council, at which himself could not be present for the reasons expressed in divers of his epistles (n) Ep. 12.17.18. : in which also he declareth that he sent them armed with his authority, either to restore Euches to the Catholic communion, if he would renounce his errors and ask pardon of them (as by libel presented to the See Apostolic he had promised to do) or else to pronounce the last sentence of condemnation against him. But whereas you to make good, that the calling of Counsels belongs to Emperors, say (o) Pag. 162. : Leo's own words are, that he hopeth to obtain so much pardon, and favour, that his Legates might be accepted of in his steed, you speak not truly: for his words are: Because you know, that my presence at Rome importeth for the common good, so that, saluâ Clementiae Vestrae veniâ▪ by the good leave of your Clemency, I might not deny myself to the love, and requests of the Citizens, think me to be present in these my brethren whom I have sent in my steed, and given them full instructions, what ought to be observed. And it is to be noted, that these words are not spoken by Leo to the Emperors (as out of your discourse it may seem to our English reader) but to Pulcheria, a woman, who (witness the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. 14.34. may not speak in the Church, much less assemble Counsels, or moderate Ecclesiastical causes. Nor do they import any subjection to her in ecclesiastical affairs; but are merely words of civil respect, and urbanity, fit to be used to the person of so great a Lady. And your illation out of them, that Emperors have power to moderate Ecclesiastical causes, and assemble Counsels, is a consequence, that suiteth not well with your judgement, and learning. SECT. V Doctor Mortons' fifth instance of justinian examined. THe last Emperor you object, is justinian, Who (say you (q) Pag. 162. will hardly please us, because he authorised under his own hand, the Code, or books of Constitutions, and Pandects, for the regulating of the Clergy, as well as of the Laity. That this will hardly please us, you prove out of Baronius, saying, that herein he is justly reproved by many, as one invading upon, and intruding into the office of divine Causes. He is indeed reproved by divers, that think him to have made ecclesiastical laws by his own authority. But by others he is justly excused, and in particular by Baronius (r) Anno 528. , alleging for his justification (as you confess (s) Pag. 166. , that he being a man wholly illiterate, his Ecclesiastical Constitutions were made by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarches of Constantinople, but publised in his name, to the end they might be better observed; which was no way hurtful, but profitable to the Church, whose laws were neglected, and contemned by vicious Emperors, and heretical Prelates and people (which at that time abounded in the East) and especially by the Patriarches of Constantinople, many of them having been infected with heresy. This is apparent out of the express testimonies of justinian himself, who not once, but often professeth (t) Nou. 1 de Monast, & monach. Nou. 81.123.133.137. , that concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, he decreed nothing, but according to the prescript of the holy Canons: and therefore john the second Pope of that name, in an Epistle to him (u) Extat apud Baron. anno 534. approveth, and confirmeth his Laws, being informed by two Bishops Hypatius and Demetrius his Legates, that they were made by the intervention, and consent of Bishops, according to the Doctrine of the See Apostolic, & decrees of the holy Fathers. Wherefore justinian in those constitutions did nothing, but what a Catholic and religious Prince might lawfully do, without prejudice to the authority of the See Apostolic, or investing himself in any part of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Moreover that by his Laws, he intended not to derogate any thing from the authority of the Bishop, or Church of Rome, his Laws themselves bear witness: We preserve (saith he in his law to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople (x) Cod. tit. 1. L. 7. the estate of the unity of the most holy Churches, in all things, with the most holy Pope of old Rome, to whom we have also written the like: for we will not suffer any thing to pass, concerning the affairs of the Church, which shall not be referred to his Blessedness, because he is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God. And in the Law Inter claras (y) Cod. tit. 1. L. 8. , into which is inserted that famous Epistle which he sent by Hypatius and Demetrius, with a solemn Embassage to Pope john, against Cyrus and Eulogius, Legates of the Acemites, he saith: Yielding honour to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, (which is, and ever hath been our desire) and honouring your Blessedness as it becometh us to honour our Father, we have speedily given notice to your Holiness, of all things, that belong to the ecclesiastical state: for we have had great care, to preserve the Unity of your Apostolic See▪ and the state of the holy Churches of God etc. And thersore we have made haste to subject, and unite all the Priests of the East parts to the See of your Holiness: nor do we suffer, that any thing belonging to the state of the Churches (be is never so clear, and undoubted) be unknown to your Holiness, who are the Head of all the holy Churches. To these testimonies of justinian you have devised divers answers. 1. With some petty Protestant Lawyer you cavil at his Epistle to the Pope, and the Pope's answer to him, as fictitious (z) Pag. 256. . But this to be a calumny, is learnedly proved by the two famous lawyers Alciatus (a) Parerg. l. 4. c. 24. , and Cuias (b) Obseru. l. 12. c. 16. . 2. By Liberatus a writer of the same time (c) In Breu. c. 20. , who reports justinian's embassage sent to the Pope, by Hypatius and Demetrius, and the Pope's answer to him, which are extant in the same Law. 3. By the testimony which justinian himself gives thereof in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople (d) Cod. tit. 1. L. 7. , and in his Epistle to Agapet Pope. 4. By Leunclavius a Protestant Lawyer, who hath translated and printed justinian's Epistle to the Pope, and the Pope's answer to him, as the eight Law of the Code. 2. Whereas justinian calls the Pope, The chief, and Head of all Bishops, and the Roman Church, The Head of all Churches, you answer (e) Pag. 256. , that, we have heard how common the word Caput hath been, without any sense of Monarchy. We have indeed heard you say (f) Pag. 50. & 110. , that the similitude of Head, and Members implieth no superiority of jurisdiction, but only of order, that is, of priority of place, of voice, and the like. But you also have heard (g) Chap 11. & Chap. 17. sect. 2. , how untrue, and repugnant not only to the belief of antiquity, but even to common sense, this is. 3. You object (h) Pag. 256. : If this Rescript of justinian be taken so rigidly, as we would have it, it is contradictory to another Constitution of his, in which he grants the chief right in ecclesiastical causes, to belong to the Governor of every Province. We know, that as while justinian was Catholic, he made no Laws, but with the consent of Bishops, and confirmation of Popes, so if after he fell into heresy, and contemned the authority of the Church, he made laws repugnant to the Catholic faith, and discipline of the Church, 'tis no wonder. That proveth against you, that heretics are they, which make laws contrary to the faith, and discipline of the Roman Church; and that if justinian had still remained a Catholic, he would have made no such laws, as he did not before he fell into heresy. 4. You object (i) Pag. 166. : justinian before he fell into heresy, banished two Popes, Siluerius, and Vigilius. To prove that he banished Siluerius, you set down these words, as of Baronius: Siluerium Papam mittit in exilium, justinian sendeth Siluerius Pope into banishment. But you abuse Baronius: He hath no such words; nor attributes the banishment of Siluerius to the Emperor, but saith, he was sent into exile by Bellisarius and Antonina his wife; partly at the instigation of the heretical Empress Theodora, offended with him, because he would not replace in the See of Constantinople, Anthymus an Eutychian heretic, and an invader of that See, whom therefore Agapet Pope had justly deposed; and partly for certain crimes forged against him by her, and Vigilius. Yea Baronius (k) Anno 538. witnesseth, that the Bishop of Patara coming to the Emperor, and showing him how displeasing it was to God, that the Pope, who is over the Church of the whole world, & to whom no King in the world is comparable, should be driven from his See, he presently commanded him to be recalled from the place of banishment, to Rome, that the accusations against him of Treason might be examined. But if Baronius had said, that justinian himself, even before his fall into heresy, had banished not only Vigilius, (as he doth) but also Siluerius (as Bozius by you cited saith he did) doth it therefore follow, that he had done well? May not among Catholics, Children sometimes forgetting their duty, rise against their Parents, and subjects against their Superiors, spiritual, or temporal? May not Catholic Princes be in passion, & displeasure against Bishops, and upon suspicions, mistakes, and misinformations, do against them, that, which afterwards they must repent, as King Henry the second did the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury? Did not Constantine misinformed by the Ariaus, banish S. Athanasius (k) Athan. Apol. 2. Socrat. l. 2. c. 22.23. Epipha. haer. 66. ? And was not S. chrysostom condemned by a Council of Catholic Bishops, and banished out of a Catholic City, by Arcadius a Catholic Emperor, at the instance of Eudoxia his wife, a Catholic Empress? And yet both he and she were so far from not beliueing the supreme authority of the Roman Church, or thinking it lawful to live out of her communion, that being for this fact excommunicated by Innocentius Pope, they humbled themselves, and craving absolution with sorrow for their fault, obtained it. What therefore justinian did in his wrath, either against Siluerius, or Vigilius, is no Argument to prove his no subjection to the B. of Rome, whom he called and acknowledged to be his Father: but it proveth that in laying violent hands on Vigilius, he behaved himself not like a child, but like an enemy, and persecutor of the Church. For which offence, as also for the great wrongs he offered to Eutychius, a most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, for his heresy, avarice, and cruelty, God punished him with a sudden death. And albeit Nicephorus (l) L. 17. c. 31. report, that he died penitent, and in hope thereof the sixth Synod, Agatho Pope, and S. Gregory (m) Apud Baron. amo 565. with other late writers make honourable mention of him, yet Euagrius & Procopius (n) Apud Baron. ibid. eye witnesses of those times, report otherwise. The truth will be known at that day, when the secrets of all hearts must be revealed. Lastly you object (o) Pag. 256. , that, justinian, which made a Law declaring the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches, shown his authority in breaking it, when he called the Church of Constantinople, the Head of all other Churches. This objection hath no other ground, but your mistake: for justinian speaks of the Church of S. Sophia, which is the Cathedral Church of Constantinople; and this he calls, The Head of all other Churches, not of the whole world, but of that Patriarkeship, as it appeareth by the contexture following, and by his other Laws (p) Cod. tit. 1. L. 7. & 8. , in which he declareth the Pope to be Head of all the holy Prelates of God; and ordaineth, that the See of Constantinople be second after Rome: We ordain (saith he (q) Nou. 131. according to the definition of Counsels, that the holy Pope of old Rome shall be the chief of all Prelates, and that the blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, shall have the second place after the See Apostolic of old Rome. If therefore the Church of Constantinople be the second after Rome, she cannot be Head of the Roman Church, and therefore not Head of all Churches of the world. CHAP. XXXI. Of the Authority and place of Emperors in Counsels. THAT no Council is valid, which is not called and approved by the B. of Rome, is a truth already demontrated (r) Chap. 17. sect. 6. ; as also that the first eight general Counsels in particular were assembled & confirmed by his authority (s) Chap. 16. & seqq. . Cusanus his Concordia, which you object for the contrary, is of no force, as being a prohibited book, and which (you know) Cusanus himself hath retracted. Concerning Priority of place in general Counsels, whether it be due to the Pope, or to Emperors, some guess may be had, by what already you have heard (t) Chap. 29. & 30. for if the Episcopal dignity be above the Imperial, as far as gold is above lead, and the soul above the body: and if Christian Kings and Emperors be sheep of Christ's fold, & the Pope their Pastor; if they his children, and he their Father: will you say, that priority of place is due to the lesser dignity above the greater? that the sheep ought to sit above their Pastor, or the Children above their Father? Constantine the Great said to the Bishops in the Council of Nice (u) Ruffin. l. 1. c. 1. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. S. Greg. l. 4. ep. 72. : God hath placed you as Gods over us, and we being men, have no power to judge you, that are Gods, but you are to judge us men. For Leo de Castro upon those words of Isay (y) Ep. 60.14. : The children of them that humbled thee, shall come crouching to thee, out of an ancient Record of the order of S. Benedict, concerning the customs of the Catholic Church, reporteth, that Kings in ancient times going to the Synods of Bishops, did prostrate themselves before them, and kiss the ground, not rising until the Bishops des●eding from their seats, did lift them up in their arms. So far were the greatest Princes in those days, from thinking, that priority of place was due to them, either before the Pope, or other Bishops. And upon the same motive it was, that Emperors and Kings never signed the Acts of general Counsels, but either after all the Bishops, as Constantine Pogonate did in the sixth Council, or at least after the Pope's Legates, and all the Patriarches, as in some others, in which for honour's sake, it was granted to Emperors, to sign before other Bishop's inferior to Patriarches. And if the most religious Emperors, and Kings, have held the Pope in so great veneration, that because they knew him to be the chief Vicar, and Lieutenant of Christ on earth, they have honoured him, with kissing his feet, and performing the office of yeomen of his stirrup (z) See about Chap. 10. ; If, justine the Emperor receiving john the first Pope of that name in the City of Constantinople adored him prostrate on the ground (a) Spond. anno 525. n. 1. ; if justinian the elder did the like to Pope Agapetus (b) Spond. anno 536. n. 5. , and the younger justinian having his Imperial crown on his head, and meeting Constantine Pope fell down prostrate as his feet, and kissed them (c) Spond. an. 710. n. 1. ; how can it be conceived, that these Emperors and Kings did think priority of place, to be due to themselues, above the Pope? Oh but (say you (d) Pag. 163. when we ask the question, why none of your Popes were ever personally present in any of the first general Counsels, though they were present in the same City, as was Vigilius, when the fifth general Council was celebrated, Bellarmine answereth, that the Greek Bishops would have preferred the Emperors in place above the Popes, which was not to be endured. So you. But is this all? Doth not Bellarmine give another reason of far more weight? Why do you conceal it? But be it as Bellarmine conjectureth, that if the Popes had been personally present, the Greek Bishops would have given priority of place to their Emperors, how do you prove, that in so doing, they should have done well? for they would likewise have placed Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, in a seat equal to john the first Pope of that name, but that the supreme dignity of the See Apostllike enforced them to desist from that attempt, and to set the Pope in a more eminent throne, exalted above that of Epiphanius in his own Church (e) Nicephoe l. 17. c. 27. . Nor is it likely, that the most religious Emperors of the East, who have professed themselves dutiful, and obedient Children to the See Apostolic, would have taken place of the Popes their spiritual Fathers & Pastors, if it had been offered unto them by their Bishops. But beside Bellarmine's reasons, there are others. As 1. That the Pope's being aged men, and separated by a large distance of sea and land from the East, in which the eight first General Counsels were held, were not fit to undertake so long journeys. 2. Because (as the Fathers of the first Council of Arles said to Silvester, (f) Ep. ad Syluestr. expressing their grief, that they could not have his presence at their Councell) his residence was more necessary at Rome, where the Apostles continually sit, and where their blood without intermission, gives testimony to the glory of God. 3. And for that, before the holding of those Eastern Counsels, the Pope did usually hold Counsels in the West, and send his Legates into the East, with the votes of the Western Bishops, arming them with authority, to preside in his place, and with direction how to order things in those Eastern Counsels. As for Vigilius Pope, though he were present at Constantinople, when the fifth general Council was held in that City, he would not assist in person, because he being then lawful Pope, by election of the Clergy of Rome, would give no occasion of renewing the memory of his entrance into the Papacy by intrusion, & simony, whiles Siluerius his predecessor was living; and chief, because seeing the Emperor violently bend to have the Three Chapters (which were the subject of that Council) condemned, though in his particular, he condemned them, yet for fear of breeding a schism in the Church, he would not be personally present at a Council, in which they should be publicly condemned, without the assistance of the Western Bishops, who earnestly withstood their condemnation. CHAP. XXXII. Whether Popes have challenged civil subjection from Emperors, and Kings, Christian or Heathen. YOU set down (g) Pag. 169. as an undoubted principle of Catholics, that, Popes of after ages challenge civil subjection of Princes not only Christian, but also Ethinck and Heathen, unto them. This you prove by examples of Popes, and other arguments, which I shall briefly examine. SECT. I. Your first Argument, out of Innocent the third, examined. Pope's of after ages (say you) (h) Pag. 169. have challenged an absolute power directly, or indirectly, over all secular Princedom, not only Christian, but also of Ethnic and Heathen Emperors, as well by corporal, as by spiritual punishments, even to the depriving them of their Kingdoms, and lives. And that they may seem to exact this plenitude of authority by divine Law, Pope Innocent the ihird maketh this Papal Decree, concluding the Emperors to be subject to the Popes, because it is written, God made two great lights, the Sun to rule the day, and the Moon to govern the night. This argument you take out of an epistle of Innocent, written to the Emperor of Constantinople, who conceauing that Innocent in a letter had reprehended him, for his irreverence to the Patriarch of Constantinople, wondered thereat. And the cause of his wonder was, because S. Peter saith (i) 1. Pet. 2.13. , Be ye subject to every humane creature, whether it be to the King, as excelling or to the rules sent by him, to the revenge of those that do ill. Innocent in his answer having proved evidently, that the Emperor misunderstood S. Peter's words, addeth, that he might have learned the prerogative of Priesthood, by what God himself spoke, not to a King, but to a Priest; Behold I have constituted thee over kingdoms and nations etc. But in that whole Epistle he maketh no decree, either for deposing, or excommunicating Kings, or Emperors, or for punishing them corporally, or spiritually, or for depriving them of their Kingdoms, and lives, or concerning any other matter; but only proveth the received doctrine of the ancient Fathers, that the Episcopal dignity excelleth the Imperial, as for as the Sun surpasseth the Moon, & the soul the body: Which (saith he to the Emperor) if your Imperial Highness did prudently consider, you would not cause▪ nor permit the Patriarch of Constantinople, a great, and honourable member of the Church, to sit on the left side at your footstool, being that other Princes rise with reverence to their Archbishops, and Bishops (as is fit they should) and appoint them a Venerable seat, near to their own persons. Nor did I write to you, by way of reprehension, though I might with reason have reprehended; because (as there he explicates) Christ made Peter, and in him, his Successors, Pastors of his whole flock, not exempting Kings or Emperors. This is the sum of Innocents' Epistle, in which you see, he doth not so much as check the Emperor, but in a sweet and Fatherly way, admonish him of his want of respect to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Is it not then intolerable falsehood to say, this Epistle is a Papal decree, whereby Innocent and other Popes of after ages challenge an absolute power by divine Law, over all Christian and Heathen Kings, and Emperors, to punish them, as well by corporal, as by spiritual punishments, even to the depriving them of their Kingdoms, and lives? Is any such thing mentioned in that Epistle? If this be not dishonest dealing, and excessively imposterous, what is? But to justify this imposture, you say (k) Pag. 170. : Upon this Gloss the Divines, and Canonists (the pope's Parats, and Parasites) conclude, that every Emperor borroweth his power from the Pope, as doth the Moon her light from the Sun, be the Emperor Christian, or Ethnic, and therefore is to submit himself to the Pope; and that. Not by the order of Charity but by duty of subordination, and subjection. The Authors whom you are pleased to call, The Pope's Parats, and Parasites, and to produce as witnesses of these your falsities, are Bozius, Bellarmine, and Carerius: Of which three, the two first, Bozius and Bellarmine, where you cite them, are so far from drawing any such conclusion from that Gloss, that they make no mention at all of the Gloss. And the later sentence, deinde neque hoc habet (Papa) propter ordinem charitatis, sed propter subiectionem, & subordinationem ad deponendos Reges, & disponendum de regnis, which you set down (l) Pag margi. as Bellarmine's, is not his, but patched up of diverse words taken out of several places of his, and knit into one sentence, to make him dance after your pipe, & speak as best fitteth your design. Yea Bellarmine out of that very Epistle, and out of those very words of Innocent which you object, proveth else where (m) L Pont , that the Pope hath no temporal dominion over Christian Princes; whom therefore you slander falsely, fathering on him the contrary, to make him, & all Catholics, as much as in you lieth, hateful to Christian Princes. The third author, which is Carerius, I have not seen: but how unsincerely you have heretofore cited him, in this very matter, F. Persons in his Treatise tending to Mitigation, against the seditious writings of Thomas Morion Minister, hath showed long since (n) Changed 162.17. . And because he truly observeth, that you hardly cite any Author without some sleight or other, I suspect that here you deal no otherwise with Carerius. SECT. II. Your second Argument, out of Hieremy the Prophet, examined. SEcondly you say (o) Pag. 170. , Pope's exact of Emperors, be they Christians, or Ethnics, subjection and subordination (when they mean to dispossess them of their kingdoms, or deprive them of their lives) from pretence of Scripture, alleging in their Bulls for their warrant, that saying of the Prophet: Behold I have constituted thee above nations and kingdoms, to plant and root on't, to build and destroy, jerem. 1. So they. Whereunto also accordeth the decree of Boniface the eight. Good God, that the world should be so bewitched by them, as to account them Pastors of the Church, who feed their people with thorns, swords, daggers and pistols. For what else mean these grosses, whereby the word of God is so notoriously profaned for patronising of rebellions and murders? All these are your words, false I am sure, and slanderous; and whether not also railing, & virulent, let the Reader judge. My intention here is not to dispute, what authority the Pope hath over Kings, and Emperors, in temporal matters. I writ against you, and my intention only is, to show; that as in other matters, so also in this, you wrong the Popes, and falsify the Fathers, with other Catholic authors. And to begin with S. Bernard, you say (p) Pag. 170. : He writing to Pope Eugenius (q) L. 2. de Considerate. , condemneth the Papal Gloss to his face, teaching, that in this text, under the figurative speech of rural sweat, is expressed the spiritual labour &c, showing thereby, that your Popes might have proved for their advantage, out of that text, rather a right to become gardeners and carpenters, for roting out weeds, and destroying of buildings, than Generals of Hosts, for conquest, and subjection of kingdoms. That S. Bernard out of this text gathereth no power of Popes to depose Kings, or other secular Princes or people, I grant. He only admonisheth Eugenius, that being placed in a seat of eminency, from whence, as from a watchtower, he beholdeth all, he neither give himself to idleness, his function being an office of spiritual labour, nor be puffed up with pride, but govern in humility, which he calleth, The chiefest gem among all the ornaments of the high Priest, and to that end representeth unto him, the admonition which S. Peter gave to all Prelates (r) 1. Pet. 5.2. , not no domineer in the Clergy, but to become patterns of the flock from the hart, and the example of Christ, who was in the midst of his Disciples, as one that waited (s) Luc. 22.27. . But yet to show against you that Eugenius had spiritual jurisdiction over the universal Church, he saith to him (t) L. 2. de Consid. : What person bearest thou in the Church of God? Who art thou? A great Priest, the chief Bishop. Thou art the Prince of Bishops, thou the heir of the Apostles: thou art Abel in primacy, None in government, in Patriarkship Abraham, in order Melchisedech, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judicature Samuel, in power Peter, and by Unction Christ. Thou art he to whom the keys were given, to whom the sheep committed. There are other porters of Heaven, and Pastors of flocks; but thou as in a different, so in a far more glorious manner, hast inherited both those names. They have their several flocks assigned unto them; to thee all are committed, one flock to one shepherd. Thou art not only Pastor of the sheep, but Pastor of all Pastors. Dost thou ask how I prove it? Out of the word of our Lord: for to which (I will not say) of the Bishops, but even of the Apostles were the sheep committed so absolutely and without exception? If thou lovest me Peter, feed my sheep. What sheep? Of this, or that City, or Country or Kingdom? My sheep, saith he: To whom is it not manifest, that he designed not any, but assigned all? where no distinction is put, no exception is made etc. The power of others is confined within certain limits: Thy power extendeth even to them, that have received power over others. If there because, canst not thou shut up Heaven to a Bishop? Canst not thou depose him from his Bishopric, and deliver him to Satan? All these words are S. Bernard's, which I have transcribed, that the reader may see, he believed the Pope to be Pastor and Governor of the universal Church, and acknowledged in him absolute power to depose Bishops, which you could not be ignorant of, but conceal it, because it toucheth your copie-hold, and mention only deposing of Princes, of which S. Bernard speaketh not one word. Yea more over he doth not only acknowledge, that the Pope hath power to depose Bishops, but withal showeth how falsely you allege him, to prove, that in the text of Hieremy, nothing is expressed, but spiritual labour under the figurative speech of rural sweat: for writing to the same Pope Eugenius (u) Ep. 237. , he requesteth him to depose the Bishops of Winchester & York, as intruders, and wicked men, that opposed the Archbishop of Canterbury, a religious Prelate, and of good fame; and out of this very text of Hieremy, proveth his authority to do it: for to that end (saith he (x) Ibid. ) thou art placed over nations and kingdoms, to pull up, and destroy, to build, and to plant: which power he declareth again in another Epistle (y) Ep. 239. , out of the same text of Hieremy, speaking to Eugenius, of deposing a wicked Bishop of the Ruthenians. Nor is it S. Bernard only, that interpreteth Hieremy in this sense: for 630. Bishops assembled in the Council of Chalcedon (z) In relat. ad Leo. allege the same text, to justify their deposing of Dioscorus, and require Leo Pope to confirm the same. The like interpretation is made by 32. Bishops in the Council of Jerusalem, and reported in that of Constantinople under Menas (a) Act. 4. , to justify their sentence of deposition against Anthymus B. of Trebizond. And Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria (b) Ep. ad Epiphan. apud S. Hieron. Ep. 67. a familiar friend to S. Hierome (as their mutual Epistles declare) out of the same text proveth the power of condemning heresies, given by Christ to his Church, which (saith he) we see now performed: for the Church of Christ with the Evangelicall sword hath cut off the heads of origen's serpents. And finally this text is alleged to the same purpose, by Petrus Cluniacensis (c) L. 6. ep. 14. , & Alexander of Hales (d) Part. 3. q. 40. memb. 2. the Irrefragable Doctor, and Master to S. Thomas of Aquine. All which showeth, that either the Fathers and Counsels understood not the words of the Prophet, or else that you deny the true sense, misinterpreting them in favour of your false Doctrine. But returning to S. Bernard; That which most of all discovereth your ignorance, if not rather fraud, is, that you say, Boniface the eight profaneth the word of God notoriously, for patronising of rebellions, and murders, making from pretence of Scripture a Decree to dispossess Emperors, Christian and heathen of their kingdoms, & deprive them of their lines. It is to be noted that this decree of Boniface, on which you are pleased to inflict so severe a censure, are the very words of S. Bernard, taken out of his fourth book of Consideration to Eugenius. Wherefore you must confess, that S. Bernard profaned the word of God notoriously for patronising rebellions and murders, and dispossessing Kings of their kingdoms, and lives, or else you must acknowledge, that you wrong and slander Pope Boniface, who saith nothing, but what S. Bernard said before him, and in S. Bernard's own words. I cannot but vehemently suspect, that a man of your reading, could not but know, that the words were S. Bernard's: but because you durst not for shame of the world, impute such horrible wickedness to so glorious a Saint, and whom Caluin himself (e) L. 4. de Consid. c. 11. §. 11. acknowledgeth to speak in those his books of Consideration, as if Truth herself did speak, you lay it on Boniface Pope, that so you may have some colour to rail freely at him, & in his name, to charge S. Bernard with that impiety, of which neither of them both was guilty. The second Father whom you allege, is S. Gregory, who, as he is frequent in Morals, so he explicateth these words of Hieremy, in a moral sense, of pulling up Vices, and planting virtues by preaching, in the souls of the hearers. But that they may have another more literal sense, the Fathers and Counsels have informed you. Nor was S. Gregory so ignorant, as to think, he had no other way to reform the disorders of Bishops, and others under his charge, but by preaching only: for his writings, his practice, and your own confessions bear witness to the contrary (f) See above Chap. 15. sect. 3. . Your third proof is out of Lyra, to whose words you add gratis the adverb Tantùm, to infer, that Bishops have no other means to repress vices, and remedy disorders in their subjects, but only by preaching: which if it were true, how could the Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon have deposed Nestorius and Dioscorus, not to mention a thousand such examples, of which Ecclesiastical histories are full? Yea the word denuntiare which Lyra useth, doth not obscurely import so much: for not only preachers, but ecclesiastical Prelates denounce punishment to offenders, to deter them from sin. And so do secular judges, when they threaten them with corporal chastisements. SECT. III. Your third Argument, out of the examples of Popes, examined. SOme Popes (say you) (g) Pag. 171. have not been idle, but have put their positions in practice, by deposing Kings and Emperors, sporting themselves with tossing the crowns from their heads, not for any note of heresy, but only for not subiecting themselves to the Pope's dignity and dominion. Why do you not tell us, that when 200. Bishops in the Council of Ephesus, and 630. in the Council of Chalcedon, deposed Nestorius, and Dioscorus, they did it to sport themselves with tossing the mitres of Patriarches from their heads? If any Popes have deposed Kings or Emperors, my assumpt is not, either to defend, or dispute, by what right they did it. The first Pope, whom you accuse, (h) Pag. 171. 174. is Zacharias; who being chosen by divine ordination (i) See Anestasius, Plati●a, Yllescas in his life. , performed heroical acts for the public good of the Church. He bore singular love to the clergy, and people of Rome, and generally to all Christians, being ready to spend his life for them. He built, repaired, and adorned with rich furniture many Churches within, & without Rome. He reduced to peace all Italy, which he found in combustion of wars, going himself in person to effect it. He established & confirmed Bishoprics and settled the affairs of Christian religion in Germany. He was of a most sweet, and malde disposition, adorned with all virtue, and goodness, slow to anger, & most ready to mercy, and compassion, rendering to no man evil for evil, but to the imitation of Christ, overcoming evil with good; in so much, that being made Pope, he advanced to honours those, who formerly had been his enemies, and bestowed rewards on them. And finally, for his singular virtues he is reverenced as a Saint, and his feast yearly celebrated by the whole Church of God. (k) Martyrol. Roman. 15. Martij. The second Pope you traduce, is Gregory the seaventh who (say (l) Pag. 171. 174. you) deposed Henry the third. Now this Gregory, whom you so often, and so intemperately revile (n) Pag. 40. 171. 174. 179. , was one of the most admirable Prelates, that hath possessed the chair of S. Peter: A man (saith Nauclerus (o) Chronol. genral. 37. religious fearful of God, a lover of justice and equity, constant in adversity, and that for God feared not to enterprise whatsoever was just. A man (saith Schafnaburgensis (p) Hist. rerum German. an. 1977. of great constancy, and invincible courage against avarice. The signs and wonders, which God did work by the prayers of Gregory, and his most fervent zeal for God, and the laws of the Church, did sufficiently defend him against the poisoned tongues of his detractors. He was (saith Otho Frisingensis (q) L. 6. hist. c. 32.34.36. always most constant in Ecclesiastical rigour; a pattern to his flock, showing by his example; that which in words he taught: a valiant champion, that feared not to oppose himself, as a wall, for the house of God, and whose death bred no small grief to the Church, because she saw herself deprived of so worthy a Pastor; who among all Priests, and Bishops of Rome, was of most especial zeal, and authority. A man, in whose defence S. Anselme that famous Bishops of Luca (renowned for his learning, and sanctity, and illustrious for miracles in his life, and after his death) writ against Guibertus, the Antipope, set up by the wicked Emperor Henry the fourth: and among other praises, giveth him the same, that S. Cyprian in like occasion gave to the holy Pope Cornelius. I may affirm (saith he) of Gregory our Father, that which Blessed Cyprian writ of Cornelius: He was made Bishop by the judgement of God, and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all; nay, to speak more truly, of all the Clergy without exception, by the verdict of the people that were present, by the College of ancient Priests, and good men, none other being created before him, when the place of Alexander, that is, when the place of Peter, and the degree of the Sacerdotal chair was vacant. And how true this testimony of S. Anselme is, appeareth by the formal words of his election set down by Platina (r) In vita Gregorij 7. , wherein Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots, Priests, all degrees of Ecclesiastical men, and laics, made choice of him, as of a man modest, sober, chaste, of singular learning, of great piety, wisdom, justice, constancy, and religion. How think you Doctor Morton? was this man likely to sport himself with tossing the crowns of Kings, and Emperors from their heads? You plead (s) Pag. 174. , that his proceeding against Henry, was not for any note of heresy, but only for not subiecting himself to the Pope's dignity and dominion. Read the testimonies of grave writers almost 40. in number (t) Apud Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. & count. Barcla. 〈◊〉. 9 & Genebrard. in Chronico an. 1087. , many of which lived in his time; and you shall find that Henry is censured, as an Archpirate, an Archheretic, an Apostata, a persecutor of souls more than bodies: and for his behaviour and manners, that he contemned the Princes of the Empire, oppressed the Nobles, exalted base fellows, and married to them the daughters of Noble men at his pleasure: that not contenting himself with ordinary sins, be invented and committed others never heard of before in the world, and to many men altogether incredible. And with these authors Caluin agreeth, saying (u) L. 4. Instit. c. 11. sect. 13. , that he was light, temerarious, of no judgement, of great boldness, of dissolute life, and that he had all the Bishoprickes (he might have added, and all the Archbishoprickes, and Abbacies) of Germany, in his Court partly exposed to sale, partly to prey, and rapine. Finally so abominable was his lust, so execrable his simony, so great his oppression of Germany, his life in all respects so flagitious, and his person for that cause so hateful, that (as Vrspergensis reporteth) (x) Chron. an. 1106. when he died, there was not any one found in the whole Christian world, that sorowed for his death; nay, that did not exceedingly rejoice thereat, even as Israel rejoiced at the drowing of Pharaoh in the red sea, or as the people of Rome exulted in the triumphs of their Emperors. Much more in this kind is reported by the Authors, to which Marianus Scotus an historian of that time, addeth (y) Chron. an. 1075. , that the Catholics, which lived then in the Church, seeing and hearing the horrible and unheardof crimes of Henry, inflamed with the zeal of God for the house of Israel, in imitation of the Prophet Helias, sent messengers to Alexander then governing the See Apostolic, and complained, expressing their grief with sighs and lamentations, both by letters and words. Whereupon (saith William B. of (z) L. 1. debello sacro c. 13. Tyre) Gregory his successor before he proceeded against him, sent thrice unto him, and with the love and affection of a Father, admonished him, seeking to reclaim him, & win him to his own good, but prevailed not. I appeal to the judgement of any impartial Reader, whether you have not slandered, and wronged Gregory in the highest degree, saying, that he sported himself with tossing the Emperor's crown from his head, and this not far any note of heresy, but only for not subiecting himself to his dignity, and dominion. Beware in time, lest you, which possess the place of a Bishop be not punished by God, as William B. of Maestricht was, who (saith Lambertus Scafnaburgensis (a) Hist. r●rum Germ. being suddenly surprised with a most grievous sickness, cried outwith miserable shrieks before all, that by the just judgement of God, he had lost both this present, and eternal life, for having taken part with the Emperor in his sacrilegious enterprises, and in hope of gaining his favour, wittingly reproached the most holy B. of Rome, a man of Apostolical virtue, and innocency. Not unlike to this, was the miraculous punishment of Imbrico B. of Ausburg, for the same fault, related by Bartholdus (b) In Chron. an Historian of the same time. And finaliy, our holy Archbishop of Canterbuty S. Anselme, if he were living, would say to you, as he did to W●lramus, that he would refrain from saluting you, for taking part with Henry the Emperor against Gregory, that being no less a crime, then to take part with the successor of Nero, and julian the Apostata, against the successor, and Vicar of Peter the Apostle. I have dwelled a while in this history of Gregory, because of all the four Popes, against whom you here except, you rail most intemperately against him: for thereby the reader may understand, that as you slander him so you do also the rest: for how excellent and godly a Prelate Zacharias was, you have heard: and of the other two, Historians report no less. Of Innocentius they writ, that he was one of the most excellent Popes for good life, and rate learning in many kinds, that for many hundreds of years held the See of Rome: to which his many works full of singular erudition, piety, and contempt of the world, give witness. By his means Livonia received the faith of Christ. He built, repaired, & adorned many Churches with rich gifts. He sounded and endowed with great revenues that famous Hospital of Sancti Spiritus in Saxia, in which so many diseased, and sick persons even to this day are cured, and so many poor children, and orphans bred up and mantained. He confirmed the religious orders of S. Dominick, of S. Francis, of the Heremits of S. Augustine, of the Carmelites, of the Croched Friars for the redemption of Captives, and others, which have yielded innumerable men, that with their sanctity, and learning, have been a most singular ornament to the Church of Christ, and to whom the whole world is in debted for their great labours undertaken for the glory of God, for the conversion of Infidels, reduction of heretics, reformation of manners among Catholics, and for the excellent monuments of their works in all faculties of learning. Finally so great was the fame of Innocentius his sanctity, and excellent government, that among other authors, Blondus writeth (c) D●cad. 2. l. 7. pag. 297. : Suavissimus erat in Gallijs famae odor, gravitatis, saenctitatis, ac rerum gestarum eius Pontificis. The fame and sweet odor of this Pope's gravity, holiness of life▪ and greatness of his actions was most fragrant through. out all France. And as Blondus reporteth that he writ libros doctrina plenos; so others witness (d) Geneb. in Chronico anno 1198. Cicarollus & Platina in vita Innocent. 3. that he writ more than almost all the Popes before his time put together. And finally Clement the fixth, as you may read in Plation, Yllescas, and others (e) In vita Clementis 6. , was a man of great, learning and eloquence, liberal to all, of most courteous and sweet conversation, and adorned with many excellent virtues. From whence every man of judgement will easily understand, how untruly you charge him, with tossing the Emperor's crown from his head, to sport himself etc. SECT iv Doctor Morton contradicteth himself. TO show your spleen yet more against Gregory the seaventh, of whom, beside what hath been said, Martinus Polonus writeth (f) Apud Gened. an. 1087. , that by his prayers he wrought great miracles, and Lambertus Schafnaburgensis (g) Apud Geneb. ibid. , that he was endowed with the gift of prophecy, you say (h) Pag. 174. sin. 175. : It is confessed, that no Pope in all the succession of S. Peter, did depose any Emperor before Gregory the seaventh, that is, until a thousand and sixty years after Christ. You bring for your author Otho Frisingensis, who (though otherwise a learned and pious Bishop, yet) being grandchild to Henry the Fourth, whom Gregory deposed, writeth partially in his favour, and contradicteth himself: for he confesseth (i) L. 5. c ●3. & l. 4. c. 34.35.36. , that Zacharias Pope, who lived 300. years before Gregory the seaventh, deposed Childericus King of France. And the same, you likewise contradicting yourself acknowledge (k) Pag. 171.174. , producing the same example of Zacharias, which Otho doth. Nor could you be ignorant of others more ancient alleged by Bellarmine in that place (l) L. 5. d● Pent. c. 8. , from whence you took this of Gregory the seaventh: but you mention not them, that you may have the better colour to inveigh against him. CHAP. XXXIII. Doctor Mortons' late Sermon preached in the Cathedral Church of Durham, answered. AS the main drift of your writings, is, to make Catholic religion odious, and to exasperate the minds of Protestants against all the professors thereof; so there is nothing more frequent with you, then to slander Catholics in general with seditious Tenets, which are not theirs, but the known Principles of your brerhrens, Luther, Caluin, Beza, Buchanam, Knox, Goodman, Gilby, and others (m) See M. Patison Monarchomacbia per toi. and Brereley Prot. Apol. Preface to the Reader. . The answer given you by your ancient friend (n) P. Persons. in his Treatise tending to mitigation against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister, might have seemed sufficient, to make you ashamed of opening your mouth again in that kind. But I find, that in your later writings you are as bitter, as ever; and to that end, have lately preached a Sermon before the Kings most Excellent Majesty, in the Cathedral Church of Durham, which is nothing, but a piece of your Grand Imposture printed long since, & now again newly preached, and reprinted under the name of a Sermon: which I suppose some of your Auditors, that had read your book, could not but mark, and think it a thing unworthy of so great a Rabbin, to present his Majesty with a piece of an old Imposture, instead of a new Sermon. Because I have undertaken the confutation of your Grand Imposture, I will in like manner answer the particulars of your Sermon, noting withal, the places of your Grand Imposture, out of which you have borrowed them. SECT. I. The sense of S. Paul's words, which Doctor Morton took for his text, declared. THe text of your Sermon, are these words of the Apostle, which you call A sacred and divine Canon: Omnis anima etc. Let every soul be subject to higher Powers &c. In these words the Apostle speaketh not of all souls, and all Powers universally, else he should command all higher Powers, (for they also are souls) to be subject to other higher Powers v. g. the King of France, to the King of Spain; the King of Spain, to the King of England; and the Emperor, to the great Turk. Wherefore by higher powers be understandeth Superiors: and by every soul, all subjects. But since there be Superiors of several kinds, the next question will be, what Superiors he meaneth, by higher powers; and what subjects, by every soul. You by higher powers, understand (o) Serm. pag. 4. the Temper all Magistrate that carrieth the sword. I deny not, but that divers learned expositors seem to be of opinion, that the Apostle speaketh wholly, or chief of temporal Princes, and other secular Powers subordinate to them. But than it is evident against you, that as S. Paul speaketh to the Christians of Rome, and in them to all others; so he doth not command them to obey secular Princes in matters of Religion, but in temporal affairs only: for the Roman Emperors, to whom the Christians of Rome were then subject, being Heathens, enemies to Christ and Persecutors of his Church, to bid the Christians obey them in matters of religion, had been to bid them disobey Christ, and renounce their saith. And this you must confess to be true: for you say (p) Serm. pag. 7. Imposture pag. 175. 176. 276. 278. , that Popes and other Christians for the space of 600. years performed this Obedience, commanded by S. Paul; and yet they never yielded to Nero (under whom S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans) or to any other Heathen Prince, Obedience in Religion, but in temporal affairs only. And of this Obedience, the Greek Father's chrysostom, Oecumenius, Euthymius, Theodoret, and Theophilact speak, when they say, that S. Paul excepteth not from this Obedience, Apostles, Evangelists, or Prophets: for all Christians ecclesiastics, and Laics, are bound to obey the Laws of temporal Princes, in whose dominions they live. And this Obedience was performed by the Popes of Rome, whiles they were not temporal Princes themselves. But now being, and having been for many years temporal Monarches, as absolute in their estates, as other Princes in theirs, it can no more be inferred out of your text, that Popes are subject to Kings, then that the King of Spain, is subject to the King of France. There is not (say you out of Tully (q) Pag. 289. a greater degree of futility, then for any man to object that, to which, when it shall be retorted upon himself, he shall not tell what to say. If when you came down from the pulpit, some prudent man (that had heard you infer from this text, that the Pope is subject to temporal Princes) had desired to learn of you, to what temporal Prince the Pope is now subject, he being an absolute Prince himself; what could you have answered? You must have confessed, that you had over shot your mark, and out of a desire to be speaking against the Pope, misinterpreted the words of your text, & wrested them to a false sense contrary to the true meaning of the Apostle. S. Bernard a man endowed with the spirit of God, commended by Caluin (r) L. 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 22. & cap. 11. §. 11. and Melancthon (s) Art. 5. & 27. , and esteemed by yourself as a Saint, was so far from thinking, that these words of the Apostle import any subjection of Popes to temporal Princes, that contrarily out of them, as out of a sacred Canon, he teacheth the Emperor Conradus to yield obedience to the Pope, as to his Pastor, and spiritual Father. Legi etc. I have read (saith he (t) Ep. 2●3. to the Emperor,), Let every soul be subject to higher powers, and he that resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God. Which sentence I wish and admonish you to observe, in exhibiting reverence to the chief, and Apostolic See, and to the Vicar of blessed Peter, as you will have it yielded to you by the whole Empire. And in other places he reckoneth up the chief Kings of the Christian world professing obedience to Innocentius the second Pope of that name, as to the Pastor, and Bishop of their souls (u) Ep. 124. & 126. prope fin. , as children to their Father, and members to their Head (x) Ep. 125. . To S. Bernard, I add other ancient, holy and learned Expositors, who by Higher Powers understand not, the Temporal Magistrate only, but also the spiritual; and prove, that S. Paul in these words, commandeth obedience of subjects to all Superiors, as well spiritual, as temporal. So Primasius, S. Remigius, S. Anselme, Lyra, and Carthusianus (y) In eum locuin. . And in confirmation of this sense, Primasius by the sword given to higher powers, understandeth not only the material, but also gladium spiritus, the spiritual sword, given to S. Peter, wherewith he punished Ananias, and Saphira. The same sense is followed by S. Basil (z) Constit. Monast. c. 23. who confirmeth the same out of another passage of the Apostle (a) Heb. 2●. 17. , where speaking to all Christians, without exempting any temporal Power, never so high, he saith: Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them: for they watch, as bring to render account of your souls. Which inference is also made by that holy & learned Pope Gregory the seaventh, who explicating your text saith (b) L. 1. regist. Ep. 22. : Seeing therefore the Apostle commands obedience to worldly powers, how much more to spiritual, and those, that have the place of Christ among Christians? And if these Expositors be not of credit with you, john calvin's doctrine is (c) L. 4. instit. c. 10. §. 5. , that, if obedience must be exhibited to secular Princes for conscience sake, it must also be yielded to Ecclesiastical Superiors. Wherefore the more probable Exposition is, that the Apostle, by Higher Powers, understandeth not the temporal Magistrate only, but speaketh generally of all Powers, as well spiritual, as temporal, and requireth obedience unto them both, in their degrees. Which being true, you can no more infer out of his words, that the Pope is subject to temporal Princes, than the contrary: especially, he being not noly a temporal Prince, but also a spiritual; so great, that (as the B. of Patara admonished justinian the Emperor) (d) Liberat in Breu. c. 22. Albeit there be many Kings in the world, yet none of them, as the Pope, who is over the Church of the whole world. More proofs in this kind are not needful. You have heard (e) Above Chap. 29. the Council of Nice, declaring, the dignity of the B. of Rome, as being the Vicar of Christ, and governor of the universal Church, to surpass the dignity of Kings. You have heard (f) Ibid. the most religious Emperors, & Kings, professing obedience unto him, as children to their Father, and sheep to their Pastor. And if S. Paul's words be true (g) Heb. 7.7. , that without all contradiction the less is blessed by the greater, the dignity of an Emperor, who is blessed, consecrated, and crowned by the Pope must be lesser, than the dignity of the Pope, that blesseth, and crowneth him. This you will better understand, if you call to mind, that the holy Martyr S. Ignatius teacheth Christian's next after God, to honour the Bishop (h) Ep ad Smyrnen. . And that all people, who ever they be, Soldiers, Princes, yea the Emperor himself must obey the Bishop, to the end that unity, and order may be observed in all (i) Ep. ad Philadelph. . And why else do the learned Fathers S. Martin, S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory the great prefer the Episcopal and Sacerdotal dignity before the regal, and Imperial (k) See above Chap. 29. ? Why did S. Nazanzen (l) Orat. ad ciues timore perculsos, & Princ. irasc. call the Emperor, A sheep of his sacred flock, and say unto him, The law of Christ hath made you subject to my power, and to my Tribunal: for we (Bishops) have an Empire also, and that more perfect than yours, unless you will say, that the spirit is inferior to the flesh, and heavenly things to earthly? And what else do the greatest Monarches of the world, but make profession of this, when the Priest sitting, and covered, they kneel down with all humility at his feet, and confess their fins unto him? Is not this to acknowledge, that they come as persons guilty, to accuse themselves, and that the Priest in that court of conscience, is their lawful Superior, and judge? This S. chrysostom expressed, saying (m) L. 3. de Sacerd. that, Priests, as if they were already transported into heaven, and exalted above humane nature, have a Princedom which giveth them power to bind souls, in comparison whereof, the power of Kings is as far inferior, as earth to heaven, and the body to the soul. This S. Ambrose, when he said (n) L. de dignit. Sacerd. c. 2. : You see the heads of Kings, and Princes, humbled to the knees of Priests, and that kissing their hands, they believe themselves to be protected by their prayers. This Basilius the Emperor (o) Orat. in fine Conc. Gen. 8. , when alluding to the words of Christ spoken to his Apostles (p) joan. 20.23. . Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, he professed, that Bishops and Pastors have the power of binding, and losing in the Church, and that all lay men are to be sanctified, to be bound, and lesed from their bonds by them. And finally, this professed Constantine the great when he said (q) Ruffin. l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. ●. ep. 72. , that Bishops were constituted by God, as Gods among men, and therefore had power to judge of Emperors. I conclude therefore, that if the doctrine of the holy Fathers of God's Church be true, if the most religious Christian Emperors have believed aright; the Episcopal, and Sacerdotal dignity, and especially the Papal, excelleth the Imperial, and the Pope is in the number of higher Powers, to whom obedience in spiritual things is due, even from the greatest Kings, and Emperors, as their practice witnesseth, and the Apostle hath commanded, saying (r) Heb. 13.17. , Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them. SECT. II. Ancient Popes objected, and falsified by Doctor Morton. YOur ancient Antagonist (s) P. Persons, Treatise tend. to mitig. Chap. 6. 〈◊〉. 34. , and Cardinal Bellarmine (t) L. 1. de Conc. c. 13. have told you long since, that howbeit the B. of Rome was ever Head in spiritual matters over all, even the Emperors themselves, yet in temporal affairs, he did anciently subject himself unto them, as having at that time no temporal estate of his own, and therefore did then acknowledge them to be his temporal Lords, and make supplication unto them, as for other things, so particularly for the assembling of Synods in their Cities, which could not be done without their authority, and licence. And in this respect, the Popes of those times yielded due reverence to the Emperors, and had recourse to them as to their temporal Lords: but that any Pope ever acknowledged subjection to Emperors in Ecclesiastical affairs, is a false Tenet, which to make good, you misconstrue, mangle, and corrupt the testimonies of ancient Popes. First, you say (u) Impost. pag. 178. : Liberius professed patience in suffering indignities from the Emperor, and entreated for mercy. And Vigilius being banished, sued for peace and favour. What then? A Christian suffering indignities from the great Turk, may sue for mercy and favour: Doth he therefore acknowledge in the Turk right to persecute him, or to offer indignities unto him for his faith, as Constantius the Arian Emperor did to Liberius, and Theodora the Eutychian Empress to Vigilius? 2. You object (x) Impost. pag. 178. Sermon. pag. 5. Simplicius, professing continual reverence to all Christian Princes. True: but did he therefore profess that every Christian Prince was his Sovereign, or that any Prince had right to command him in Ecclesiastical affairs? Reverence is due from every Christian man to all Princes; and yet every Christian man is not subject to all Princes, even in temporal affairs, much less in Spiritual. But why do you conceal that Simplicius writeth that Epistle to the Emperor Zeno, as to his spiritual child, and professeth, that by reason of his Apostolical Chair, and government, he was bound to instruct him, and declare the causes of faith unto him? 3. The testimony of Leo (y) Impost. pag. 178. Sermon pag. 5. making supplication to the Emperor to command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy, hath been already proved to make wholly against yourself (z) See above Chap. 30. sect. 4. . 4. You produce Gelasius (a) Impost. pag. 178. , saying to the Emperor Anastasius, that even Bishops obey his laws. Bishops I grant obey the Laws of secular Princes for the course of tempotall government: but withal Gelasius declareth to the Emperor, that, Albeit he be chief Precedent in temporal affairs, he knoweth and acknowledgeth himself in spiritual affairs subject to Priests, and especially to the B. of Rome, and that from them, he is to receive the decisions of faith, and the heavenly Sacraments. Why did you not in your Sermon, give notice of this to his Majesty, and the rest of your hearers? 5. Hormisdas (say you) (b) Impost. pag. 178. taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering of a Council, as a motion from God, and further acknowledged, that he had received warning, and that he ought to be present thereat. In proof of this, you set down in your margin these words, as of Hormisdas in his fifth Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor: Futuram Synodum indicari mandas, cui nos interesse debere ijsdem literis Deo (ut credimus) tibi imperanti, commonuisti. Ad litter as vestras respondi. In this brief passage there are divers untruths, and falsifications. For 1. those words, Futuram Synodum indicari mandas, which you set down as the words of Hormisdas, are not his, but forged by yourself: there is no mention of any command from the Emperor to him. 2. And those words, Ad literas vestras respondi, are also feigned by yourself, and show your ignorance in grammar: for if Hormisdas had spoken to the Emperor in the singular number, saying mandas, and, tibi imperanti commonuisti, which you cite as his words, he would not have added in the plural number, ad literas vestras. 3. When you say. Hormisdas taketh notice of the Emperors command for gathering a Council, acknowledging that he had received warning, & that he ought to be present thereat, it is a plain Imposture: for in that very Epistle, he protesteth to the Emperor, that whereas he had warned him to be present at a Council, there is not in former ages any example, or precedent of such a fact, extant in books, or in the memories of men: but yet that at his invitation, he is willing to impose on himself that burden, without any precedent thereof, received from his predecessors: always provided, that the Emperor would perform those necessary conditions, which both in that Epistle, and in the instruction given to his Legates he proposed unto him, for the peace of the Church, which were to abjure the heresies of Nestorius, and Eutyches, to receive the Council of Chalcedon, with the witings of S. Leo Pope, and to blot out of the sacred records, the names of Dioscorus, Acacius, and other heretics. The Emperor feigned himself willing to perform the conditions, hoping thereby to compass his intent, but never performed them; and therefore Hormisdas would not assent to the gathering of a Council. Whereupon Anastasius growing into a great fury, writ threatening letters to him, and raised a great persecution against Catholics: for which, as also for his obstinacy in heresy, and disobedience to the See Apostolic, he ended his life in a most horrible manner, being strucken dead with a thunderbolt from Heaven. This is the doctrine you ought to have delivered to your readers: and not to have deceived them with falsities imposed on Hormisdas, to justify yours. 6. You object (c) Impost pag. 178. Serm. pag. 5. Pelagius the first, saying: Holy Scripture commandeth us to be subjects to Kings. That Epistle of Pelagius is written to Childebert King of France, as to his Son, for so he styleth him, and declareth to him, that the holy Scripture commandeth subjects to obey their Princes; which all Catholics believe, and teach as a doctrine of faith. But where doth the Scripture command Popes to yield subjection to Princes in Ecclesiastical affairs? Or where doth it command them, since they have stays of their own, to yield temporal subjection to other Princes? Your Argument therefore is impertinent. 7. You allege (d) Impost. pag. 179. Ser. pag. 5. Martin the first, praying the Emperor to vouchsafe to read his letters. The Epistle is not of Martin alone, but of the whole Roman Synod, which having condemned the Monothelites, sent their decrees to Constans the Emperor, desiring, and exhorting him for his confirmation in the Catholic faith, to read them attentively, & by his Laws condemn, and publicly declare the Monothelites to be heretics. Can there be a more childish illation, then to infer from hence, that Martin acknowledged himself subject to the Emperor? If a Provincial Synod gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, should send the like instruction to a Peer of this Realm, his spiritual subject, exhorting him to read it, would it therefore follow, that the Archbishop did acknowledge himself subject to that Peer? Who then seethe not your arguing to be trifling? 8. You say (e) Impost. pag. 179. serm. pag. 5. , Adrian the first devoted himself to the Emperor by letters, as one in supplication fallen down prostrate at the soles of his feet. O Imposture! Adrian writ that Epistle to Constantine, and Irene his Mother, against the Image-breakers, heretics of that time, whose heirs you are. And having proved effectually out of Scriptures, and Fathers, the veneration due to sacred Images, with all love, as if he were at Constantinople present with them, and prostrate at their feet, beseecheth and requireth them before God, and coniureth them (for so are his words which you altar and mangle) that renouncing, and detesting the craft of those wicked heretics, they would cause the sacred Images to be restored, and set up again in the Churches of Constantinople, and of all Greece, to the end, they might be received into the unity of the holy Catholic, Apostolic, and irreprehensible Roman Church. But that it may appear how you abuse your readers, and hearers, inferring from hence, that Adrian acknowledged subjection to the Emperor, it is to be observed, that in that very Epistle, he often calleth Constantine, and Irene, His believed children, and exhorteth them by the examples of Constantine the great, Helena his Mother, and the rest of the Orthodox Emperors, to exalt, honour, and reverence the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, as their spiritual Mother, from which all Churches have received the documents of Faith, to embrace her doctrine, to admit of her censure, to love, honour, and reverence the Successor of S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, to whom our Saviour gave the keys of heaven, with power to bind and lose on earth. And as he having received from Christ, the principality of the Apostleship, and pastoral charge, sat first in the Apostolic See; so by commandment from God, he left it, with all the power and authority that Christ had given to him, to his Successors for ever: and therefore, that the sacred Scripture declareth of how great dignity that chief See is, and how great Veneration is due unto it from all faithful, throughout the world. So Adrian, as if he had written purposely to show your lack of judgement and honesty, that would adventure to produce his Epistle as a selected Argument against the supreme authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome, and vent it for such both in your Imposture, and again in your late Sermon before his Majesty. And not unlike to this is an other objection you make (f) Impost. pag. 179. serm. pag. 5. out of an Epistle of Agatho Pope, to Constantine in the sixth Council general. 9 You cull certain Latin words out of two Epistles of S. Gregory the great, and patching them up into one English sentence, adding to them, these two adiectives of your own, Vestris and Vestrae, you make him say: As for me, I perform obedience unto your commands, whereunto I am subject. Both the Epistles out of which you botch up this sentence, are written to Mauritius, who though he were a Catholic Emperor, yet S. Gregory sticketh not to compare him to Nero and Dioclesian, and reprehendeth him sharply, for his tyrannising over the Roman Church, the Head of all Churches, and seeking to subject her to his earthly power, against the commandment of Christ, who committed his Church to S. Peter, when he gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The one of those Epistles he writeth against the arrogancy of john Patriarch of Constantinople, styling himself Universal Bishop. And as he praiseth Mauritius for desiring the peace of the Church, to hinder the garboils of wars, and in the procuring thereof professeth himself ready to obey his commands; so he reprehendeth him for not repressing the pride of john, whereby not he alone, but the peace of the whole Church, was disturbed. And if in the other, he also professed obedience to the same Emperor, it was only in temporal affairs, and because with humble and submissive words, he sought to work him to his own good, whom he could not dissuade, nor otherwise hinder from publishing an injust Law, whereby he prohibited soldiers, and all such, as had been employed in public accounts of the Common wealth, to become Monks. And therefore in one of the Epistles, which you object (g) Pag. 179. & 234. , he declareth to the Emperor, that he used not his Episcopal authority, nor speaketh in the right of the Common wealth, but writeth as a private person: yet adding that he stood greatly astonished at such a Law, because it did shut up the way to heaven unto many. Wherefore he dealt earnestly with him to abrogate the Law, or else permit it to be moderated so, that it might stand without prejudice to Christian liberty. Whereunto the Emperor at length yielded, as S. Gregory declareth, saying (h) L. 7. ep. 11. indict. 1. : Qua de re Serenissimus & Christiantssimus Imperator omnimodò placatur: concerning which matter, our most Clement and most Christian Emperor is wholly pleased. And therefore S. Gregory having corrected the Law, and reduced it to a reasonable lawfulness, and temperate moderation, to wit, that they which had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth, and desired to become Monks, should not be received until they had given up their accounts, and obtained public discharge for the same: and that soldiers should not be admitted to Monastical habit, until they had ended three years of probation in their secular apparel. Wherefore though S. Gregory yielded to publish the Law, yet withal he shown his Pastoral power, and care, in limiting and moderating the Emperor's law, according to the law of God. Which if you had not concealed, the futility of your objection would have been apparent to every reader. But you say (i) Impost. pag. 179. , Hear we are arrested by your Cardinal, in the name of this Pope Gregory, from his Deeree, concerning the Monastery of Medardus, enjoining, that whatsoever secular Prince should violate that same Decree, should forthwith he deprived of his honour. As if this one Act of this only Pope were so authentic, and of so sufficient authority in itself, as to be made a Precedene for ever, unto all Popes of succeeding ages. I dispute not of what authority this Act of S. Gregory is: my intention only is to discover your imposture: for Bellarmine in that very place which you mention (k) Cont. Barcla. c. 40. , & again before in the same book, (l) Cap. 8. doth not only urge this one Act of S. Gregory, but also another, & that in words more effectual, which the same S. Gregory granted at the in treaty of Brunichild & Theodoricus, whom he calleth The most excellent Kings his children. This decree you thought best to pass over in silence, because it is without all exception, and to persuade your reader, that Bellarmine mentioneth only the former which is sufficiently vindicated from Doctor james his Cavils. which here you oppose, by the authority of Gregory the seaventh, a most holy and learned Pope, who living almost 600. years nearer S. Gregory's ●i●●e, than Doctor james or yourself, allegeth this decree as his, whole therefore undoubtedly it is. Your railing against Gregory the feaventh I omit, as not deserving an answer. SECT. III. Other Fathers and Catholic authors objected by Doctor Morton. FIrst you object (m) Serm. pag. 6. Impost. pag. 282. : When the Archbishop of Sens in France challenged the privilege of immunity from all subjection to the King, he was encountered by S. Bernard, and arrested by virtue of this Canon, Omnis anima, saying: Forget you what is written? Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Qui te tentatexcipere, tentat decipere. i. He that seeks to exempt, doth but labour to delude and seduce you. O strange imposture! O insufferable boldness! By what authority do you presume to rake up the ashes of a holy Archbishop deceased 500 years since, and slander him, with challenging immunity from all subjection to the King, as well in temporal, as in spiritual affairs? for immunity from all subjection importeth as well the one, as the other. Is there mention of any such challenge in S. Bernard's epistle? No. It is a tale framed on your finger's ends, that you may make S. Bernard reprehend the Archbishop for a fault of which you without any ground are pleased to accuse him, and father on us that doctrine of Disobedience to Princes, which we condemn and detest. But I see not, how you agree with yourself: for in your Grand imposture, you object S. Bernard's words, as a reprehension to Popes, for not obeying Princes: but in your Sermon, you produce the same words, as a reprehension not to Popes, but to the Archbishop of Sens; neither the one, nor the other being true, but inventions of your own, to slander the Archbishop, and the Popes, and to make S. Bernard guilty of the same fault. The Archbishop of Sens having in great esteem the wisdom, learning, and sanctity of S. Bernard, required some spiritual documents from him, as S. Bernard in the beginning of his Epistle (n) Ep. 4●. declareth; adding on the one side, his unworthiness to write unto so great a Prelate, and on the other, the fear he had not to obey his commands. Wherefore yielding to his command, he writ along epistle, in which having discoursed at large, of Chastity, and Charity, two singular ornaments of Priestly dignity, he addeth the third. which is, Humility, reprehending the pride of Clergy men, that having obtained one place, still aspire to others of greater dignity: & not contented with one, they strive to load themselves with many honours at once; all which yet they will part with, for one Bishopric. Nor will they rest there, but factus Episcopus, Archiepiscopus esse desiderat, he that is made a Bishop desireth to pass from a Bishopric, to an Archbishopric. And then turning his speech to the Archbishop of Sens, to whom he writeth, & to other Ecclesiastical Prelates, he exhorteth him & them to Humility and Obedience, saying: securè praeesse possitis, subesse & ves, si cui debetis, non dedignement. That you may command securely disdain not to yield obedience, if to any you own it. And to this purpose he bringeth those words of the Apostle, Omnis anima etc. If every soul be subject, yours also: Who seeks to exempt you from all? If any one seek to exempt you, he seeketh to deceive you. This is S. Bernard's drift, and discourse. And can you infer from hence, that the Archbishop of Sens denied Obedience to the King, in temporal affairs, or that S. Bernard subiecteth the Papal dignity to the Regal? Yes: for presently after (say you (o) Impost. pag. 182. ) the same Father applieth the same Doctrine to the Popes themselves. How prove you this? Out of these words of S. Bernard: Sunt qui dicunt; Audite Pontifices, seruate honorem etc. sed aliter Christus; Reddite Caesari etc. There are that say, Hear O ye Popes, Maintain your honour: But Christ said otherwise, Yield to Cesar etc. So you, but most falsely: for, Audite Pontifices, are not S. Bernard's words, but forged and thrust into his text by yourself. 2. If they were his, your illation were vain: for Pontifex is not necessarily taken for the Pope, without the addition of Summus, or, Maximus. 3. Yea S. Bernard out of those words, as he exhorteth those that own tribute to Cesar to pay it; so he inferreth that if Christ would have secular powers to be obeyed, much more would he have the Ecclesiastical, and that they who are sedulous, and careful in the affairs of Kings, ought much more to be subject cuicunque Christ's Vicario, to whatsoever Vicar of Christ, and chief to the Pope, his supreme Vicar on earth, as he writ to Conradus the Emperor, teaching him (p) Ep. 183. to obey the See Apostolic, out of this very text, Omnis anima, which you produce for the contrary. 2. You object (q) Impost. pag. 175. serm. pag. 36. S. Ambrose, saying, That his prayers and his tears were his weapons, and that he neither might, nor could make any other resistance. If S. Ambrose said so, it was to show, that when Emperors use secular forces, against the Priests of their dominions, Priests being no soldiers, must not defend themselves by the sword, but by tears, and prayers to God. But that S. Ambrose knew himself to have beside tears, and prayers, spiritual power, he shown, when he excommunicated. Theodosius the great, and first Emperor of that name. And Theodosius acknowledged this power in S. Ambrose, obeying with all humility, and performing the penance enjoined him. 3. You object (r) Impost. pag. 175 serm. pag. 19.36. Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and S. Gregory Nazianzen, professing, that Christians do not take revenge against the injust violence of their enemies. We follow and embrace their doctrine: for what Catholic Divine ever taught revenge, or rebellion to be lawful? If any teach or practise otherwise, we abjure their doctrine, as heretical, & hate their practice, as damnable. SECT. iv Doctor Morton slandereth Vrban Pope, and with him all Catholics. ARguments failing (for what hitherto you have produced are nothing but falsifications and untruths) you break forth into such intemperate railing (s) Impost. pag. 177. ser. pag. 28. , that I disdain to pass it under my pen: and I suppose, that every honest minded reader, though never so zealous a Protestant, will be ashamed to see such venom, together with so shameful untruths, to fall from the mouth of a man of your years: especially, since what here you writ, hath no other ground, but your unconscionable slandering of Vrban the second (whom you nickname Turbane (t) Serm. pag. ●9. as if by a Rescript of his, he had authorized Assassins to invade & kill excommunicated persons at their pleasure. The case is this. Certain lewd and dissolute Clergy men excommunicated by the Church, took arms, & were ●laine in the field in a battle fought between the sacrilegious Emperor Henry the fourth, and Eghert Marquis of Saxony. Vrban being consulted, declared the soldiers that killed them, not to be murderers, nor to have incurred the sentence of excommunication, pronounced against such, as lay violent hands on Clergymen. From whence it followeth, that it is no sin to kill excommunicated persons (be they Priests or other ecclesiastics) in a just war, and when they invade our lives. But your inference, that it is lawful for any man to kill excommunicated persons by Assassins, or any other way by his own private authority, is not allowed by Vrban, nor asserted by any Catholic Divine, but an Imposture of yours, to enrage the minds of Protestants against Catholics. Yea to show your Imposture, Innocentius the fourth, and the whole Church assembled in the general Council of Lions, have ordained Excommunication, and other most grievous punishments, for all persons whatsoever, that shall murder, or go about to murder any one by Assassins. The decree is extant in the Canon Law, which I shall set down, to the end, the reader may see your dealing, and learn never to credit your words hereafter. Whereas (saith Innocentius) (u) Sext. Decret. de homicide. tit. 4. they that with such horrible inhumanity, and barbarous cruelty, so thirst after the death of others, as that they cause them to be slain by Assassins, procure not only the death of their bodies, but also of their souls (if they be not fenced with abundant grace of God, as with spiritual armour) etc. We being desirous to prevent so great a danger of souls, and to beat down such impious presumptions with the sword of Ecclesiastical censure, to the end that fear of punishment may be a stop to so great audaciousness, ordain with the approbation of the holy Council, that whatsoever Prince, Prelate, or other Ecclesiastical, or secular person, shall cause, or command any Christian to be killed by assassins, although death follow not thereby, or that shall receive, defend, or conceal them, do, ipso facto, incurre the sentences of Excommunication, and deposition from his dignity, honour, order, office, or benefice, which therefore may freely be conferred an others by them, to whom the gift of these things belongeth. And let him with all his worldly goods, as an enemy to Christian religion, be cast out for ever, from among Christian people. And if sufficient proof he made against any one, that he hath committed so execrable a wickedness, let no other sentence of Excommunication, deposition, or dissidation against him be required. This is the decree of Innocentius, and of the whole Church assembled in the general Council of Lions. Nor is it any obscure thing, but a Canon published and inserted in form of a Law, into the Decretals of the Roman Church, Go now, and rail against the Pope for quitting the consciences of them, that shall kill others by Assassins. Tell us: Can the Church possibly device any punishments more grievous for any malefactors, then these which she inflicteth on all them, that shall either kill, or endeavour to kill others by Assassins, although the effect follow not? Doth she grant any exemption from these punishments to them that shall kill excommunicated persons? Is not the Decree general, and in favour of all men, without exception, aswell Heretics, and Schismatics, as Catholics? And as well excommunicate, as not excommunicate? Let the reader then judge of your conscience, what censure you deserve for slandering Vrban Pope, as allowing the murder of excommunicated persons by Assasines. SECT. V Doctor Morton objecteth the Bull of Maunday Thursday. TO make good your slanderous doctrine of our allowing excommunicated persons to be murdered by Assassins, you say (x) Impost. pag. 177. sermon. pag. 30. : Go you now, and complain, that you are unjustly persecuted, or banished by Protestants out of several Kingdoms, when as, they are all yearly excommunicate at Rome for Heretics, and Schismatics by the Bull of Maundy thursday, & consequently made obnoxious unto the blind devotion of every Romish bloody assassin, who may be persuaded that he shall merit of God, by the slaying of those supposed Schismatics. Two things may here be questioned: the one, whether heretics are to be excommunicated: the other, whether Protestants be comprehended in the number of heretics excommunicated in the Bull of Maundy Thursday. What your opinion is concerning the former, I know not: but I know, the practice of the Catholic Church hath ever been, to excommunicate Heretics. Why else did she in her Primitive times. Excommunicate the Arians in the Council of Nice? the Eunomians in the first of Constantinople? the Nestorians in that of Ephesus? the Eutychians in that of Chalcedon? and others in other Counsels? Again, I know, that the Church hath learned this from Christ, commanding (y) Math. 18.18. , that he who being thrice warned, will not bear the Church, be to us as the Heathen, and the Publican. I know that S. Paul hath said (z) Tit. 3.10. : Avoid a man that is an heretic, after the first, and second admonition. And again (a) 2. Cor. 6.14. : what participation hath justice with iniquity? or what society is there between light and darkness? and what agreement with Christ, and belial? or what part hath the faithful, with the Infidel? I know that S. john speaking of an heretic saith (b) Ep. 2. vers. 10. : If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say unto him God save you: for he that saith unto him, God save you, communicateth with his wicked works. Wherefore it cannot be denied, but that the now Church of Rome in excommunicating heretics, doth nothing, but what Christ, and his blessed Apostles have commanded, and what the primitive Church, and Counsels have taught her to do. But then the second question is, who be heretics, and who not? S. Augustine (c) De utilit. credendi c. 1. distinguisheth between an heretic, and, one that believeth heretics. An heretic he defineth (d) De civet. Dei l. 18. c. 51. to be one, that under the name of a Christian, professeth obstinately erroneous doctrine in matter of Faith. For my part, I cannot conceive, but that this definition adequately agreeth to Doctor Morton: for you not only maintain erroneous Tenets in matter of faith; but are so wilfully obstinate therein, that having been heretofore often admonished and evidently convinced by Catholic writers, of your shameful over-lashing, as also of your corrupting the Fathers, Counsels, & other writers, in proof of those your Tenets, you still hold on the same course in your Grand Imposture, and other your later writings, to your own shame, and the great discredit of your cause; which if it were good, needed not such juggling to defend it. But the greatest part of Protestants, either wanting learning, or means to examine the truth of points in controversy, and thinking you not to be only learned, but also sincere in delivering the truth unto them, (which I know you not to be) simply give credit to you, and such as you are, and think they may safely embrace your doctrine, and rely upon your word: They (I say) are not Heretics, but men deceived and misled by heretics, or to use S. Augustine's phrase (e) De vtil. creden. c. ●. , Credentes haereticis, men that believe heretics, and therefore are not comprehended in the excommunication of Bulla cana, which is pronounced against such only, as by reason of their wilful obstinacy, are true and formal heretics, or as S. Paul saith (f) Tit. 3.11. , that sin, being subverted, and condemned by their own judgement. I deny not, but that many of these men, being of excellent judgement, and understanding, may, by what they have heard, or read, have just reason to doubt of the truth of Protestancy: and therefore if such out of sloth and carelessness, or for fear of dishonour, and disesteem in the eyes of the world, or of temporal lostes, and troubles they see Catholics exposed unto, omit to examine the truth, I know not how to excuse them from culpable negligence in the most important affair of their salvation, which without true faith cannot be achieved. SECT. VI Other slanderous accusations of Doctor Morton answered. YOur good will to Catholics makes you rake up in your Sermon, and Imposture, all the examples you can call to mind, to make them hateful 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 unadvised headlong gentlemen were guilty, yet other Catholics were freed from the guilt thereof, by the long and exquisite search of justice, made for the discovery of all partakers therein; as also by the confessions of those unfortunate gentlemen themselves, who being strictly, severally, and often examined, constantly professed, that no man else was guilty of their design, nor privy to their intentions, but they only, whose names were already given up to the State. And finally the Protestant Minister, Author of the book entitled, Triplici node, triplex cuneus, testifieth (h) Pag. 2. that our late Sovereign King james, of famous memory (by whose allowance, or rather appointment that book was written) did not hold other Catholics guilty of that damnable plot, as indeed they were not. The equity of his Majesty (saith he) is such, as he professed in his Proclamation, and Parliament speech, that he would not use other Catholics the worse for that; which showeth that he held them guiltless. All this being true, as it is, how comes it to pass, that you make no end of up brayding and defaming all Catholics with this action? of exprobrating to an infinite number of innocent, that, of which a few nocent were guilty? of slandering them with this design that had no part in it, many of them being not borne when the thing passed? or if borne not capable of such designs? or if capable, yet abhorred the same as much, if not more than yourself? If I were disposed to deal with you, by the art of Retorsion, which manner of Argument you often use against us, in this your Grand Imposture, I could tell you, of your Protestant brethren, that in our days at Antwerp they placed a whole bark of gunpowder in the vaulted great street of that City, to blow up the Prince of Parma with his Nobility and commanders of war, being to pass that way. I could tell you, of another zealous brother in Hage, that would have blown up the Statehouse with the whole Counsel of Holland upon private revenge. And I could tell you, that at Edenbrough in Scotland, the like train of powder was laid for the cruel murder of our gracious Majesty's Grandfather, which not succeeding, hindeath was archieued by another no less bloody, and barbarous violence. Would you think 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 therefore if I impute to you, lack of that equity and conscience, science, which ought to shine in a man of your rank, as in a pattern, not only of moral honesty, but also of civil, & courteous behaviour. With like prejudice of conscience, you upbraid us with the Massacre of Paris (i) Impost. pag. 405. , to which not we, but your good Brethren, the Huguenors of France, by their Traitorous plots gave occasion, and therefore are justly censured, as the true Authors thereof. In the year 1572. August 23. Colligni the Admiral of France, a most wicked man, and firebrand of the Huguenots in that kingdom, being wounded in both his hands, and one of his arms, with a Musket discharged out of a house in Paris, Charles the ninth then King of France, being greatly offended thereat, used all diligence, to find out the malefactor, and not only sent often messengers to the Admiral, to understand of his health, but went himself in person, with the Queen his wife, his Mother, and his brethren, to visit & comfort him, promising to punish the malefactor severely, according to his deserts, if he could be discovered. Nevertheless the Admiral suspecting without ground, that he had been wounded by the King's appointment, entered into private Counsel with the King of N●uarre (then newly married to Margaret sister to the French King) with Prince Conden, and other his confederates, plotting traitorously with them, to kill the King, the Queen his wife, his Mother, and brethren, and so at one blow to cut of the whole family, and proclaim the King of Navarre, King of France; appointing withal, what Navarre himself, what Conden, what Captain Pilie, and what Montgomery his associates were to do, and what passages to take, for the effecting of this his treacherous design. Which being disclosed by some that were privy unto it, the King out of hand called to him the King of Navarre, and Conden, who confessing the plot, and ask pardon, obtained it. But because delays were dangerous in a case, wherein the life of the King, and of many other Princes, with the destruction and ruin of the whole Kingdom did run so great hazard, the Admiral by his command was killed the next day, in his own house: and the Citizens of Paris, breaking into the houses of Huguenots killed many of them. The like they did at Lions, Rouen, Orleans, and divers other places. This is the history of the Massacre of Paris, reported by Surius (k) Comment. rerum in or be guessed. anno 1572. , out of the relation printed at Paris, and out of the King of France his letters, written with his own hand, to the Princes of Germany. Which though it be a lively expession of the barbarous cruelty of your French brethren, yet they are not ashamed in their printed books, to revile the most Christian King, and exaggerate his cruelty for this facts; when as they (witness Surius) (l) Ibid. in the space of a few years, by their own private authority, without, and contrary to all order of Law, have murdered many thousand Catholics in France, and would peradventure rejoice, if by their hands, the King had likewise dispatched all the rest. And what your love to the Catholics of England is, these objections are a sufficient testimony, which serve for nothing else, but to exasperate the King, and State against them. SECT. VII. The same matter prosecuted. YOu go on, objecting (m) Pag. 172. 176. Tolosanus a Lawyer, who writeth, He had not read in any history, that for the space of 300. years after Christ, Christians ever rebelled against Kings, or plotted against their government; which Barklay extendeth to a longer time of 1000 years. We join with Tolosanus, & Barklay therein. And if any Christians before, or after those times, have rebelled, or held it lawful to rebel, against their Sovereigns, we disclaim from them, as from furies, and plagues of the Christian Common wealth: We detest their Doctrine, as impious, and heartily wish, that all your new Reformers, and some others more ancient, not unlike to them, and well liked of by you, were of the same mind: for who knoweth not, that Wickliff a predecessor to you in many points of your doctrine, and a Foxian Saint (n) januar. 2. , teacheth, that if a Prince govern ill, or fall into sin, he is no longer a Prince, but that his subjects may take arms against him, and punish him at their pleasure? Who hath not heard of Luther's Doctrine, in his Articles condemned by the Catholic Church (o) In bulla Leonis 10. , that Christians are free & exempted from all Prince's Laws; and that thereupon immediately followed in Germany, that tumultuous rebellion of the Peasants against their Lords, wherein were slain above an hundred thousand (p) Sur●is Comment. rerum in or be guessed. anno. 1525. ? And who is ignorant of Caluins' Doctrine, that Prince's Laws oblige not in conscience, but only for external and temporal respects (r) L. 4. instit. c. 10. §. 5. ? You (I know) have laboured to excuse him from these, and other seditious Tenets: But I likewise know, that Brerely hath truly told you (s) Prot. Apol. praefa. sect. 11. , that, your excuse consisteth upon violent comparing of phrases, unworthy your judgement, unworthy your learning, & unworthy of reply thereto. Caluins' words are (t) In Daniel. c. 6. vers. 22.25. Apud Brerel. cit. . Abdicant se potestate terrent Principes, dum insurgunt contra Deum etc. Earthly Princes do bereave themselves of authority, when they erect themselves against God: They are unworthy to be accounted in the number of men, and we must rather spit upon their faces then obey them. Can these words admit any gloss? Are they not evidently seditious? Doth not Doctor Wilkes (u) Brereley. ibid. object them to the Puritans, as such? They were (saith he (x) Brereley ibid. your Teachers, who account those Princes who are not refined by their spirit, unworthy to be accounted amongst the number of men, and therefore rather to be spitted upon then obeyed. They were your Teachers, who defend rebellion against Princes of a different Religion etc. But what need have we of Caluins, or his brethren's words, when we have the unanswearable proof of his deeds? Doth not M. Sutcliffe confess (y) Brereley ibid. sect. 11. , that they of Geneva (at the instigation of Caluin and Farellus) deposed their Liege Lord, and Prince, from his temporal right, albeit he was by right of succession the temporal Lord, and owner of that City, & territory? And doth not M. Bancroft speaking of the chief Ministers of Geneva (which were Caluin, Farellus, and Beza) say (z) Brereley ibid. : It hath been a principle with them, that if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion, the inferior Magistrates, or people, by direction of the Ministry, may lawfully, and aught, if need require, even by force, and arms, to reform it themselves? From whence, but from these Principles, have Caluin, Beza, and other their Successors to this day convinced the same unlawful usurpation? And to come nearer home, did not King james of famous memory in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, complain (a) L. 2. c. 40. & 41. of the perturbation and confusion of the kingdom of Scotland, wrought by the fiery spirits of your Ministers; & in particular of the calamities brought upon his Grandmother and Mother by them, and of their seditious plots against himself in his young age? And from whence, did the late rebels of Scotland learn their lesson, but out of the same School, and from the same Masters? Do not you acknowledge (b) Serm. pag. 38. , that they defend their rising in arms against his Majesty, by the authority of Luther, Caluin, and Beza? I know your pretend to quit them from that imputation: but the Scots were to conversant with their doctrine, not to understand it. And besides what hath been said, it were easy, if worth the labour, to show, that notwithstanding your defence of their innocency, all the water of the Ocean is not able to wash them clean from the filth of those doctrines. But if you please to be further satisfied in this point read M. Parison (c) Monarchomachia per tot. , Breerley, (d) Prot. Apol. praef. tot. and Endaemon joannes (e) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. , who set down so many particulars of the acknowledged doctrines and practices of Protestants in that kind, in the express words of your own writers, that impudence itself cannot gainsay them. And as it is certain, that you can never free your brethren from these doctrines, so it is no less, that you charge Catholics falsely with the same: for who knoweth not the constant doctrine of all our Divines to be, that rebellion of subjects against their Liege Lords and Sovereigns is unlawful in any case, in any occasion, under any pretence, or to any end whatsoever? This is taught by the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas of Aquine, not in one, but in many places of his works. This is the doctrine of Caietan, of Sotus, Valentia, Bellarmine, Tolet, Serarius, Becanus, Richeome Salmeron, Lessius, Gretserus, Hessius, Eudaemon joannes, and in a word of all Catholic Divines (f) Of this see Patison pag. 367. and Eudaemon joan. Parallel. Torti ac Tortoris. c. 5 pag. 224. & seqq. . This they prove out of the holy Scripture, out of S. Augustine, out of the practice of the Catholic Church, and that with solid and forcible reasons (g) See Valent. in 212 d. 5. q. 8. punct. 3. . But you tell us (h) Serm. pag. 24. of a principle of ours, That subjects must obey, whiles they cannot resist. In proof of this, you allege (i) Serm. p. 35. Alane, In his moderate defence; but you neither mention any words of his, nor any Chapter in particular: and with good reason; for Alane hath no such doctrine. You produce (k) Serm. pag. 24. Creswell in his Philopater, and Bellarmine. The one, you slander falsely: The other, you understand not, or else (which I fear) wittingly misconstrue his meaning. For Creswell Eudaemon joannes (l) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 3. pag. 58. hath made answer long since, to Sir Edward Cook, who cited Creswell in his Philopater, as you do, borrowing your objection from him. The answer is (and of certain knowledge, I know it to be true) that, you temerariously vent the fictions of your own brain, for truths. Philopater was not Creswell: He never writ any such book. And whoever Philopater was, the book is of a competent bulk, and you cite out of it some nine or ten words cut off from the frame of their contexture, divided into two different sentences, and this also at random: for the book being divided into Chapters, and the Chapters into numbers, you neither specify Chapter, nor number; which if you had done, Philopater, might have spoken for himself, and shown the wrong you do him. And no less is the injury you offer to Bellarmine (m) Serm. pag. 24. . His opinion is, that the Church had authority to depose Nero, Dioclesian, or other heathenish Tyrants, that persecuted Christ, but did prudently abstain from the use thereof: for wanting forces, the use of her authority could no way avail Christians, but give occasion of raising greater storms of persecution against them. Which opinion of his cannot quit you from accusing, & slandering him wrongfully: for doth he ever say, or insinuate, that those Emperors were not lawful Princes? or that they being so, it was lawful for Christians, or any other their subjects, to rebel against them? This is the Doctrine you impute to him, and this you should have proved to be his, but cannot, & therefore change the state of the Question, to father on him, the seditious Doctrine of your Lutheran, and Caluinian brethren, and to suggest to his Majesty, that the Scots have learned the Principles of their rebellion from us, which by their own confession (n) Serm pag. 38. they profess to have learned from Luther, Caluin, and Beza. Lastly, as I have admonished you, of slandering Vrbane Pope, and other Catholics, so must I advertise you of the like wrong done to Garnet the jesuit, whom (say you (o) Serm. Ibid. I knew at his arraignment to confess, that he heard of the powder-treason out of Confession. Belike, you knew it, by hear-say, from some one that was deaf; or if he were not deaf, made no scruple of lying: for no man that was present, and had his hearing, would be so shameless, as to say he heard him confess that, which it is certain, he never spoke, but directly the contrary, and took it upon his death; which may yet be proved by the attestation of so many, and such witnesses, that if it were as free, for Garnets' friends and kinsfolks, to sue you with an action of slander, as it is free for you with controlment, to write your pleasure against them, that have not freedom to answer for themselves, your accusation of Garnet, would prove aswell to your cost, as to your shame you confesse (p) Ibid. , that, at his death he publicly exhorted the Romish professors, to avoid all acts of treason. And it is no less certain, that in his life time, he never taught other Doctrine: & that when he heard of that damnable plot in Confession, he enjoined him, of whom he heard it, to use his uttermost endeavour, to dissuade, and hinder it: yea moreover (as Eudaemon joannes (q) Apol. pro Henr. Garn. c. 1. pag. 8. 9 reporteth from relation of them that had best means to know the truth) the very hearing of it in Confession, was so great a torment to his mind, that he could not sleep, nor take any rest for many days, and that with prayers and sacrifices he did beg of the divine goodness most earnestly, to provide some remedy for so execrable a design, which he could not disclose to the Magistrates without violating the seule of Sacramental secrecy, which Christ himself hath commanded to be kept inviolable. I conclude therefore that Garnet, Cardinal Alane, Bellarmine, Creswell, and other Catholics, whom you defame with false accusations, are in the number of them, of whom our Saviour said (r) Math. 5.11.12. . Blessed are ye, when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that naught is, against you untruly, for my sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. CHAP. XXXIV. Doctor Mortons' doctrine condemneth the Saints, and Martyrs of God. HAVING now gone through your Sermon preached to his Majesty, out of your grand Imposture, I return to the continuance of my answer to the same Imposture. You had before objected some Fathers, and having parted with them long since, now after many Chapters, you come to scrape acquaintance with some of them again. But their Doctrine is to ancient, to have any commerce with your Novelties. SECT. I. S. Polycarpe objected by Doctor Morton. YOu begin your twelfth Chapter opposing (s) Pag. 183. , that S. Polycarpe going to Rome, in time of Anicetus Pope, to consult with him about the celebration of Easter, would not yield to forsake the Asian custom contrary to that of the Roman Church: and yet nevertheless, Anicetus and Polycarpe, did still communicate with each other. True, but if the Asian custom had been then condemned by the Church, and the maintainers thereof anathematised as heretics, as afterwards they were by Victor Pope, and the holy Council of Nice, Anicetus would not have held Polycarpe in his communion, unless he had forsaken the Asian custom, and conformed himself to the Roman, practised by all other Churches in the world. Nor would Polycarpe have stood out in defence of the Asian custom, had he not seen, that Anicetus (though he misliked it, yet) did not condemn it, but permit him still the practice thereof until the Church defined otherwise. Which Anicetus did, being desirous to give him all content, for the great reverence due unto him, as well for his years, as also because he had been disciple to S. john Evangelist, and was then actually Bishop of Smyrna a principal Church of Asia. But how great reverence Polycarpe bare to Anicetus, and to the Church of Rome, appeareth in this, that being a person of so great dignity, and very aged, he undertake so long, so laborious, and so dangerous a journey, to declare unto Anicetus, the reasons of his persisting in the Asian custom; which if Anicetus had then condemned, it is not to be doubted, but that Polycarpe would have departed from it, as all orthodox Bishops did when they saw it condemned by the Church, and the defenders of it declared to be heretics. SECT II. S. Cyprian objected by Doctor Morton. TO prove that Cyprian believed not any necessity of union with the Roman Church, you repeat here (t) Pag. 185.188. what you had said before, of his being excommunicated by Pope Stephen, & contemning the excommunication: for which you bring no other proof, than the testimony of Cassander, an heretic Primae classis, whose works you know to be forbidden, and yet shame not to cite him as a Catholic author, that you may call his lies, Our confessions; for that they be lies, I have already proved (u) Chap. 24. . And so much the more reprovable you are, because S. Cyprians testimonies, which show him to have believed the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, and all that are divided from her, to be Schismatics, you shift off (x) Pag. 186. , with an answer of Goulartius, that Cyprian spoke them of his own only authority against Schismatics▪ who troubled his jurisdiction. Which to be a false, and unconscionable answer, you, and your Goulartius may learn from the Centurists, who reprehend S. Cyprian (y) Brerel. Protest. Apol. tract. 1. sect. 3. subdiu. 10. , for teaching, that our Lord hath built his Church upon Peter; that one Chair by our Lord's voice is built upon Peter, as upon a Rock; that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church; & for calling Peter's chair, the principal Church, from whence Sacerdotal unity is derived; and for teaching, that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all others, the Mother, and Root of the Catholic Church. To these testimonies, acknowledged by the Centurists, I add, that Cyprian (z) L. 4. ep. 2. exhorteth Antonianus in time of Schism, to adhere to the Pope, and hold fast his communion, that is (saith he) the communion of the Catholic Church, and expressly affirmeth (a) L. de Vnit. Eccles. , that, Whoever resisteth the Chair of Peter, nether holdeth the faith, nor is in the Church. And speaking of some certain heretics, he objecteth unto them their great boldness, in presuming to sail to the chair of Peter, and the principal Church, from whence Sacerdotal unity is derived, not considering that the Romans are they▪ whose faith was praised by the voice of the Apostle, and to whom perfidiousness can have no access. To this you answer (b) Pag. 186. : No Father of the primitive times is more urged by you, than S. Cyprian; no Epistle more insisted upon, than this; no words more inculcated, than these; and (we may add) no Father, no epistle, no sentence more egregiously abused and perverted: for he speaketh not of perfidiousness in doctrine, but only in discipline, by the false and perfidious reports of schismatical fellows etc. If this sentence of S. Cyprian be perverted, not we, but you pervert it. And so it will appear to any impartial judge, that shall read the words, not cut short, as you rehearse them (that the sense may not be understood) but entire, as I have set them down. The Novatians were not only Schismatics, but heretics, as S. Cyprian in that epistle, & else where often, calleth them. And in the words alleged, when he opposeth their perfidiousness to the Roman faith commended by the Apostle, by perfidiousness he understandeth error in doctrine, or misbelief, which is oposite to faith, not perfidiousness in discipline, for that hath no opposition at all with faith. Wherefore he reprehendeth the Novatians, that having not only divided themselves by schism, from the chair of S. Peter, which is the principal Church from whence sacerdotal unity is derived, but also forsaken the Roman faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle, they dare notwithstanding presume to sail to Rome, in hope to deceive that Church, and get their doctrine approved by her, not considering, that the Romans are they, whose faith being praised by the Apostle, misbelief can have no access to them. Which doctrine S. Hierome seemeth to have taken from this place of Cyprian, when speaking to Ruffinus, he saith (c) Apol. advers. Ruffin. l. 1. : Know that the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle, admitteth no delusions, and that being fenced by S. Paul's authority, it cannot be altered etc. SECT. III. S. Athanasius objected by Doctor Morton. THat S. Athanasius believed not the necessity of union and subjection to the Roman Church, you prove (d) Pag. 190. , for that being excommunicated by Liberius Pope, he regarded not his excommunication. This we deny: It is peradventure true though not altogether certain (e) Onuphr in Not ad Plati. Ruffin. l. 1. hist●c. 27. Sozom. l. 4. c. 14. , that Liberius wearied out with two year's banishment, and other vexations by Constantius the Arian Emperor, yielded to sign the condemnation of Athanasius, and entered into communion with the Arians, and thereby became a Schismatic. But that he excommunicated Athanasius, is not reported by any writer: nor is it true, but a fiction of yours. And were it true, the excommunication had not only been injust, as being pronounced against an innocent person, (and therefore no way obligatory) but also invalid; for as much, as Liberius by forsaking the communion of Catholics, and entering into communion with heretics, was fallen from his Papacy, and had no power to pronounce excommunication against Athanasius: or if he had pronounced it, Athanasius had not been bound to obey. To prove, that Athanasius regarded not the excommunication of the B. of Rome, you should have proved that while Liberius was true Pope, he excommunicated Athanasius, and that Athanasius refused to obey; which you prove not, and therefore your objection is impertinent, and your assertion false. For who knoweth not, that Athanasius acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman Church, when being cast out of his Bishopric, he appealed to julius' Pope, and julius by the dignity and prerogative of the Roman See, restored him again to his Church (f) Socrat. l. 2. c. 11. Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. ? And what else did he mean, when he and the rest of the Egyptian Bishops, writing to Marcus Pope, endorsed their letter, To the holy, and Venerable Lord of Apostolical Eminency, Mark, Father of the holy Roman, Apostolic See, and of the universal Church? And in the letter: We desire, that by the authority of the Church of your holy See, which is the Mother, and Head of all Churches▪ we may deserve to receive the copies of the Nicen Canons, by these our Legates, for the instruction, and comfort of the faithful, that being fenced by your authority etc. And again (g) Eadem Ep. : We are yours, and with all that are committed to us, are and will ever be obedient to you. And in his Epistle to Felix Pope: For as much as our Predecessors, and we, have always received assistance from your holy Apostolic See, and have had experience of the care you have of us, we following the decrees of the Canons, fly for succour unto it, as unto a Mother, from whence our predecessors have received their orders, doctrine, and relief. And again (h) Ibid. : Which by no means we dare presume to do (to wit to define matters of faith) without consulting you, the Canons commanding, that in mayor causes nothing be determined, without the B. of Rome etc. For therefore Christ hath placed you, and your predecessors in the height of Eminency, and commanded you to have care of all Churches etc. And he addeth (i) Ibid. , that, It belongs to the Pope to judge the causes of all Bishops. If therefore to appeal to the Pope, as to his judge; if to acknowledge in him, power, to restore the greatest Patriarches to their Sees; if to profess that the judgement of Bishops belongeth to him, and that all mayor causes are to be referred to his tribunal; if to believe the Roman Church to be the Head, and Mother of all Churches, and the Pope to be Bishop of the universal Church; and finally if to profess actual, and promise perpetual obedience to the See Apostolic, be Arguments of S. Athanasius his belief of the sovereign authority of the See Apostolic, & of his obligation to obey her, and to live in union with her, and in subjection to her; then are you guilty of Imposture, in omitting these, and other pregnant testimonies of the same kind, extant in his second Apology, and objecting in lieu of them, a false tale of Liberius excommunicating Athanasius, devised by yourself to seduce your readers. And hereby you are convinced of another untruth, in saying (k) Pag. 191. , that, Athanasius sought not any union with Felix, who was Pope instead of Liberius: for these his testimonies show, that he was in communion with him, and acknowledged himself subject to him, as to the Governor of the universal Church. But you say (l) Pag. 190. (and that impertinently to the matter in hand, which is to prove S. Athanasius his no subjection to the Roman Church) that, When we esteem Felix to be the legitimat Pope, and Liberius a Schismatic removed from the society of Catholics, and from his Papal function, we fight notably against our own principles, which are: 1. That there cannot be two Popes together: and 2. That no Pope can be deposed unless he appear to be a manifest heretic; which if he be, he ceaseth to be Pope, without any judgement at all. That there cannot be two Popes together, we acknowledge to be a principle of ours. Nor did it happen otherwise, in the case of Liberius: for when he returned to the Papacy, it was by acceptation of the Clergy & people of Rome equivalent to a new election; and this, not until after Felix his death. For as Sozomen prudently observeth (m) L. 4. c. 14. . God by his special providence called Felix out of this life soon after Liberius returned to Rome, lest the See of Peter should be defamed with the note of schism, two Popes governing at once, contrary to the laws of the Church. The second principle is not ours, but an ignorance of yours: For a Pope ceaseth to be a Catholic, & consequently falleth from his Papacy, not only by public profession of heresy, but also by making public profession of Schism, and outward communion with heretics, though in his hart he detest their doctrine: for to be a Catholic, it is not only necessary to believe the Catholic faith inwardly, but also to make profession thereof outwardly, abandoning the communion of heretics. Wherefore the syllogism which here you make (n) Pag. 190. sin. 191. , concludeth nothing; the Minor proposition, that, Liberius notwithstanding his consenting to the condemnation of Athanasius, and communicating with heretics, was a Catholics Bishop, is absolutely false. And whereas you profess, to set down this Minor as the words of Bellarmine, you falsify him: for albeit he say, that if a Pope become a manifest heretic he ceaseth eo ipso to be Pope, yet in the same place (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 30. §. Eadem est sententia. he sufficiently expresseth, that not only heretics, but also schismatics are out of the Church, and lose all spiritual jurisdiction over those, which are in the Church. SECT. IV. S. Basills' belief of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome proved; and Doctor Mortons' objections answered. IT seemed to us (saith S. Basil (p) Ep. 52. writing to Athanasius) to be to good purpose, that we writ to the B. of Rome, that he consider the affairs of these parts, and give his judgement, to the end, that being there is difficulty, in sending from thence persons by a common and Synodical decree, he may use his authority, and choose men capable of the labour of such a journey etc. And that having with them the Acts of Arimin, they may disannul those things which have been done by force. Bellarmine (q) L. 2. de Pont. c. 15. bringeth this testimony: you except against him, as perverting S. Basil by false translation, which you prove out of Baronius: for where Bellarmine translateth, ut res nostras videas, that the B. of Rome see, or view our affairs, Baronius rendereth, ut res nostras consideret, that he consider our affairs. But who seethe not this to be a mere cavil? for what difference is there between entreating the Pope to take the affairs of the Eastern Churches into his consideration, as Baronius readeth, or, to see and look into them, as Bellarmine translateth? Whether you follow the one or the other, it is manifest, that S Basil thought it a fit way to redress the calamities of those Churches, that the Pope should take them into his consideration, or have a vigilant eye over them: the requiring whereof from him, living in a Country so remote, and in another Patriarkship, showeth, that S. Basil believed some charge of visiting those Churches to belong to him, superior to that which the Eastern Patriarches had. Nor doth your answer satisfy, saying (r) Pag. 195. , He required not from the Pope, any help or visitation of dominion, or jurisdiction, but only of confortation, of loving and brotherly consideration, hoping, that the persuasions of strangers, especially being endued with God's grace, would be more prevalent with the Eastern people, than the Counsel of their own Bishops: for this evasion is convinced of falsehood, by the very words of S. Basil. It is fit (saith he) (s) Ep. 52. that we beseech the Pope to show his authority in the business, sending men that may bring with them the Acts of Arimin, and disannul the things done by force. And immediately after, he professeth himself ready to be corrected by the Pope's Legates, if in any thing he had erred, and acknowledgeth in the Pope authority of a judge: We are ready (saith he) to be judged by you, provided that they which slander us, may appear face to face, with us, before your Reverence. Doth all this import nothing, but, a request of loving, and brotherly visitation, or consideration? Can S. Basil in more effectual words express the Pope's power, and jurisdiction over the universal Church, then by requesting him, to send his Legates with authority to annul the Acts of a general Council, as that of Arimin was? No: they are testimonies so forcible, that with no gloss can be eluded. But you reply (u) Pag. 194. against Bellarmine, that he will needs have S. Basil to desire the Pope's Decree, whereas Baronius readeth, Counsel, or Advice. Here again you cavil: for the Greek word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which by interpretation of Budaeus, signifieth voluntatem, sententiam, iudicium. Why then was it not lawful for Bellarmine to say, S. Basil desired the Pope's decree? for to desire him to give his sentence and judgement, what was it else, but to acknowledge in him the authority of a judge, with power to sentence, to judge, to decree Ecclesiastical causes in the East? Which power he also declareth in other places of his works: 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 virtue of Liberius his letters presented to the Eastern Bishops, in the Council of Tyana, and by virtue of his command intimated in them, was received into the communion of the whole Eastern Church, and restored to his See? Eustathius (saith S. Basil to the Bishops of the West) having been cast out of his Bishopric, because he was deposed in the Synod of Melitine, advised himself to find means to be restored, travailing 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 showed to the Council of Tyana, he was reestablished in his Bishop's seat. Again, doth not S. Basil (z) Ep. 77. compare the Church to a body, whereof the Western 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 universal Church, and all other Bishop's fellow-members of the same body (a) Ep. 70. ad Episc. transmar. edit. Paris. an. 1603. ? Again, 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 judged by them, and he punished if he were found guilty? And doth he not require the same Pope (d) Ep. 74. to give order by his letters, to all the Eastern Churches, that they admit into their communion all such, as having departed from the Catholic truth, shall disclaim from their Errors? and to renounce the Communion of them, that shall persist obstinately in their novelties? And lastly, declaring the Pope's authority in determining all doubts and controversies of faith, he saith: In very deed that which was given by our Lord to your Piety, is worthy of that most excellent voice, which proclaimed you blessed, to wit, that you may discern between that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution may preach the faith of our Ancestors. I conclude therefore that if S. Basil believed aright, the Pope hath authority to restore Bishops deposed, to their Sees, to send Legates with power to dissolve the Acts of general Counsels, to condemn heretical doctrines, to judge the causes of Bishops, to punish delinquents. And is this nothing else, but charitable advice, but persuasion, but counsel? Is it not to use authority, to exercise jurisdiction? But you object (f) Pag. 1●6. that S. Basil in his own name, and in the name of his fellow Bishops in the East, having written often to Pope Damasus, and other Western Bishops, and sent to Rome four several legations, requiring help, and comfort from them in their afflictions, could not receive any answer, in so much that S. Basil taxeth them with supercilious pride & haughtiness, and that they did neither know the truth, nor would learn it. This you object out of Baronius, from whom you might have taken the solution, which is, that S. Basil was oppressed, and as it were, overwhelmed with waves of sorrow, and affliction, not only for the common calamity of the Oriental Church, but also for his own particular; for as much, as by Eustathius B. of Sebaste, and others, who hiding the venom of their heresy, feigned themselves to be Catholics, he was accused, and defamed of heresy in the East, and brought into suspicion even with his own Monks, and his dear beloved 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 clear the truth, which he had required, & greatly desired: Yet (as you (g) Pag. 198. confess) was he than a member of the Catholic Church, and held communion with the Church of Rome, both in faith and charity. Nor was Damasus so wholly wanting to his comfort, but that even then when he was suspected of heresy, upon his letters he called a Council 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 Eastern Bishops (i) Apud Theodo. l. 5. histor. c. 11. , expressing withal, the profession which they had made to him, of their belief of the supreme authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome. Now if S. Basil in these afflictions (and grieving at the intermission of such communicatory letters from the Western Bishops, and chief 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 have done, is that by you to be reproached unto him? or is it any argument of his denial of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome, which he hath taught so clearly, so constantly, so effectually, in so many places of his works? Yea albeit S. Basil gave a little way to the motions of nature, yet by virtue he soon recalled himself, retracting what he had said, as his letters full of humility, written soon after to Damasus, & the other Western Bishops express. You (saith (l) Ep. 1. in addi●. he) are praised by all mortal men, that you remain pure, and without blemish in faith, keeping entire the doctrine taught you by the Apostles. It is not so with us, among whom there are some that presume to bring in novelties, whereby the Churches are fallen into heresy. Wherefore, O beloved brethren, you as Physicians, cure our souls etc. So S. Basil, freeing the Western Churches, & especially the Roman (to which he chief writ) both from pride, and error. Wherefore when you object (m) Pag. 197. , that S. Basil expressing his grief said; The Western Bishops neither knew the truth themselves, nor would learn it, he taxeth them not of error, or ignorance in the true faith, as you falsely interpret, but that being ignorant of the Asian affairs, they were not careful to understand them from him, and other Catholic Bishops, that might rightly inform them, but gave to much credit to the lying reports of heretics, who slandered him falsely, as you have heard. SECT. V Whether S. Hilary excommunicated the Pope. TO persuade, that S. Hilary B. of Poictou (so you writ him, he being not Bishop of Poictou, which is a Province of France, but of Poitiers the chief City of that province) held it not necessary, to be in the communion of the B. of Rome, you say (n) Pag. 199. : S. Hilary no sooner understood, that Pope Liberius (as your Cardinal hath confessed) had subscribed to have communion with the Arian heretics, but he made bold to excommunicate the Pope out of his communion, and fellowship, saying, I anathematise thee, O Liberius, and thy fellows. And you add, that Hilary had just cause to do this (o) Pag. 199. sin. 200. , because it was always lawful for any Catholic Bishop to excommunicate any heretical Bishop, that is, to abandon his fellowship, and communion. Here you show great ignorance in the ordinary principles of Divinity: for to excommunicate a Bishop, or any other person, is not only to abandon his fellowship, and communion; else every man, yea every woman, may excommunicate her Bishop, or any other person whatsoever: for she may abandon his fellowship, and communion, denouncing Anathema unto him. There are two kinds of Anathema: the one, judiciary, that is to say, an Ecclesiastical Censure pronounced by an Ecclesiastical Superior, against them over whom he hath lawful power and jurisdiction, whereby he abandoneth their fellowship and communion, and commandeth all others to do the like, and withal depriveth them of the benefit of the Sacraments, and service of the Church. This Anathema is an Excommunication. And this is so certain, that howbeit every Protestant Minister, may at his pleasure abandon the fellowship, and communion of any other man, and in that sense, denounce Anathema unto him, yet never any was so absurdly ignorant, as to think, he could excommunicate any one, over whom he had not Ecclesiastical power, and jurisdiction. And who knoweth not, that when you excommunicate Catholics, or others, you do not only deny them your own fellowship, and communion, but by virtue thereof, forbidden all others to have commerce and communication with them? In this sense, the Council of Nice pronounced Anathema against the Arians, in these words (p) Socrat. l. ●. hist. c. 5. : They that say, there was a time when the Son was not, the Catholic Church anathematizeth them, that is, depriveth them of the use 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 think, he could denounce Anathema to Liberius, being not his Superior: and therefore neither did, nor could excommunicate him. Another kind of Anathema there is, which is not judiciary, but only executory, whereby every particular person ecclesiastic, or laic, 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 having subscribed to the banishment of Athanasius, and thereby entered into Communion with the Arians. The judiciary Anathema, that is, the sentence of excommunication had been pronounced before, by the Counsels of Nice and Sardica against the Arians in general, into whose communion Liberius was entered. There was no need of pronouncing a new sentence of Anathema against him, but of applying the sentence of the Counsels unto him, by abjuring and abhorring him, as one fallen into the sentence which the Counsels had pronounced against the Arians. And therefore S. Hilary adds to his Anathema, these words, For my part, saying: For my part, Anathema to thee, O Liberius, to show, that he spoke not with a judiciary, but with an abiuratory Anathema. In this sense john Patriarch of Constantinople (q) Ep. ●ad Hormisd. anathematised Timothy the parricide, surnamed Aelurus, whom Felix Pope excommunicated. And In the same sense, justine the Emperor (r) Euagr. l. 5. c. 4. , denounced Anathema to all heretics, condemned by the Church, who yet being a secular Prince, had not power to excommunicate any. I conclude therefore, that you confound these two anathemas; and because S. Hilary pronounced an abiuratory Anathema against Liberius, infer ignorantly that he excommunicated him. But if for argument's 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 have said, not questioning, but supposing Liberius his subscription to the condemnation of Athanasius; which yet some have denied (s) See Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif. c, 9 . But be it true: it followeth not, that he was therefore a formal heretic in his judgement, believing 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 gave to some (that judged of him by his outward actions) occasion to think, he believed their doctrine. And in this sense only it is, in which some Catholic writers condemn him of heresy, and in no other. For the very Arians themselves never pretended that Athanasius agreed in faith with them, but condemned him only for other crimes, which they had maliciously composed against him: wherein though Liberius for a time yielded outwardly to them, yet he was ever most constant in the Catholic faith, as you may see testified by antiquity (t) Apud jodoc. Cocci. to 1. l. 7. art. 11. . Lastly I must advertise you, that whereas you often repeat as an article of our faith, that out of the Roman Church there is no saluarion, here (u) Pag. 199. , and afterwards (x) Pag. 345. again you say, part of that our article is, to believe, that in matters of faith the judgement of the Pope is infallible. This you prove by imposing on Bellarmine your own fictions. His opinion is, that the Pope's judgement in matters of faith is infallible, and that the contrary is erroneous, and near to heresy: but he is so fare from affirming this his opinion to be anarticle of faith, or the contrary to be heretical, that he directly saith (y) L. 4. de Pont. c. 2. it is defended by Gerson, and Almain Doctors of Paris, as also by Castro, and Adrianus sextus; and that it is tolerated by the Church. Do not you then overlash, saying, that Bellarmine's opinion is part of our belief necessary to salvation, when he so expressly teacheth the contrary? SECT. VI S. Hieroms judgement, concerning the necessity of union with the Church of Rome, and subjection to the Bishop thereof. HE declared his judgement (z) Ep. 77. , when to assure himself to be in the communion of the Catholic Church, he regarded not the communion of Paulinus, in whose Patriarship of Antioch he lived, but professed himself to stick fast, to the communion of Damasus Pope, that is, to the chair of Peter, upon which (saith he) I know the Church to be built. You answer (a) Pag. 203. , that, by chair he meant not the See, and Bishopric of Rome, but the true Doctrine of faith then preached at Rome, even as Christ spoke of the chair of Moses, that is (saith S. Hierome) the law of Moses. This satisfieth not, both because when some Fathers expound faith to be the Rock, on which Christ built his Church, they exclude not, but include the person of Peter; and chiefly, because S. Hierome followeth not that exposition, but ever understands the person of Peter, & his See, to be the Rock, on which Christ promised to build his Church. Christ (saith he (b) Ad cap. 16. Math. ) gave to Simon, that believed in him, the name of a Rock; and according to the Metaphor of a Rock it is rightly said to him, I will build my Church on thee. And a little after: Christ did not then actually build his Church on Peter, but promised to build it on him afterward, saying: I will build my Church on thee, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Wherefore as he promised not to deliver the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to Faith, but to Peter and his Successors, so on him and them, he promised to build his Church. And the same is manifest out of the contexture of this his Epistle to Damasus: for doth he not say: I am joined in communion to your Blessedness, that is, to the chair of Peter? upon this Rock I know the Church to be built: Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is profane: If any one shall not be in the ark of Nöe, he shall perish in the deluge. These words convince, that S. Hierome by the chair of Peter, understands not faith, but the Church built on him, and his Successors: for the house out of which no man can eat the lamb (that is, offer sacrifice) is not faith, to which the denomination of a house cannot agree, but the Church built upon Peter, which S. Ambrose (c) In 1. Timoth. 3.15. calleth, The house of God, whereof Damasus was then Governor. And the same is evident out of S. Hierome himself: for faith is not the Ark of Nöe, but the Church of Peter, out of which whosoever shall be, at the coming of the deluge, shall perish. And I cannot but admonish you of a fraudulent reticence: for being you make so great account of Erasmus, & produce him for your only author (d) Pag. 204. , that S. Hierome by the chair of Peter, understandeth faith; why do you conceal, that upon this very passage, Erasmus showeth S. Hierome to condemn your doctrine of falsehood? Here (saith he) (e) Anotat. in Ep. 77. S. Hieron. Hierome seemeth to be wholly of opinion, that all Churches ought to be subject to the Roman See▪ or surely not divided from her, which peculiarly glorieth in this Apostle, that had the sovereignty among the Apostles, and which is so Orthodoxal, that of all Orthodoxal Churches, she is the chiefest in dignity. This you know to be the true meaning of S. Hierome, but shift it of, repeating often, and with great variety of words, that, if S. Hierome pointed out the Church of Rome as the Ark of Noah, yet thereby he conceived not a perpetuity thereof; that Virgin Jerusalem may become a harlot, and that she hath no privilege never to apostatate. But this evasion I have already disproved (f) See above Chap. 12. sect. 1. & 2. by the promise of Christ made to S. Peter and his Successors, that their faith shall not fail, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church built upon them. To this I add, that S. Hierome acknowledgeth Damasus to be his Pastor (g) Ep: 77. , and therefore Pastor of the universal Church: for when he writ that Epistle, he was an inhabitant of Palestine, which being in the Patriarkship of Antioch, Paulinus that was then Patriarch of Antioch, was actually his Pastor, and he actually a sheep of Paulinus, & therefore could not at the same time be actually a sheep of Damasus, if the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch were not actually subject to the pastoral authority, and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome. Yes, say you (h) Pag. 202. , He might be held a sheep of the B. of Rome, in respect of his baptism. But this I deny: for he that being baptised in one Diocese, leaveth that, and becometh an inhabitant of another, eo ipso becometh a sheep of that Diocese which he inhabiteth, and leaveth to be a sheep of the former in which he was baptised. And as the Bishop, under whom he was baptised, can have no authority over him, after he hath left his Diocese, unless he be superior in power, and jurisdiction to the Bishop, whose Diocese he now inhabiteth; so neither could Damasus be actually Pastor to S. Hierome, having left the Diocese, and Patriarkship of Rome, and inhabiting that of Antioch, if Damasus had not had pastoral authority over the sheep of the Patriarkship of Antioch. Now to your objections. The first is: (i) Pag. 205. S. Hierome twited, and taunted Damasus, saying: But away envy, and let the ambition of the Roman height departed: which he did not say so much in regard of Damasus his own pride (otherwise an excellent godly Pope) as for the pride of the Roman top, or height, namely the ambition of his state. This is impertinent, and untrue. Impertinent; for were it true (as it is not) that S. Hierome reprehended the pride of the Roman Church; pride is not an error in faith, but a fault in manners, and therefore no warrant for you, to disavow the faith, or forsake the Communion of the Roman Church. It is also untrue; for S. Hierome doth not only not twit Damasus, but professeth himself to be joined in communion with his Blessedness. And much less doth he taunt his See, which he acknowledgeth to be the Rock on which the Church is built. And indeed who but you, would have charged S. Hierome with twiting and taunting Damasus, an excellent godly Pope (whom you acknowledge to be his pastor, and spiritual Father) & that not for any fault of his own, but for faults feigned by you against other Popes? Those words, Away with envy, let the ambition of the Roman height departed, were not spoken by S. Hierome to tax the person of Damasus, or his Seat, of pride; but to signify, that albeit his Seat were placed in Rome, which being the imperial City, & head of the world, gloried in her own greatness, yet he was and ought to be free from pride, as being Successor to a fisher man, and a disciple of the Cross. In regard whereof, he deemed it no presumption in himself, to write unto him, that by his authority, he might know whose communion to embrace, and whose to avoid. Your second objection (k) Pag. 206. , is a repetition of what you have formerly said of Liberius his fall from the Catholic faith, into heresy, by subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius, & communicating with the Arians. You have been answered, that Liberius assented to his condemnation, not for any error in faith, but for crimes forged against him by the Arians: in so much that Athanasius himself even in that excuseth him, saying (l) Ep. ad Solit. : He was compelled thereto by force of torments, and therefore that which terrors and fears extorted from him, ought not to bethought his sentence, but that which he pronounced freely, when no violence was offered unto him. Thirdly you object: S. Hierome in despite, and indignation, calleth Rome Babylon and land of captivity, and termeth it a purple whore, and strange land, wherein he could not sing the Lords song, concerning the holy Ghost: yea he bespots the whole Clergy of that City with the note of ignorance: and at last (after the death of Damasus) he quit Rome, as a land of bondage that he might enjoy his liberty in judaea, among the Christian jews. Can this be said of a City privileged with a perpetual residence of the holy Ghost, and deserving the title of Motherhood over the whole Catholic Church? This is your question; and my answer is, That S. Hierome, when he calleth Rome, Babylon, a land of captivity, and a purple whore, gives those names to Rome, not as to the seat of Religion, but of the Empire; not to the Church, but to the Imperial Court, and Senate; not to the ecclesiastical, but to the politic state of Rome; to the troops of Courtiers, solicitors, & negotiants; & finally not so much in regard of secular Christians, as of Monks, by reason of the distractions, that the noise, confusion, and tumult of men, and affairs, in so great a city, brought to Monastical silence & recollection: for so it is plain out of his Epistle to Marcelia (m) Ep. 16. , in which though inviting her to leave Rome, and go to Jerusalem, he call Rome Babylon, yet he presently addeth, It is true, that in that City, is the holy Church: there are the trophies of the Apostles, and Martyrs: there is the true confession of Christ: there is the faith celebrated by the Apostle, & the Christian name every day exalted by the depression of Paganism trodden under foot. But the ambition, the power, and greatness of that City, to visit and to be visited, to salute & to be saluted, to flatter, and detract, to hear, and speak, nay to see, though unwillingly so great a multitude of men, are things fare from the purpose and quiet of those, that would follow a monastical life. This showeth, that when S. Hierome calls Rome Babylon, & purple whore, he speaks not of the Church, but of the temporal state of Rome. And when he calls it a land of captivity, he speaks it in regard of the noise, confusion, and tumult, not suiting with the retirement of Monks: which inconvenience he noteth also in the City of Jerusalem, which otherwise (saith (n) Ep. 13. ad Pauli. de instit. Monachis he) by reason of the places of the Cross, and Resurrection, were a dwelling much to be desired by Monks. The second part of your objection, that S. Hierome bespote the whole Clergy of that City, with the note of ignorance, is your false comment. He complaineth only of a few Priests, and Deacons of Rome, who being jealous of his faour with Pope Damasus, and envying the great reverence which the devout Ladies of Rome bore to his person, Damasus being dead, took boldness to raise slanders against him, accusing him, that he had translated Didymus an heretical Author, that he had conversed too familiarly with the great Ladies of Rome, and persuaded them to quit their Country, children, and friends, to leave the world, and shut themselves up, as recluses, in the Monasteries of Palestine. Which complaint no way toucheth the faith of the Roman Church, nor the succession of S. Peter, nor the communion of the See Apostolic, nor maketh against the perpetual residence of the holy Ghost in that Church, S. Hierome himself crying out (o) Adverse. Ruffin. l. 3. , that her faith suffereth no delusions, and being fenced by S. Paul's authority, cannot be altered. Your fourth objection (p) Pag. 207. out of his Epistle to Euagrius, of the Deacons of Rome sitting in presence of the Priests is already answered (q) Above Chap. 15. sect. 2 . But you add to it (r) Pag. 208. & 218. as a fifth Argument, that, every Patriarch hath a principality & height of a pastoral watchtower, by reason of the greatness, and dignity of his Patriarkship, above all Metropolitans, and Bishops whatsoever: and yet have they not over all Bishop's power of jurisdiction, but only principality of order. If by principality of order, you understand priority of place, every Patriarch hath in that sense priority of order, over all Bishops, that are not Patriarches. And in the same sense the Pope hath priority of order, over all Bishops, & Patriarches. But if by principality of order, you understand the Sacerdotal and Episcopal dignity, conferred on them by their ordination & consecration, your Doctrine is untrue: for the inequality of Bishops consists not in any principality of Sacerdotal or Episcopal orders, which one Bishop hath over another, but in the inequality of Pastoral power and jurisdiction. A Bishop in his orders is equal to his Metropolitan; the Metropolitan to his Patriarch; and the Patriarch to the Pope himself. In this sense S. Hierome saith, (s) Ep. ad Euag. Whersoever there shall be a Bishop, either at Rome, or at Eugubium; at Constantinople, or at Rhegium; at Alexandria, or at Tanais, he is of the same merit, and Priesthood: because all Bishops, if we consider only the dignity of their orders, and Priesthood, are equal; even he of Eugubium, a small City in Italy, to the Pope. Erasmus his Comment upon this passage of S. Hierome, which you bring (t) Pag. 208. to prove, that the inequality of Episcopal jurisdiction is not measured by the amplitude of Dioceses, I approve not. And much less, do I allow your inference out of his comment, that according to the divine Law, the Pope hath not any greater jurisdiction than whatsoever other inferior Bishop: for Christ, when he gave to S. Peter the charge of feeding his sheep, and lambs (u) joan. ●1. 15 16. , gave him an universal Pastoral power, and jurisdiction over his whole flock, throughout the world: which power and jurisdiction therefore S. Augustine, and the whole Council of Milevis (x) Apud Aug. ep. 92. acknowledge Innocentius Pope to have from the authority of the holy Scriptures, that is, by divine Law, from the mouth of Christ himself. Your sixth objection is (y) Pag. 208.209. , that S. Hierome disagreed from the Roman Church in matter of necessary and Catholic doctrine. You told us even now (z) Pag. 205. , that, the Church of Rome was then sound in faith. If therefore S. Hierome disagreed from her in matter of necessary, and Catholic Doctrine, S. Hierome was an heretic: for all doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, is heresy. But you regard not what you say of that renowned Doctor, if you may make him like to yourself in disagreeing from the Church of Rome, in matter of necessary and Catholic doctrine. But let us hear in what he disagreed: Because S. Hierome saith, that although formerly all other Churches in the East, did account S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, Canonical; yet it was not received as Canonical in the Latin, or Roman Church. From whence you took these words I know not: for no such are to be found in his Epistle to Euagrius, out of which you allege them. Part of them I find in his Commentary upon Isaias, and in his Epistle to Dardanus, where he saith: The Epistle to the Hebrews is received as Canonical, by all the Greek Churches, though the custom of the Latins receive it not: But that the Roman Church receives it not, is an imposterous addition of yours to S. Hieromes text: for when he saith, The custom of the Latins receives it not, that by the custom of the Latins, he understands not all the Latin or Roman Church, he declareth, saying (a) Ep. ad Euag. ; All the Greeks' receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, & nonnulli Latinorum, and many of the Latins. Yea when he insinuateth that some of the Latines received it not, he speaketh not of the Latins of his time, but of some that lived before him, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Lactantius & Arnobius, who in their works are not found to allege this Epistle. But since the time of Lactantius, the Latin Fathers have been so far from making any doubt that it is Canonical, that Philastrius (b) In Catal. haeres. a Latin Father and Bishop of Bressa in Italy, more ancient then S. Hierome, ranketh them among heretics that deny it to be Canonical. And in S. Hieromes time, Innocentius Pope (c) Eup. ad Exuper. , and soon after him, Gelasius with a Council of 70. Bishops (d) Decret. de lib. sacr. & Eccles. , reckon the Epistle to the Hebrews in the number of Canonical Scriptures. If therefore Gelasius Pope, with a Council of 70. Bishops, and Innocentius, believed it to be Canonical, with what forehead do you say, that the Roman Church denied it to be Canonical? or how can it be thought that S. Hierome differed in any point of Catholic belief, from the Church of Rome, he that prescribeth to Demetrias (e) Ep. 8. ad Demetriad. , as a secure way to avoid the snares of heresy, that she hold fast the faith of S. Innocentius Pope? And finally how cold he descent from the Roman Church in this, or any other point of necessary and Catholic doctrine; he (I say) that so often commendeth and recommendeth (f) Ep. 6.8.68. the Roman faith, and defineth him to be a Catholic, that holds the faith of the Roman Church (g) Adverse. Ruffi. l. 1. ? What followeth of this, you know; namely that by affirming S. Hierome to disagree from the Roman Church, in matter of necessary and Catholic doctrine, you make him an heretic. Is not then your Argument a Grand Imposture? And no less it is, that the Council of Trent having defined the books of Hester, Daniel, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, judith, Tobias, and the two books of the Machabies, with all their parts as they are in the vulgar edition, to be canonical, you (h) Pag. 209. in disproof thereof object these words, as of Bellarmine: S. Hierome said of these books, that they were not within the canon of scriptures: for Bellarmine in that place maketh no mention of Hester, Daniel, & Baruch. And though he grant S. Hierome to have been of opinion, that the other books mentioned, were not canonical; yet why do you conceal his reason, which is, that S. Hierome was of that opinion, because the Church had not then defined the contrary in any general Council? And how do you prove that S. Hierome in that his opinion disagreed from the Roman Church, in matter of necessary, and Catholic doctrine, since it was no matter of necessary and Catholic doctrine, to believe these books to be Canonical, until the Church had defined it in a general Council, as in S. Hieromes time she had not done, saving only of the book of judith, which afterwards he received, understanding that the Council of Nice had so declared? But from hence you take occasion (i) Pag. 302. fin 303. , to inveigh against Bellarmine, and other our Doctors, for imputing to the Council of Nice, a decree, whereby they condemn Protestants as sacrilegious persons, for not admitting the book of judith into the number of Canonical scriptures, and alleging S. Hierome, as a witness to prove that, which he never spoke; and for proof of a doctrine, which himself doth utterly abandon. In this charge you are twice reprovable: first, for saying, that we falsely impute that constitution to the Council of Nice: for that the Councell did make such a Constitution, S. Hierome witnesseth, saying (k) Praefat. in judith. : Librum judith Nicena Synodus in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse: The Nicen Council is read to have reckoned the book of judith in the number of holy scriptures. The same is testified by Rupertus (l) De diuin. offic. l. 12. c. 25. , who repeating S. Hieromes doctrine concerning this book, and almost his words, saith: Hoc volumen etc. This book is not canonical among the Hebrews, but by the authority of the Council of Nice, it is received for the instruction of holy Church. Secondly you are reprovable in pretending that S. Hierome in these words, declareth not that book to be canonical: for being requested to translate it, out of the Chaldean tongue, in which it was written, into Latin, he saith: The jews reckoned this book among the hagiographes, whose authority is sufficient to decide controversies. And then opposing against them, the authority of the Nicen Council, he addeth; But because the Council of Nice is read to have registered this book in the number of holy scriptures, I have yielded to your request. In these words he plainly sheweth the Church to be of a different belief from the jews, touching this book, & to receive it, in that sense, in which the jews did not receive it, to wit, as sufficient to decide controversies of faith. And in confirmation hereof he numbereth this book among other canonical scriptures, saying (m) Ep. ad Principiam. , Ruth, Hester, judith were of so great renown, that they gave names to sacred volumes. And in other his works he often citeth it, as divine scripture (n) Ep. 9 ad Salu. Ep. 22. ad Bustoch. & in Isa. c. 14. . But to prove, that he held it apocryphal, you object Stapleton (o) Pag. 303. , Salmeron, Lindanus, & Acosta, whom you call our less precipitant Authors. Stapleton you falsify, citing him l. 2. de authorit. Script. cap. 4. for he hath no book so entitled, and much less any such words, as you set down for his. Yea he is so far from saying, that S. Hierome denieth this book to be canonical, that he saith directly the contrary: for discoursing (p) De princip. doct. l. 9 c. 6. how some books of scripture which before the definition of the Church had been held apocryphal, or doubtful, were afterwards by her authority certainly believed to be canonical, he exemplifieth in this of judith, which (saith he) S. Hierome moved by the authority of the Council of Nice, held to be Canonical, having formerly accounted it to be apocryphal. This is Stapletons' doctrine. Are you not ashamed to produce him as a witness for the contrary? And as little truth hath your citation of Salmeron: for he allegeth S. Hieromes words expressly declaring, that the rule to distinguish Canonical Scriptures, from apocryphal, is the authority of the Church. Whereupon Salmeron truly saith, that, if S. Hierome should deny this book to be Canonical, his authority alone could not be prevalent against the whole stream of Ancient Fathers, holding the contrary. Their testimonies you may read in jodocus Coccius. Lindanus and Acosta I have not seen: but you that have dealt so with Stapleton, and Salmeron, may be presumed to deal no better with them. SECT. VII. S. Ambrose his judgement concerning the necessity of Union, and subjection to the Bishop, and Church of Rome. S. Ambrose declared his judgement, when reporting (q) Orat. de obitu Satyri. , how his holy brother Satyrus in his return out of Africa, was cast by ship wrack upon the isle of Sardinia infected with schism, he said: Satyrus not esteeming any favour to be true, but that of the true faith, called unto him the Bishop of that place, and asked him, whether he agreed with the Catholic Bishops, that is (saith S. Ambrose) with the Roman Church? This showeth, that S. Ambrose, and Satyrus, believed the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, and all that were not in her Communion to be schismatics. You answer (r) Pag. 213. , that, the reason why Satyrus would not communicate with any Bishop that agreed not with the Roman Church, was, because Sardinia was then divided into divers schisms, by heretical spirits: No marvel therefore, though Satyrus asked of a Bishop, whose faith he suspected whether he believed as that Church did, whose faith was known to be truly Catholic; even as if in time of rebellion, the Citizens of some one City (for example York) were more generally known to profess loyalty to their Sovereign, an honest man coming into the kingdom, might ask the inhabitants, whether they agreed with the City of York, thereby to know, whether they were loyal subjects: and yet it would not follow, that therefore York is the head of the kingdom. This your answer framed to puzzle an ignorant reader, is easily rejected. Satyrus did well know, and it was generally known both in the East, and West, that at that time, not only the Church of Rome, but also that of Milan (of which Ambrose his own brother was then actually Bishop, and famous over all the world) was sound in faith, and truly Catholic. Why then did not Satyrus, to inform himself whether that Sardinian Bishop were Catholic, ask him, whether he agreed with the Bishop and Church of Milan, but because he knew, that neither the Church of Milan, nor any other, but the Roman, was the head of Catholic Communion, as S. Ambrose himself teacheth, saying (s) L. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imperat. , From the Roman Church the rights of Venerable Communion do flow to all? And why else did he say this, but because he knew, that neither to the Church of Milan, nor to any other, but the Roman, Christ hath promised, that her faith shall not fail (t) Luc. 22.31. , and that, the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (u) Math. 16.18. ? In regard whereof it is said, that (not to the Church of Milan, but) to her all Churches, and all the faithful from all places must have recourse (x) Iren. l. 3. c. 3. . And unless you can show, that York hath an especial Privilege from God, not to fail in her loyalty, as the Roman Church hath, not to fail in the Catholic faith, and profession thereof, your example is impertinent. York may fail in loyalty, and therefore to be a citizen of York, and to be a good subject, are not terms convertible. But the Roman Church can neither fail in the Catholic faith, nor in the profession thereof: and therefore to be a Catholic, and to agree with the Roman Church (as in themselves they are so) were they held by S. Ambrose, by his brother Satyrus, and by the general accord of antiquity, to be all one (y) See above Chap. 1. sect. 3. . 2. S. Ambrose declared his judgement, when he called Damasus Pope, Rector of the house of God, which is his Church (z) In cap. 3. prioris ad T●moth. . You answer, that we mistake the words (respectively) spoken to one person, Pope Damasus, and circumstantially for one time, as if they were absolutely so meant for the persons of all Popes, at all times. This answer is not respectively, but absolutely insufficient: for what dignity, superiority, or power of government had Damasus over the whole Church in his person, and for his time, which every Pope hath not had in his person, and for his time? The power of Ruler & Governor of the whole Church which Damasus had, was by his Popedom. And as he by the right of his Popedom was, so all his predecessors and successors in that See, have by the same title and right, been Rectors, and Governors of the whole Church. This is so certain, that you passing lightly over this first answer, fly to a second (a) Pag. 212.213. , that the title of Rector, or Governor of the whole Church, argueth not Damasus to be Head of the Church, because, Athanasius, Basil, & Gregory Nazianzen have received titles equivalent, if not more excellent, as of Prop, and Buttress of the Church and faith, Eye of the world, and others; in which ascriptions (say you) there is not any acknowledgement of authority, but a commendation of their care and diligence, judgement, and directions in behalf of the whole Church In the citation and application of these attributes, you deal not uprightly, as is to be seen in Canisius, from whom you took them (b) Catechisinit. in Encorn. Pat. . But leaving that to the reader's examination, your own answer destroyeth itself: for those ascriptions (you confess) import no authority. But doth the title of Rector or Governor import no authority? As the power & authority of the Head of a College, or Governor of a commonwealth cannot be better or more effectually expressed, then by saying, He is Rector of the College, or, Governor of the Commonwealth: so if S. Ambrose, had studied to confute your answer, and express the Pope's Monarchical power & authority over the whole Church, he could not have done it more effectually, then by styling him, Rector, or Governor of the house of God, which is his Church: for that title never was, nor can ever be given to any other, but to the Pope of Rome, whom Christ hath made Pastor & Governor of his whole flock (c) joan. 21.15. & seqq. And to this S. Ambrose alludeth (d) L. 10. ep. 81. , when writing to Siricius Pope, he calls him, A watchful, and povident Pastor, that with pious solicitude defends the flock of Christ from wolves, that is, from heretics. 3. What S. Ambrose his judgement was concerning the infallibility of the Bishop and Church of Rome, he declareth, when writing to Siricius Pope of certain heretics whom he had condemned, he saith (e) Ibid. : Whom your Holiness hath condemned, know that we also hold them condemned, according to your judgement. S. Ambrose was far more learned than Siricius, and yet by reason of the infallibility of the Roman Church, in determining causes of faith, and condemning heresies, he submitteth to the judgement of Siricius. Impertinently therefore do you object (f) Pag. 214. , to prove S. Ambrose his no-subiection to the Church of Rome, that the Pope asked his judgement concerning the day of Easter: for a Counsellor may be more learned than a King, & the King may ask his judgement; and yet the authority of determining the cause is not in the Counsellor, but in the King. And the Counsel or though he be more learned, is subject and bound to obey the King, as S. Ambrose was, and acknowledged himself bound to obey Siricius. Nor do you find us to hold, that the Pope in his determinations, ought not to proceed prudently, ask the advice of learned men. 4. To prove that S. Ambrose acknowledged no subjection to the Church of Rome, you report (g) Pag. 214. out of Baronius, that certain Clergymen of Milan 670. years after the death of S. Ambrose, called the Bishopric of Milan, S. Ambrose his Church, and withstood Petrus Damianus the Pope's Legate, alleging, that the Church of Ambrose had been always free in itself, and never subject to the laws of the Pope of Rome. But why do you conceal the truth of this history? The ancient splendour, and beauty of the Church of Milan being defaced, and greatly decayed, partly by the impurity of Clergymen, that being infected with the heresy of the Nicolaites, lived incontinently, and obstinately defended the same to be lawful, and partly by Simoniacal Priests; the people of Milan sent Legates to the Pope, beseeching him to commiserate the lamentable state, and cure the desperate diseases of that famous Church. The Pope (not Leo the Ninth, as you mistake, but) Nicolas the second (between whom and Leo there were other two Popes, Victor and Stephen) condescending to so just a request, sent two holy and learned men, Petrus Damiani Cardinal of Ostia, & Anselme B. of Luca, as his Legates, to visit that Church, and armed them with his own authority, to correct the offenders, and ordain whatsoever should be thought expedient, for the reformation of so great disorders. The Legates being arrived at Milan, had no sooner intimated their Commission, but the people stirred up by those lewd, and factious Clergymen, began to oppose them, alleging that the Church of Ambrose had been always free in itself, and never subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome. These are the only words, which you cull out of Baronius whole narration, leaving out what precedeth, and making no mention of what followeth; which is, that Petrus Damiani stepping up into the Pulpit, after he had quieted the people, proved effectually the sovereign authority granted by Christ, to the Roman Church, over all Churches, & that whosoever denies that authority, is an heretic. The people giving ear to his words, were appeased, and with one accord promised to do whatsoever he should ordain. There was present a great number of Clergymen, and scarce any of them, that had not been promoted to orders by Simony. For the remedy of so great a mischief, the Legates required from Guido the Archbishop, an inviolable caution and promise, not to admit any from thence forward to holy orders for money; and also to root out the heresy of the Nicolaites. Whereunto he willingly yielded, with imprecation of God's wrath, and revenge on himself, if he performed it not. He gave this caution in writing, & the Priests and Clerks subscribed unto it. Which being done, he prostrated himself on the ground, ask penance of the Legates for his offence. And in like manner the Clergymen admitting penance, were reconciled in time of Mass, and received new ornaments from the Bishop's hand, having first made a profession of their faith, in which they anathematised all Heresies extolling themselves against the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, & particularly those of the Nicolaites and Symonians. This is the story: and what greater folly can there be, then to argue, that S. Ambrose a most holy and learned Doctor, opposed the authority of the Roman Church, because a few lewd heretical Clergymen of Milan 670. years after his death, disclaimed from the obedience of the B. of Rome, to the end they might hold on their damnable courses, and escape that punishment which their offences so justly deserved? And can there be a greater Imposture, then to allege a few rash words uttered by the people at the instigation of those heretics, & to conceal that they together with the people & Archbishop being admonished by the Pope's Legates, acknowledged their error with hearty sorrow, and promise of amendment, and obedience to the See Apostolic? By this a judicious reader will perceive, that you neither regard what you allege, true, or false, nor stick to patronise vice and heresy in them, that with you will oppose the Bishop, and Church of Rome. But you that follow them in their disobedience, why do you not also follow them in their repentance? When Theodosius in excuse of the great slaughter he had made at Thessalonica, alleged to S. Ambrose, that King David also had offended, committing adultery and murder; S. Ambrose answered (h) Paulinus in vita Ambros. , Secutus es errantem sequere poenitentem: As you have followed David in his fin, so follow him in his repentance. And if he were now living, he would in like manner answer you, that as you have followed some wicked Clergymen of his Church, in their disobedience to the See Apostolic; so follow them in their repentance: and both he and they would condemn you of great perfidiousness, in proclaiming their sin, and concealing their amendment. 5. You object (i) Pag. 214.215. that S. Ambrose refused to follow the Church of Rome in the custom of washing the feet of infants is baptised, which (say you) the Church of Rome judged to be superfluous, but contrariwise, Ambrose and the Church of Milan held to be necessary. Your custom is to borrow Arguments from Catholic writers, and suppress their solutions. This you borrow from Bellarmine (k) L. 2. de Pont. c. 16. , as you do many others. In him read the answer. It shall suffife me to tell you, that the Roman Church obligeth not other Churches, to use, or omit all the rites, and ceremonies, which she useth, or omitteth in administration of the Sacraments, or other Ecclesiastical offices. In such as are of themselves indifferent, she commandeth nothing, as you have heard (l) Champ. 2●. sect. 3. , but leaveth freedom to other Churches, to follow their own customs. Such was the ceremony of washing the feet of infants baptised, which though she practised not, she condemned not: and therefore it was free for the Church of Milan to use it, without any disobedience at all to the Church of Rome. If you had not been minded to trifle, you should have proved, that S. Ambrose disobeyed the Roman Church in matter of faith, as you do. This you cannot prove, both because S. Augustine hath testified (m) Cont. julia. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. that in the works of Blessed Ambrose the Roman faith greatly shineth; & also, because he himself defineth a Catholic Bishop to be one that agreeth with the Roman Church (n) Orat. de obitu Satyri. , and protesteth to Siricius (o) L. 10. ep. 81. , that whom the Roman Church condemneth, he following her judgement, holdeth in like manner condemned: of which number you are one. SECT. VIII. S. Augustine's judgement concerning the necessity of union with the Church of Rome, and subjection to the Bishop thereof. S. Augustine's judgement was, that the Roman Church is the Head of all Churches, which he professed saying (p) Ep. 162. In her hath always flourished the Princedom of the See Apostolic: Princedom (I say) not only Principality of Order (as you comment) but of true power and authority over all the Churches of the world, as hath been effectually proved (q) Chap. 17. sect. 2. , and the ensuing testimonies of S. Augustine shall further confirm. For herein he declared his judgement, when together with all the Fathers of the Milevitan Council (to which he was Secretary) he writ to Innocentius Pope (r) Ep. ●2. : For as much as God by the gift of his principal grace, hath placed you in the Apostolic See, and granted you to be such in our days, as we ought rather to fear, that it should be imputed to us for a crime of negligence, if we should conceal from your Reverence those things, which for the Church ought to be represented to you, then to imagine that you can receive them disdainfully, or negligently; we beseech you, to apply your Pastoral diligence, to the great perils of the weak members of Christ. You deny not but that S. Augustine with the whole Council in these words requireth the Pope's Pastoral diligence, for the repressing of the Pelagian heresy in Palestine and afric; but your answer is (s) Pag. 218. , that, john the first writing to an Archbishop, granteth, that the charge of the Church for the help of all, in repressing of heresies, was committed to him, as well as to himself: & that every Patriarch hath a Principality and height of a Pastoral watchtower above all Metropolitans, and Bishops: and yet have they not over all Bishop's power of jurisdiction. But these evasions I have already proved to be vain, and not without Imposture (t) See above Chap. 19 sect. 3. . That every Bishop ought to concur to the help of all in repressing of heresy, we deny not: but we deny, that every Bishop hath a watchtower of pastoral authority to judge and condemn heretics whersoever out of his own Diocese, as S. Augustine, and the Milevitan Fathers acknowledge the Pope to have out of his Diocese and Patriarkship of Rome, requiring him to condemn by his pastoral authority the Pelagians in afric & Palestine. And that the Pope's power herein, exceedeth the jurisdiction of all other Bishops, S. Augustine professeth, writing to Boniface Pope (u) Cont. duas Epist. Palag. l. 1. c. 1. : Thou disdainest not to be afrend of the humble, though thou be placed in a higher government. And again (x) Ibid. : The pastoral watch is common to us all, that have the office of Bishops; but thou art supereminent in a higher degree. And yet further he declareth this supereminent power and jurisdiction of the Pope to extend itself over all the world, writing to Optatus (y) Ep. 157. : Pelagius and Celestius by the vigilancy of two Episcopal Counsels, with the help of God, who undertakes the protection of his Church, have been condemned in the extent of the whole world, by two reverend Prelates of the Apostolic See, Pope Innocentius, and Pope Sozimus. If then S. Augustine believed aright, the Pope hath Pastoral power to repress and condemn heretics, throughout the whole world, which other Bishops have not; their pastoral power being confined to the limits of their own Dioceses. Your objections against this, are, 1. (z) Pag. 219.210. That S. Augustine speaking of Stephen B. of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, calleth them, Two Bishops of most eminent Churches, Ergo, the B. of Rome hath not jurisdiction over the B. of Carthage: for there cannot be, Two most Eminents. Your consequence is untrue: and such you must confess it to be: for the B. of Rome, being Patriarch of all the West, the B. of Carthage is subject unto him, as you forgetting yourself afterwards acknowledge (a) Pag. 2●9. . Wherefore S. Augustine calling Stephen and Cyprian, two Bishops of two most eminent Churches, intended not to deny the subordination of Cyprian, to Stephen; nor of the Church of Carthage, to that of Rome; but only to signify, that as the Roman Church is most eminent, by reason of her patriarchal power over the West, and her Primacy over the whole world; so the Church of Carthage is also most eminent (though in an inferior degree) by reason of her Primacy over all Africa. And in this sense both those Churches ●●e most-Eminent, the one over all Africa, and the other over all the world. Your second objection of the Saturday-fast (b) Pag. 220. ; your third of the denial of Appeals out of Africa to Rome (c) Pag. 221. ; your fourth concerning the cause of Cecilian (d) Ibid. ; your fifth of the Epistle to the Hebrues, whether in S. Augustine's days the Roman Church held it canonical (e) Pag. 222. , are all repetitions of your former Arguments, which in their due places have been answered (f) Chap. 22. sect. 3. Chap. 25.26. tot. Chap. 30. sect. 1. Chap. 34. sect. 6. . But to them you add here a Consideration of your judicious Casaubon (g) Pag. 223. , requiring us (who account the only note of Schism to be divided from the Roman Church and Pope thereof), to answer, Why S. Augustine, who in seven Books, besides many other places, confuted the Schismatical Donatists, yet never spoke word of the Monarchy of the Pope, or of the infallibility of his judgement, whereby to reduce them to the unity of the Church, and truth. Your judicious Casaubon shown great lack of judgement in making this Argument; and that he had not read S. Augustine, or if he had, that he did not understand him; or if he had read, & did understand him, than you know what he showeth in concealing the truth. For throughout all those seven Books against the Donatists, there is nothing which S. Augustine so often objecteth, nor so much urgeth against them, as their separation from the Roman Church, repeating the same not once or twice, but almost in every Chapter of some of those books. For when the Donatists did strive to defend their heresy of rebaptisation by the authority of S. Cyprian, S. Augustine answered (h) L. 1. de Bapt. c. 18.19. l. 2. c. 1.5.6.7.9. Contra Crescon. l. ●. c. 32. l. 2. c. 3. & alibi saepè. , that Cyprians patronage could not avail them, because they were out of the Communion of the Roman Church, in which S. Cyprian lived & died. And doth he not in other his writings against the Donatists often urge the succession of Bishops in the Roman Church? If (saith (i) Ep. 165. he), the order, and succession of Bishops be to be observed, how much more assuredly, and safely indeed do we begin our account from S. Peter himself, to whom as he represented the whole Church, our Lord said, (k) Math. 16.18. Upon this Rock I will build my Church? For Linus succeoded to Peter, Cletus to Linus etc. And so reckoning all the Popes unto Anastasius, who then sat in the chair of S. Peter, he concludeth against the Donatists. In this order of succession, there is not one Donatist to be found: to which I add no, nor yet one Protestant. And reckoning the motives that held him in the Church, among them he setteth down the succession of Bishops in the See of Rome: There are (saith he) (l) Count Ep. Fundam. c. 4. many things, which with greatest reason hold me in this Catholic Church. 1. The uniform consent of people, and nations (which is not to be found in the Protestant Church, confined to a few Northern countries, in a corner of the world.) 2. A certain authority, begun by miracles (which Protestants confess themselves not to have.) 3. The succession of Priests, even from S. Peter, until this present Bishop. Wherefore since that Church in which there is a continued succession of Bishops from S. Peter, cannot be the Protestan: Church, (which hath no such succession) but the Roman, it followeth that S. Augustine held the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church. And therefore expressing to the Donatists how much he grieved to see them lie cut of from this Church he said (m) Psal. count. part. Donati. : It grieveth us to see you lie, so cut of. Number the Priests even from the See of Peter, and consider in that rank of Fathers, who succeeded whom. That's the Rock which the proud gates of hell overcome not. Here again S. Augustine showeth the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, built upon Peter, and his successors, as upon a rock, against which heresies & schisms, which are the proud gates of hell, shall never prevail, and all that are out of her communion to be as branches out of from the Vine, and devoid of all spiritual life. And as he held all that are out of the Roman Church, to be in miserable state, so contrarily he held all that live in her Communion, to be most happy and secure from error in faith: for so he deemed Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage to be, notwithstanding all the plots and conspiracies of the Donatists against him: He might (saith S. Augustine) (n) Ep. 162. contemn the conspiring multitude of his enemies, because he knew himself to be united by communicatory letters both to the Church of Rome, in which the sovereignty of the See Apostolic hath always flourished, and to other Countries, from whence the Gospel came first into Africa. These few passages among many others, show, that your judicious Casaubon failed much in judgement and truth, when he adventured to say, that, S. Augustine in his works against the Donatists, never spoke word of the Monarchy of the Pope, nor of the infallibility of his judgement, whereby to reduce them to the unity of the Church, and truth. And as he urged the authority of the See Apostolic, against the Donatists, so hath he testified, that by the same authority taken from the authority of holy Scriptures (o) Aug. Ep. 91. , the Pelagians were condemned: who therefore seeing themselves esteemed as Heretics throughout all the Western Church in which they lived, sought to the Churches of the East, hoping to be admitted into their Communion, as the Protestants of Germany writing to Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople did (p) See justus Caluinus Apol. pro Eccl. Rom. pag. 10. ; whom therefore we may check with S. Augustine's words written against julian a chiefe mantainer of the Pelagian heresy: I think (saith he (q) Cont. julia. l. 1. c. 4. that part of the world ought to suffice thee, in which our Lord would have the chief of the Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdom: To the Governor of which Church, Blessed Innocentius, if thou wouldst have given care, thou hadst ere this, freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares: for what answer could that holy man give to the African Counsels, but that, which from ancient times the Roman Church with all others perseverantly holdeth? And else where he noteth (r) L. 2. de great. Christi & pecc. orig. c. 8. , that albeit Pelagius had drawn others into error, he could never deceive the Roman Church: for the most Blessed Pope Sozimus considered what opinion his predecessor worthy to be imitated, had of his proceed, and what judgement the faith of the Romans to be commended in our Lord, had made of him. But you object (s) Pag. 225. , It is mere sophistry, to infer a necessity of union with the Church of Rome, to be professed of all Christians, at all times, because the Fathers required it in their times. By this Argument a Pelagian, a Donatist, an Eutychian, or any other Heretic may justify his departure from the Roman Church, pretending (as you do) that the necessity of union with her, was not for all times. Her faith is built upon the word of Christ, promising (t) Math. 16.18. that, the gates of hell shall never prevail against her, and (u) Luc. 22.32. that, the faith of Peter's See shall never fail. Wherefore as it is impossible, that Christ should fail in the performance of his promise; so is it impossible, that the necessity of union with the Roman Church should not be perpetual. Lastly, you bring examples of antiquity (x) Pag. 125. requiring union with other Churches, as well as with the Roman. This Argument you have prosecuted before (y) Pag 100.101. , out of your own observations of antiquity, with many examples, some of which you repeat here, adding others unto them (z) Pag. 229.230. . The answer you have received (a) Chap. 15. sect. 9 ; to which I add, that your Argument is, as if you persuading rebels to join not only with their Sovereign, but also with other his loyal subjects, I should lay to your charge, that you hold loyal subjects▪ to be of equal authority with their Sovereign. It is true, that while subjects stand loyal to their Prince, he that joins in loyalty with them, is a loyal subject. But the reason why he is a loyal subject, is not because he joineth with them, but because both he, and they join in obedience and subjection to their Sovereign: In like manner it is true, that whatsoever Churches are in Communion with other Orthodoxal Churches that agree with the Roman (in which the sovereignty of the See Apostolic hath always flourished (b) Aug. ep. 162. they are to be accounted Orthodoxal, and Catholic Churches; but the reason why they are to be accounted Catholic, is not for their agreement among themselves, but because they all agree with the Church of Rome, the Head and original Source of Catholic communion: for which cause S. Cyprian explicating what a Catholic is, makes no mention of other Apostolical Churches, which were extant in his days, but absolutely defineth (c) L. 4. Ep. 2. & 8. , that to be a Catholic, is, to communicate with the B. of Rome. And S. Ambrose (d) Orat. de obitu Satyri. , that, to agree with Catholic Bishops, is, to agree with the Roman Church, from which (saith he (e) L. 1. ep. 4. ad Imperat. ) the rights of Venerable Communion do flow unto all other Churches, she being the source, and they streams, derived from her, as from their native fountain (f) Innocent. apud Aug. ap. 91. . And S. Irenaeus (g) L. 3. c. 3. pronounceth it necessary for all Churches (not excepting the Apostolical) to agree with the Church of Rome, by reason of her more mighty principality, that is, because her saith cannot fail, she being the Rock on which the Catholic Church is built (h) Hieron. Ep. 57 add Damas'. , and against which the gates of hell cannot prevail (i) Aug in Psal. count. partem Donati. , as they have done against all the other Apostolical Churches. SECT. IX. S. Hilary B. of Arles acknowledged himself subject to the B. of Rome. THe last witness you bring (k) Pag. 225. to prove the no-necessity of union and subjection to the Pope & Church of Rome, is S. Hilary B. of Arles in France; who though he deserved great commendation for his labours against the Pelagian heresy, and defence of S. Augustine's works, yet for a time he stained his glory, when exceeding the limits of due moderation, and insisting in the steps of Patroclus an invasor of that See, he presumed to usurp to himself the rights of the Metropolitans of Vienna and Narbona, ordaining & deposing Bishops in their districts; a thing which no way belonged to him, and had been forbidden by the Council of Turin (l) C. 13. . This being complained of against Patroclus, first to Boniface, and then to Celestine Popes, & lastly to the blessed Pope Leo against Hilary, that he had presumed to depose Celidonius a Bishop of the Province of Vienna, and he being still living, to ordain Proiectus in his place, he was so far from persisting in this crime to the end of his life, that he went himself in person to Rome, in a most submissive, and penitent manner, to make satisfaction for his offence: He undertook (saith the author of his life (m) Apud Cuiac, obseruat. l. 5. c. 38. a journey to Rome, on foot, and entered into the City, without any horse, or beast of carriage, and presented himself to Pope Leo, reverently offering him obedience, and humbly entreating, that he might ordain the state of the Churches after the accustomed manner etc. but if it were not his will, he would not importune. And again: (n) Ibid. : He applied himself wholly to appease the spirit of Leo, with a prostrate humility. Having pleaded his cause, & being found guilty, he departed from Rome, without staying his sentence, and returned presently to Arles, never laying any further claim to the jurisdiction, which formerly he had usurped, as appeareth out of the Epistle which Leo writ against him to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna (o) Leo Ep. 89. , wherein having fully declared, and proved the supreme authority of the See Apostolic to be instituted by Christ himself, he annulled what had been injustly presumed by Hilary, and prescribed a rule to be observed in the creation of Bishops. And lest Hilary should raise tumults, seeking to support his cause by force of arms (as formerly he had done) Leo required of Valentinian the third, that if any such attempt were made, he would cause it to be suppressed by Aetius, commander of the soldiers in France. This the Emperor performed, writing to Aetius that famous Rescript, which afterwards Theodosius the younger inserted in his new Constitutions, intituling it, The Law of Theodosius, and Valentinian, in which he relateth the whole story of Hilary, and professeth his great veneration of the See Apostolic, and of the Pope's supreme authority over all Churches, & Bishops, and particularly his right to convent them before him, and prescribe Laws unto them; ordaining withal, that if any Bishop being summoned by him, shall refuse to appear, the Governor of the Province shall enforce him to obey, to the end (saith he) that in all things, that Reverence be observed, which our Parents bare to the Roman Church. This is the history of Hilary truly related out of the author of his life, out of the Epistle of Leo, & out of the Rescript of Valentinian. Is it not then unshamefastness in you to say (p) Pag. 225. . that we without any proof would make you believe, that at length Hilary yielded to the Pope, making no further apology for the defence of his cause? What? Is the relation made by the Author of his life, no proof? Is the epistle of that renowned Pope S. Leo the great, no proof? Is the Rescript of Valentinian inserted into the civil law, by Theodosius, & never doubted of by any man of learning or judgement, no proof? But you tell us that jacobus Capella your fellow-novellist saith (q) Pag. 225. : The Imperial Rescript is either forged by some Gnatho of Pope Leo, or else forced from the Emperor, by the importanity of Leo himself. Good God If the asseveration of a faithless man, uttered merely upon spleen and hatred to the See Apostolic, may be believed, what may not be called in question? what though never so false, may not be descended? what never so true, may not be denied? Your answer, that when all is done, this Rescript is but a humane Constitution, cannot avail you: for Valentinian performing the duty of a godly Emperor, made this humane Constitution, to defend, and maintain that authority, which by divine institution was given to S. Peter, and his successors, and which (witness the Council of Milevis (r) Aug. Ep. 91. , is taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures. But you say (s) Pag. 225. : Hilary, notwithstanding the displeasure of Pope Leo, was worthy for singular sanctity, to be registered in the Roman martyrologue of Saints. True. King David also is a Saint, but not for his adultery committed with Bethsabee, nor for his murdering of Urias. He is a Saint for his virtuous life before, and his great penance after the committing of those siunes. So like wise Hilary is a glorious Saint, canonised not for transgressing the limits of his jurisdiction, but (saith Baronius (t) Anno 445. for his zeal in the Catholic faith, for his great labours against the Pelagians, for his pious liberality to the poor, & other his excellent virtues: and finally, because though for a time defending (as he supposed) the right of his See, he exceeded the limits of his jurisdiction, yet that served him for a spur, to return to himself, with greater courage, fervour, and humility. And I cannot but marvel at your sharp sight, that in this history can espy any thing to argue in S. Hilary disobedience to the Pope of Rome. Was his entrenching upon the privileges of other Bishops, done to oppose his authority? No. It was (as he supposed) to defend the rights of his own Church. When he was complained of to the Pope, did he deny his authority? Nay, did he not of his own accord, go to Rome, to give account of his proceed to him, as to his lawful Superior? And when he was convinced of his error, did he show himself refractory? Did he, not presently return to Arles, desisting from his claim, & never so much as once opening his mouth, to make any the least complaint against Leo? If therefore a mist of hatred to the See Apostolic had not obscured your eyes, you would have seen, that as this history of S. Hilary doth no way infringe, but many ways confirm the authority of the Pope; so it doth also show your inconsideration, who to disgrace S. Hilary, report his offence, but conceal his repentance, yea & deny it; that so he may seem to have died impenitent, because that fitteth your purpose, and suiteth best with your spirit, which whether it be good, let the reader judge: for what spirit can that be, which teacheth you to publish the imperfections of the Saints, and deny their virtues? CHAP. XXXV. Of Titles attributed to the Pope. THE Titles given to Popes by the ancient Fathers and Counsels, show, that their universal jurisdiction was believed, & acknowledged in the primitive times of the Church. Concerning the titles given them by Counsels, you say nothing, but what hath been already answered. One only testimony you add here (u) Pag. 237. of the Councell of Constantinople under Menas, calling not only the Pope, but also Menas Patriarch of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch (x) Act. 5. , that is to say, Universal. True: but that Title was never given to him nor to any other Patriarch of Constantinople in the West, but in the East only: and that not in regard of any universal jurisdiction, which those Patriarches had equal with the Pope, but under the Pope, and in respect of the Patriarches of the East only, as hath been proved (y) See above Chap. 19 sect. 4. . And the same appears out of the seaventh Law of the Code, where justinian calls Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch; and yet in the same Law, he calls the Pope, Head of all the holy Prelates of God. And Constantine Pogonate in the sixth Council (z) Ep. ad Synod. Apost. in 6. Syn. Act. 18. , entitles the Pope, Universal Arch-Pastor, and Protothrone of all Patriarches, and the rest of the Patriarches, Synthrones to the Pope. The testimony of S. Gregory Nazianzen, which here you object (a) Pag. 236. as above also you had done (b) Pag. 140. , is borrowed out of Salmeron, whose discourse whoever pleaseth to read, will soon find your dealing to be imposterous, and that you curtail Nazianzens words to your own advaritage, leaving out the later part of them. The Titles attributed by ancient Fathers to the Pope, you seek to elude by parallels, of equal titles, given to other Bishops. But in vain. 1. For albeit some of the titles, which anciently were, & are still given to the Pope, if you regard the sound of the words only, may have been given in some occasion to other Bishops, yet you prove them not to parallel the Pope's titles, unless you can show, that they were given to any other Bishop, in the same sense, in which they have been always given to the Pope. Christ said of himself (c) joan. 9.6. , I am the light of the world: And the same title he gave to his Apostles, saying to them (d) Math. 5.14. , You are the light of the world. Again he is called a Rock (e) 1. Cor. 10.4. ; & the same title he gave to S. Peter (f) Math. 16.18. . Lo here parallels like to yours: Behold the same titles, in words, given to Christ, and his Apostles. But doth this prove, that the titles of Rock, and Light of the world, do equally, and in the same sense agree to Christ and his Apostles? Do they import the same excellency, and dignity in the Apostles, that they do in Christ? No: & therefore your disproving the Pope's supremacy by parallels of titles, like in words, given to the Pope, and to other Bishops is mere sophistry: for as the titles of Rock, and Light of the world, if you regard the sense, import a far greater dignity in Christ, then in his Apostles; so like wise, though some titles given to the Pope, and to other Bishops, may be equivalent in words, yet not in sense: for they import a far greater dignity in the Pope, then in any other Bishop. The title of Pastor, may be given to other Bishops, and Priests, but in a degree far inferior, then to the Pope. He is called, The chief Pastor, Prince of Pastors, Universal Arch-Pastor, Pastor of all the sheep for which Christ shed his blood, Pastor that feeds the flock of Christ committed to him, throughout the whole world, Pastor of our Lords flock, and Governor of the universal Church, Pastor of the sheep, not of one City, nor of one Country, but of all the sheep of Christ, without any exception, or limitation (g) See all this proved above Chap. 14. sect. . In this sense the name of Pastor was never given to any other Apostle, or Bishop, but only to S. Peter, and his successors. The rest of the Apostles (saith S. Bernard (h) L. 2. de confideras. obtained each of them, their peculiar flocks: james contented with Jerusalem, yields the univer sality to Peter. And long before him, Eucherius, that famous and learned Bishop of Lions (i) Hom. in Vigil. S. Pe●. : Christ first committed to Peter his Lambs, and then his sheep, because he made him, not only a Pastor, but Pastor of Pastors: Peter therefore feedeth the Lambs, and the sheep; he feedeth the young ones, and the dams: he governeth the subjects and the Prelates, and is therefore Pastor of all; for besides Lambs, and sheep, there is nothing in the Church. Your evasion (k) Pag. 243. n. 20. , that, if by Pastor we understand, curam & studium, care and study, towards the good of the universal Church, in this all other Bishops are Pastors, as well as the Pope, is impertinent: for charity obligeth not only Bishops, but every Christian man and woman to have a care and study, towards the good of the universal Church, according to their abilities. But the Pope is not only bound to a charitable care and study, as all others are, but by reason of his Pastoral office, and function, is the guide, and Governor of the universall Church throughout the whole world. And until you can show the like Pastoral power, and jurisdiction attributed to any other Bishop, you must confess his title of Pastor, to be without parallel. The like hath been proved (l) Above Chap. 14. sect. 3. of his titles of Doctor, of Pope (m) Chap. 23. , of Vicar of Christ (n) Chap. 14. sect. 2. , of Apostolical man (o) Chap. 14. sect. 3. , and Apostolate, applied to his person, and function; and of Apostolical See, to the Roman Church. Nor is it hard, to prove the same of all the other titles mentioned by Bellarmine. He is called Father of Fathers, and Prince of Priests; which titles, though they may, in a true sense, be given to every Patriarch, and Archbishop, in respect of other Bishop's subject to them; and to every Bishop, in respect of the inferior Pastors of his Diocese, yet not in the same sense in which they are given to the Pope. In like manner the name of Pontifex, and Summus Pontifex, are sometimes given to other Bishops, but not as to the Pope: for he is called by the four Primats of Africa (p) See Spond anno 646. n. 1. , & their Synods, Pater Patrum, & Summus omnium Praesulum Pontifex, the Father of Fathers, and the chief Bishop of all Bishops. And Venerable Bede (q) L. 1. hist. Angl. c. 1. saith of S. Gregory, that, in toto orbe gerebat Pontificatum, that, his Episcopal power was over the whole world: which S. Anselm● also expressed, dedicating his book, De incarnatione, to Vrbanus Pope with this inscription, Domino & Patri universae Ecclesiae in terra peregrinantis, Summo Pontifici Vrbano: To the chief Bishop Vrbanus, Lord & Father of the universal Church militant on earth. Where do you find any parallel to this title of the Pope? The like I say, of the title of Rector domus Dei, Ruler or Governor of the house of God: for albeit each of the Apostles were Rulers and Governors of the Church (and so S. Andrew is so called in the Collect used on his festival day) yet the ordinary Episcopal authority, and jurisdiction of none of them, nor of any other Bishop whatsoever but only of S. Peter, and his successors, extends to the rule, & Government of the universal Church. For which cause Valentinian the third entitleth the Pope, Rector of the Universality of Churches. And both he and Theodosius say (s) Constit. Novel. Tit. 24. : So the peace of the Church shallbe conserved by all, if the Universality acknowledge her Rector. And Theodoret being deposed in the second Council of Ephesus, appealed to Leo Pope, because (saith he) (t) Ep. ad Renat. , The holy Roman See hath the stern of government of all the Churches of the world. Where do you find the title of Ruler or Governor of the Church, attributed to any other Apostle, or Bishop, in this sense? The same I say of the title of Head of the Church: for in the Nicen Council (u) Can. 39 ex Graec. & Arab. , the B. of Rome is called, Head and Prince of all Patriarches. The Council of Sardica (x) Insert. in fragment. Hilar. & citatur expresseth the same in their Epistle to Pope julius: à Nicol. c. i● Ep. ad Episc. Gal. It is very good & fit, that from all the Provinces, the Bishops have reference to their Head, that is, to the See of the Apostle Peter. In the Council of Ephesus (y) Part. 2. Act. 2. , when the Legates of Celestine Pope arrived thither, they gave thanks to the Fathers there assembled, that, by their holy and religious voices, they had showed themselves holy members to the blessed Pope, their holy Head. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (z) In relat ad Leon. call Leo Pope their Head & themselves his members, and acknowledge him (a) Ibid. to rule over them, as the Head doth over the members. And his Legates in the same Council said (b) Act. 1. : We have the commands of the Pope of Rome, who is the Head of all Churches: and the Council contradicted not, but presently obeyed his commands. S. Prosper saith (c) L. De ingrat. c. 2. : Rome the See of Peter, is made the Head of Pastoral honour to the world, possessing by religion, what it doth not by force of arms: which S. Leo also expresseth saying (d) Serm. 1. in Nata. Apost. Petri & Pauli. : Rome by the sacred See of Peter, being made Head of the world, hath a larger extent of government by divine religion, then by earthly dominion. Eugenius B. of Carthage (e) Vict. Vticen. l. ●. calls the Roman Church, The Head of all Churches. S. Fulgentius (f) De incarn. & great c. 11. , The Top of the world. And Ennodius saith (g) Lib de Synod sub Symmacho habit. : The dignity of the See Apostolic is Venerable throughout the whole world, whiles all the faithful are subject unto it, as being the Head of the whole body. justinian entitleth the Pope (h) Cod. Tit. 1. L. 7. , The Head of all the holy Prelates of God, and, the Head of all Churches. And the Bishops of the lower Maesia (i) Apud Bin. to 2. pag 154. profess Leo B. of Rome to be, Truly the Head of all Churches. You answer first (k) Pag. 242. , that S. Basil calls Athanasius, Top or crown of the head of all. S. Basill means not that Athanasius was the top, or head of all, but, omnium nostrum, of us all, as the Latin translation hath, that is to say, of all the Orthodox Pastors, which in those Eastern parts applied themselves to remedy the calamities of that distracted Church. 2. You say (l) Ibid. : Cyrill in a Council (the first of Ephesus) is called, The Head of the assembly. True; he presided in that Council, as Vicar to Pope Celestine, whom therefore Cyrill, and the whole Council acknowledged to be their Head (m) See above Chap. 18. sect. 1 . 3. You say (n) Pag. 243. : S. Chrysestome calls Antioch, The head City of the whole world. S. chrysostom by the whole world, understandeth not all the nations under heaven, but the East only, as a little before he had declared, speaking of Flavianus: He knew well, that the business (of his embassy to the Empetor) was not for one City, but for all the East: for of all the cities seated in the East, our City is the Head and mother. If you can show that the Fathers and Counsels, when they call the Roman Church, The head of all Churches, and the B. of Rome, The Head of all the holy Prelates of God, explicate themselves to speak of the West only, or of any part of the world, your answer shall be accepted: but until then, it shall stand for sophistry, as it is, and you well know it to be. The rest of your answers to the titles given to Popes by the ancient Fathers, are of the same strain: but to dwell in the examination of every particular, is a superfluous labour, especially the supreme authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome, being unanswearably proved, by the Titles, which I have declared. But you object (n) Pag. 258. , that of later times, blasphemous titles are given to the Popes by their Parasites, and swallowed up by them, as their spirit, and vital breath. I cannot but marvel, that a man of your learning, years, and calling, should make such objections in good earnest, which consist merely, in your own violent wresting of words, contrary to the sense, & meaning of them that spoke them, and contrary (I dare say) to your own knowledge: for you cannot be so simple, as to think, that those titles were ever given to any Pope, in that sense, in which you misconstrue them. But your good will to the Bishop, and Church of Rome, is such, that so you may make them hateful to your readers, you regard not how you delude them, nor how you wrong our Authors. First then, the Pope is called, Sponsus Ecclesiae, The bridegroom of the Church. This title you except against (o) Pag. 246.251. , as blasphemous, because the Church (p) joan. 3.29. is called, The Spouse of Christ. But why may not the name of Bridegroom, which is one of the titles of Christ, without blasphemy and without wrong to Christ, be given to his Vicar on earth, in an inferior degree, as the name of Light of the world (another of his titles) is without blasphemy or wrong to him, given to his Apostles (q) Math. 5.14. ? Shall we think, that 500 Reverend Bishops in the second General Council of Lions (r) C. ubi peric. De elect. in 6. blasphemed, when they approved that title unto the Pope? Shall Doctor Morton now after 350. years, come to control them, and teach them how to speak? But you ask (s) Pag. 246. , how S. Bernard did like of this divinity? He (say you) writing unto Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himself the Bridegroom of the Church, which is the spouse of Christ; for, saith he, Nemo committit sponsam suam Vicario: No man will commit his spouse to his Vicar, Can there be a more wilful falsification? S. Bernard hath no such words: They are yours, and directly contrary to S. Bernard's words and Doctrine, who in that very Epistle (t) Ep. 237. , saith to Eugenius, Tibi commissa est Domini tui sponsa, The spouse of thy Lord is committed to thee. And to Innocentius Pope (u) Ep. 191. : To thee is committed the spouse of Christ: thou art a friend of the Bridegroom: It belongs to thee, to present a chaste Virgin, to one man Christ. In what sense therefore S. Bernard admonished Eugenius (x) Ep. 237. to call the beloved spouse of Christ, Princess, & not my Princess, these passages of his give sufficiently to be understood, and our authors have declared (y) See Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31. . Nor can this divinity seem strange to any man that is a Divinor for although there be but one chief Bridegroom of the Church, which is Christ, and in respect of him, all Bishops are but Paranymphes, & friends of the Bridegroom, yet who knoweth not (what Demetrius B. of Bulgaria writing to Constantinus Cabasilas, hath rightly observed) that as in carnal marriage the Bridegroom by a ring weddeth himself to his Bride, so a Bishop hath a ring given unto him, to signify the spiritual marriage between him, & his Church. And as every particular Bishop, without any wrong to Christ, is a Bridegroom of his particular Church under Christ, cooperating extrinsecally with him, to beget children unto him, by preaching his word, & administering his Sacraments, so likewise in the same sense, the Pope is Bridegroom of the universal Church, and she his spouse, without any wrong to Christ. 2. You object (z) Pag. 251. out of Bzovius; Innocentius the eight was called by Abrahamus Polonus, Regno & vnctione Christus prae participibus sui●: In Royalty, and unction Christ above his fellows. This title also you will have to be blasphemous, because S. Paul (a) Heb. 1.9. gives that name to Christ. But what then say you to S. Bernard, who (b) L. 2. de consider at. calls Eugenius Pope, Peter in power, in Unction Christ? Did he not know how to speak? Did he blaspheme? And if he did not, why do you misinterpret Polonus his words, who spoke in the same sense S. Bernard did? 3. You object (d) Pag. 251. ; The Orator of the Venetians called Paul the second, Celestial Majesty. But what say you to Bassianus B. of Ephesus, who in his petition to the Emperors Valentinian, and Martian (e) In Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. , saith: I cast myself at your Divine feet, quatenus dignetur Vestra caelestis Potestas etc. that your celestial Power may vouchsafe to write to the Council etc. Et vestram Divinitatem exoro, And I beseech your Divinity etc. What to that learned Doctor Theodorus Studites and his fellow Regulars saying (f) In Ep. ad Michael. Imper. to Michael the Emperor, If your divine Magnificence seem to doubt of any thing, or not to believe, the declaration is piously to be required from the Pope. What to the Bishops of the Council of Mopsuestia saying (g) Ep. ad Vigil. to Vigilius Pope: The things which concern the state of the Churches, are to be referred to your Divinely honoured Blessedness? Did not these men know, how to speak? Or will you presume to charge them with blasphemy? Wherefore, as they by Celestial power, by Divinity, and Divine Magnificence, did not understand the increated power and Majesty of Almighty God, but the great dignity, and power given by him to Emperors, and Popes upon earth; so if you had not been minded to cavil, and spend paper in objecting silly sophisms, instead of solid Arguments, you might have known, that the Venetian Orator, by the title of Celestial Majesty given to the Pope, understood nothing else, but the great power and dignity of supreme Governor of God's Church, given him from heaven. 4. You object (h) Pag. 251. ; Galbus Ambassador of France, called Pius the fourth, The voice, and oracle of Truth, proper to Christ, who saith, I am the truth. So likewise Christ saith (i) joan. 9.6. , I am the light of the world: doth he therefore blaspheme, that calls the Apostles, and Doctors of the Church, lights of the world? This Sir 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 think you of 289. Bishops assembled in the sixth Council general (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 faith which he had sent them, said (l) Inter Ep. Leonis post Ep. 51. : From the See Apostolic, spring forth still the Oracles of the Apostolical spirit? which what are they, but Oracles of truth? for the Apostles were penmen of the holy Ghost, and guided by the spirit of truth. And why did the Council of Milevis say (m) Aug. Ep. 92. , that God ruleth the Pope in his consultations of faith? And why S. Augustine speaking of the Roman chair (n) Ep. 166● , that Christ in the chair of unity, hath placed the doctrine of Verity? And why did Christ assure S. Peter, that his successors shall not fail in their definitions of faith (o) See this proved above Chap. 12. sect. 1. & 2. , but because the definitions of the See Apostolic are of truth? 5. If an orator of Portugal, speaking of the dignity of the B. of Rome, called it, A dignity above all Principalities, and Powers; why may not you understand, that he useth that manner of speech, to profess, that so great a dignity hath not been conferred on any other, either Man, or Angel? Which if to you it be Blasphemy, is to Orthodoxal people, a certain Truth: for to be the supreme Vicar of Christ on earth, and govern or of the universal Church, is a dignity, that hath been given to no man, nor Angel, but only to S. Peter, and his successors. 6. If Bellarmine (p) Cont. de Rom. Pont. Praefat. called Sixtus Quintus, The Cornerstone in Zion, proved, precious, and chief foundation, what was it else to say, but as Christ said to S. Peter, & in him to his successors, that he was the Rock, and foundation of the Church, signified by Zion? and that whereas, the rest of the Apostles are secondary foundations, Peter & his successors are in that rank the chiefest, and next unto Christ, and therefore in a secondary sense participate with him, and as his Vicars, the title of Cornerstone in Zion? 7. You bid us, stop our ears (q) Pag. 25●. , that we may not hear Stapleton call Gregory the thirteenth, Supremum in terris Numen, which you english, Power, Might, and Majesty of God on earth. But you must be put to your Grammar again, to learn, that Numen doth not only signify the increated power and Majesty of God, but any great earthly Power: why else did Cicero say (r) Philip. 3. . Magna est vis, magnum Numen, unum & idem sentientis Senatus? And why did justinian say, (s) Authen. ad joan. Pap. Eccles. Rom. Necessarium duximus fontem Sacerdotij speciali nostri Numinis lege sancire? Stapleton therefore blasphemes not, but you falsify, obtruding for his sense, your own ignorance of grammar, or (which is worse) your wilful misconstruction of his words. 8. You object (t) Pag. 252. that the Gloss calls the Pope, Our Lord God the Pope. This is a malicious cavil: for the word Deus, God, is not in the Roman copy; not in the ancient edition of Paris, anno 1522. by Thielman carver, Printer to that famous University; nor in the edition of Turin per Nicolaum Bevilaquam anno 1520. Only I find it in the Parisian edition of the year 1585. which hath no name of printer, and therefore gives cause of suspicion, that it is of an heretical printer: or if he were a Catholic, why may it not be thought to be an error in the print, or that, whereas the Pope is sometimes called, Dominus Dominus noster Papa, & in the second place Dominus for brevity 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 give you your greatest advantage, let the edition be Catholic, let the words be, as you object them: must you presently cry blasphemy, and bid us stop our ears? Doth not Deus often signify an earthly dignity? Did not David (u) Psal. 81.1. call Magistrates, Gods, when he said, God stood in the assembly of Gods, and in the midst iudgath Gods? Did not God himself (x) Exod. 7.1. call Moses, the God of Pharaoh? Did not Christ say (y) joan. 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 Council, say. You are constituted Gods by the true God, and therefore end your strefes among yourselves; for it is not fit, that Gods should be judged us us? And did not S. Gregory (a) L. 4. ep. 31. , alleging this testimony of Constantine, add unto it, that God himself in the holy Scripture hath honoured Priests with the name of Gods? And did not our late Sovereign King james say (b) Praefat. monit. that Kings are Gods upon earth? Did he, or any of the other here named, blaspheme? I suppose you will not presume to lay so foul an aspersion on them: or if you do, we shall make bold to tell you that you blaspheme, whiles in your late Sermon preached at Durham before his Majesty, you call Kings Mortal Gods. If than the name of God, may not only without blasphemy, but in a true, Catholic, and pious sense, be given to all Kings, to all Magistrates, to all Bishops, to all Priests, to all Gods adoptive Children; shall it be blasphemy only to give it to the chief 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 Pharaoh, as God called Moses? Did Ladislaus, that famous King of Hungary, blaspheme when he called Nicolas the fifth, A God upon earth (d) Orat. ad Nicol. 5. ? Acknowledge then, that this your objection is an imposterous cavil against the Bishop and Church of Rome, or rather a calumny invented to maintain a bad cause, which with other Arguments you cannot uphold. CHAP. XXXVI. The nullity of Doctor Mortons' answers, to the testimonies of ancient Fathers, discovered. SECT. I. Some of his Answers examined. WHAT hath been produced hitherto, out of antiquity, convincingly proveth the universal Authority, and jurisdiction of the B. of Rome, to have been acknowledged from the beginning by all the Catholics of the world. Here you undertake to answer the testimonies of ancient Fathers, alleged by Bellarmine, but perform it not. Some of them you pass over, not only without answer, 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. citys for himself, & acknowledgeth to be a Saint. 2. To the testimonies of S. Ignatius, and Irenaeus, you answer, but satisfy not, as hath been proved (f) Chap. 15. sect. 5. & 6. . And the like hath been showed of your answers to the testimonies of S. Basil (g) Chap. 34. sect. 4. and justinian (h) Chap. 30. sect. 5. the Emperor. 3. Of S. Prosper you say (i) Pag. 270. fin. 271. init. : His meaning might have been better known, if he had written in prose, and not assumed unto him the liberty of a Poet. But who seethe not this to be a mere shift, void of truth? for as in verse he said (k) L. De ingrat. c. 2. , Now Rome the great Apostle Peter's seat, Head of Pastoral Honour here below; Hath by faiths Empire made herself more great, than she by all her armed powers could grow: So likewise he said in prose (l) De vocat. gentium c. 16. ; The sovereignty of the Apostolical Priesthood hath made Rome greater by the Tribunal of religion, then by the Throne of Power. Bellarmine allegeth both the one, and the other; as well in prose, as in verse. But because both of them are unanswerable, you under colour, that the one is in verse, reject S. Prosper, as fabulous in both: for the liberty which Poets assume unto them, is to report fables instead of truths. This is the reverence, you bear to that holy and renowned Father: and such the solutions, wherewith you shift off the testimonies of antiquity; and yet bear your Readers in hand, that you believe as they believed. 4. The B. of Patara in Licia (m) Liberat. in Breu. c. 22. , upon the banishment of Pope Siluerius, represented to the Emperor justinian the judgement of God, upon the expulsion of the Bishop of so great a Seat, saying: There are many Kings in the world, but not one of them, as the Pope, who is Head over the Church of the whole world. You answer (n) Pag. 156. Liberatus, who reported this history, was an author deceived by heretics, & believed not himself, what he reported for the Pope. Give us any one author that excepted against this relation of Liberatus before yourself, or that said, he himself beliued not, what he reported for the Pope? If it shall be lawful for you to reject testimonies of antiquity upon no other ground, but because they are against yourself, what authority may not with such answers be eluded? You know this not to satisfy, and therefore have invented another, that this Greek Author must be taken in the Greek sense of Primacy of order. This satisfieth as little as the former: for the B. of Patara compares the spiritual authority of the Pope, with the temporal of Kings, protesting that no King hath temporal power over all the Kingdoms of the earth, as the Pope hath spiritual over the Church of the wholeworld. Again, that the Pope's Primacy in the Greek sense is not Primacy of jurisdiction, but of Order only, is said gratis, and untruly. The Greek Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon spoke in the Greek sense, & yet they acknowledged (o) In relat. ad Leon. the Pope to be their Head, and to rule over them, at the Head doth over the members. Theodoret spoke in the Greek sense, when he said (p) In Ep. ●● Renat. . The See of Rome hath the stern of government, over all the Churches of the world. Theodosius spoke in the Greek sense (q) Const. ●. Novel. The 24. , when he called the Pope, Rector of the universality of Churches. This therefore is the Greek sense, and in this sense the B. of Patara spoke to justinian. 5. S. Epiphanius (r) Haeres. 58. reporteth, that Vrsacius & Valens Bishops, & chief sticklers of the Arians, touched with remorse for their treachery against Athanasius, went up to Rome, and presenting libels of penance to julius' Pope, craved pardon for their offence, and promised to stand to his judgement: which showeth, that they acknowledged him to be the Head and judge of Bishops. This testimony though set down in your Latin margin, curtalled (s) Pag. 254. , yet in your English you make no mention of it, but pretending to answer by a similitude, tell us a tale of a tub of A. R. in the County of Suffolk craving pardon of the Sheriff of Middelsex for a notorious offence done unto him. But (to omit that hereby the English reader can have no notice at all of the force of this testimony) your answer is nether similitude, nor solution, but petitio principij, a false supposition, that Vrsacius, and Valens asked pardon of julius for a notorious offence done unto him. Their offence was not against julius, but against Athanasius: and yet of this offence, they asked pardon of julius, 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, upon their submission, and promise of amendment, which to that end they made. 6. No less impertinent is the other flim-flam, which you add (t) Pag. 254. , as an answer, to the testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus, of two Gentlemen, the one being a justice of peace, agreeing to have their difference to be ordered by another justice of peace: for when Dionysius Patriarch of Alexandria, was fallen into suspicion of heresy (u) Athanas. de sent. Dion. Et de Sin. Arim. & Seleuc. , the Catholics of Alexandria went up to Rome to accuse him before the Pope: The Pope admonished him to clear himself; and he obeying, presently sent up a book of defence▪ and apology: which showeth that both the people & Patriarch of Alexandria acknowledged that the cause of Bishops, and of faith were to be tried at the Pope's tribunal: and that the Pope knew himself to have, and practised the same authority. 7. Not unlike to these, are the answers you give to S. Athanasius (x) Pag. 254. , S. chrysostom, (y) Pag. 255. and Theodoret, who being injustly deposed from their Bishoprickes appealed to to julius, Innocentius, and Leo Popes with manifest acknowledgement of their authority over all Bishops and Churches of the world, as shall be proved. SECT. II. Others of Doctor Mortons' Answers, to the ancient Fathers, examined. SOme Eastern Bishops, who with great scandal of the Church, and perturbation of the people, refused to insert the name of chrysostom into the Dyptikes, or tables of public records, were for that cause excommunicated by Innocentius, with command, that they should not be admitted into the peace, and communion of the Roman Church, until they restored him. This though it be an Argument of the supreme power of the B. of Rome, you wrist it to a contrary sense. Among them, that refused to restore the name of chrysostom were, Alexander Patriarch of Antioch, and Acacius Bishop of Beroë: but these two, to the end they might be admitted into the Communion of the Roman Church, restored his name, and performed what else Innocentius in joined them (a) Spond. anno 408. n. 11. . Of these two you are silent: they were not for your purpose. But because some others stood out for a time, you lay hold on them, who upon due examination will prove as little to your purpose, as the two you conceal. Your first example (b) Pag. 258.259. is of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, who stood out until the end of his life. But God, that would not have a man so well deserving of his Church, to die in the state of excommunication, ordained by his providence, that the soul of Theophilus could not departed out of his body, until an Image of S. chrysostom being brought unto him, he adored it, doing penance for his former error, and by that means restored himself to the peace of the Church. This his recantation is reported by Isidorus Diaconus, and out of him by S. john Damascen (c) L. 3. de imag. prope fin. . Wherefore your denial of it, is a falsity framed without ground by yourself, out a desire, that Theophilus should have died out of the Communion of the Roman Church, as you live. Your second example (d) Pag. 257. , is of Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, who being excommunicated for the same cause, persisted sometime in his error: but at length moved by the example of Theophilus, and Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia making intercession for him (e) Baron. anno 408. , Innocentius yielded to absolve him; provided, that he would himself ask absolution, and restore the name of chrysostom. Hereupon Atticus (witness Theodoret (f) L. 5. hist. c. 34. sent many embassages to Rome, to obtain the communion of Innocentius, but could never obtain it, until partly by persuasion of the Emperor, and partly fearing a tumult of the people, he restored the name of chrysostom, and writ letters to cyril B. of Alexandria, persuading him to do the like. Wherefore Baronius truly saith (g) Anno 425. , that Atticus restored chrysostom by the command and compulsion of Innocentius, and not by the distraction and tumultuosnesse of the people only, as you comment: for if he feared the tumult of the people, it was in regard the people were incensed against him for not restoring chrysostom, as Innocentius had commanded. And if (as you object (h) Pag. 258. he called two Bishops, that had died in the communion of the Roman Church, Schismatics, he spoke in passion, seeing himself excommunicated by the B. of Rome, and knew (as you also do) that he spoke untruly: for if it were thought Schism to be in the communion of the Roman Church (as you say he did,) why did he so earnestly desire, and send so many Embassages, to be admitted into her communion? Was is to make himself a Schismatic? Nay was it not to free himself from schism? Why do not you imitate him? Your third example (i) Pag. 259.260.261. is of cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, who if for a time he obeyed not Innocentius, in restoring the name of chrysostom, it was because he judged the command of Innocentius to be against the Canons, witness his own words alleged by yourself (k) Pag. 259. fin. . But his judgement was erroneous: and because what he did, was out of a pious zeal, as he conceived, God reduced him by a miraculous Vision, wherein he saw himself cast out of the Church by chrysostom, and a troop of Saints that assisted him therein; but that the Blessed Virgin Mary did make intercession for him, as one that had defended her honour against Nestorius. cyril moved with this vision, condemning his own judgement concerning chrysostom, and calling a Provincial Synod restored his name to the sacred records, as the other Patriarches had done. To this you make two replies: first (l) Pag. 261. you call this, A tale of Nicephorus, a fabulous Author, that lived 800. years after Cyrills' death. But you wrong Nicephorus: for he reports it out of Nicetas, that lived almost 500 years, nearer Cyril's time, than himself, and out of other ancient historians. Hoc (saith he (m) L. 14. c. 28. in arcana Nicetae Philosophi historia, & apud alios inveni. 2. You reply (n) Pag. 261. , that, Cyril's restoring chrysostom cannot any whit serve our turn, because he did not simply by submission to the Pope's decree, but by virtue of a Vision in a dream. Surely you seem to have been in a dream, when you devised this answer: for there cannot be a greater Argument of the Pope's authority, then that God by a miraculous vision, should notify to Cyril, that by reason of his resistance made to the decree of Innocentius, he was out of the Church. And in how great Veneration did Cyrill hold the B. of Rome; he (I say) that being greatly exasperated against other Bishops for the name of chrysostom, yet never let slip from his mouth any the least irreverent word against Innocentius? And who can be ignorant, that he firmly believed the supreme authority of the Roman See, when he presided in the Council of Ephesus, as Vicar to Celestine Pope (o) See above Chap. 18. sect. 1. ? Without whose order, as he durst not departed from the Communion of Nestorius, so he executed on his person punctually, what Celestine commanded. And finally his belief was, that salvation cannot be had out of the Roman Church (p) See above Chap. 1. sect. 4. . SECT. III. Doctor Mortons' Answer to the testimony of Acacius examined. A Cacius Patriarch of Constantinople writing to Simplicius Pope, professed, that the care of all Churches belonged to him. You answer (q) Pag. 161. fin. 162. : The universal care of all Churches was applied to S. Paul, in the days of Peter, and to other Bishop, in whom there was no Monarchical Popedom. This satisfieth not: for the universal care of all Churches may be of Charity only: this every Bishop, and every Christian is bound to have, according to the measure of his ability. Or it may be of justice: and such is the care or charge, which every Bishop hath of his own Diocese, and the Pope of the Universal Church: for to him by reason of his office of supreme Pastor, belongeth not only a charitable care, but the rule & government of the universal Church (r) See this proved Chap. 17. sect. 2. Chap. 19 sect. 3. . In this sense Acacius spoke, when he said (s) Ep. ad Simplic. , Simplicius Pope had the care of all Churches. And the Fathers evermore speak in this sense, when they say, that to Peter, and his Successors in the See of Rome, was committed the care of the universal Church. In this sense S. chrysostom said (t) Hom. 87. in joan. : The care of the whole world was committed to Peter: and what he meaneth by Care, he explicateth saying (u) Hom. 80. ad pop. : The government of the Church throughout the whole world was committed to Peter. Euthymius (x) Ad c. 21. joan. : Christ committed to Peter pascendi curam, & gubernationem, the care of feeding, and governing his flock. So Sozomenus (y) L. 3. c. 7. : julius Pope restored to their seats Athanasius, and other Bishops banished by the Arians, because the care of all belonged to him by reason of the dignity of his See. S. Leo speaking to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica (z) Ep. 84. , and making him his Vicar in the East, To the end (saith he) thou mayest supply the place of my government, and help me in that care, which by divine institution I own to all Churches, and in person visit those Provinces remote from the See Apostolic. And to Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople (a) Ep. 46. : If they who have so grievously offended against Flavianus, offer satisfaction, let relation thereof be made to the See Apostolic, that our solicitude may ordain, what is to be observed. S. Gregory (b) L. 4. ep. 32. : To all that know the Gospel, it is manifest, that by the voice of our Lord the Care and Princedom of the whole Church was committed to Peter Prince of the Apostles. And again (c) L. 7. ep. 70. indict. 2. : By the care of our undertaken government, we are enforced to extend with vigilancy, the solicitude of our office. S. Bernard (d) Serm. 3. de 7. misericord. frag. : Witness Peter, to whom the Pastoral care of the whole Church was committed. These and a thousand more testimonies convince, that when the ancient Fathers speak of the care of all Churches committed to the B of Rome, by Care, they understand the Pastoral charge and obligation of ruling and governing the Universal Church, and thereby condemn you of falsity, who to the testimony of Victor V●iconsis, calling the Roman Church, the Head of all Churches, answer (e) Pag. 271. , that he calls it not Head of all Churches in power, and jurisdiction; and that we could never prove this out of any ancient Father: for you have heard it proved by their most express and unanswearable words (f) Above Chap. 17. sect. 2. Chap. 19 sect. 3. . If the fore to express this universal authority, and jurisdiction of the Pope over all Churches, they use sometimes the word, Care, rather than Government, it is because (as S. chrysostom (g) Hom. 3. in Act. speaking of the Pastoral authority of S. Peter over the other Apostles, hath noted) Eminency of spiritual power is a care of subjects, not a Lordlike dominion. And this showeth the wrong you do to Costerus (h) Pag. 235. when to disprove the Pope's universal jurisdiction you allege him calling it, Care: for with what conscience could you possess your reader, that by Care he understands not power, and jurisdiction, but only a charitable solicitude, knowing (as you do) that in the same Chapter (i) E●chirid. Tract. de Pont. solut. 7. he proveth out of Scripture, and Fathers, the Pastoral charge of ruling and governing the universal Church, committed by Christ to S. Peter, and his Successors? He that readeth this in Costerus, and allegeth him for the contrary, what can his intention be, but to deceive his readers? You (1) Pag. 262. object Acacius his deeds full of pride and arrogancy against the Roman Church, so that Baronius (for his defending Peter Mogg by him established in the Bishopric of Alexandria against the will of the same Pope Simplicius) calleth him a Francirke man violently opposite unto the Bishop of Rome. I answer: that Acacius, so long as he continued Catholic, did both by word and deed acknowledge the supreme authority of the Roman Bishop: but it is gross ignorance in you, not to know, that afterward he fell to be (2) Euagr. lib. 3. c. 20. Liberatus in Breu. c 18. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. Spondom. An. 484.488. a stiff mantayner of the Entychian Heretics, namely of Peter Mogg in those days the chief defender, pillar and Patriarch of that damnable Sect: for which cause he was excommunicated by the Pope, & dying obstinate in his sin, his name was blotted out of the Dyptiches, even (3) Spond. An. 51●. with the consent of the Bishops of Constantinople his successors; whereby we learn this lesson, that men so long as they be Orthodox Christians, still honour & obey the Pope and Roman Church; so they are no sooner blasted with the spirit of heresy, but they become Frantic opposers thereof, as your Luther was. And whereas to make men believe, that this Acacius was of great authority and esteem, even in the Latin Church, you bid us remember (4) Pag. 263. that the two Patriarches cyril and Acacius were they that sent the Copies of the Canons of Nice unto the African Bishops, by which our Popes were convinced of fraud etc. We can remember no such matters but wonder how a man so learned as you would be thought, could be so childishly mistaken, seeing Acacius was made Patriarch in the year 472. that is, forty eight years after the sending of the Nicen Canons to the African Bishops; the Copies whereof (sent by Atticus, not by Acacius) to have been imperfect, wherein many Canons were wanting, we have already demonstrated. As for the decree and sanction of Leo Emperor in behalf of the Church of Constantinople, and Acacius the then Patriarch thereof, wherein he termeth the Church of Constantinople, the mother of all Christians of the Orthodox Religion; whatsoever might be the meaning of these words in Acacius (who moved the Emperor to make that decree) his ambitious conceits which Baronius censureth; yet according to the mind of the Godly Emperor, they import no more, than Mother of all Orthodox Christians in the Church of Constantinople, as is clear by the text, Mother (saith he) unto our Piety, and unto all Orthodox Christians, and of this Royal City the most sacred See. You make the Emperor say (5) Pag. 263. . the Mother of all Orthodoxal Churches, noting the words 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 moved him to publish it, was to disannul the attentats, and Innonations against the Venerable Churches, aswell those whereof the Patriarch Acacius hath the Priesthood, as those placed in other sundry Provinces; which second part, about other Churches and Provinces, you (6) Pag. 26●. leave out in your Marginal Latin, to deceive the Reader, in making him to think, that Constantinople is styled absolutely Mother of all Orthodoxal Churches; that thereby you may more colourably elude the like Titles, attributed unto the Roman Church. So as nothing is related, or alleged by you without fraudulency and falsehood. SECT. iv Doctor Mortons' Answer to Vincentius Lyrinensis confuted. VIncentius to prove, that the Latin Churches agreed in Doctrine, with the Churches of the East, produceth as witnesses, Felix and julius 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 mean, by Head of the world, not the Bishop, but the City of Rome. But knowing this to be a false comment, you add as a second answer (l) Ibid. , that if he understood the B. of Rome to be the Head of the Catholic Church, we must also believe, that Cyprian of Carthage, and Ambrose of Milan, were always to continue the sides of the Catholic Church. This we deny: for the Churches of Charthage and Milan, have no promise from Christ, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against them, nor that their faith shall not fail, as the Roman hath (m) See above Chap. 1. sect. 1. & 2. . But to bolster up one falsity with another, you say (n) Pag. 271. : If Lyrinensis, by Head of the world, understood the Ecclesiastical Orb, he could mean no more▪ then that the Pope is Head of the Western part thereof. But this hath been already disproved (o) See Chap. 17. sect. 2. Chap. 19 sect. 3. Chap. 3●. by the testimonies of Counsels, and Fathers, Greek, and Latin, directly affirming, that the B. of Rome is Head of all Churches, and faithful whatsoever, throughouth the whole world; and that his spiritual power extends even to them, whom the temporal forces of Rome could never subdue. And to go no further for proofs, Lyrinensis himself declared this (p) Cap. 9.10.11. , when he said, that all Priests in all places made resistance to the doctrine of Rebaptisation defended by Agrippinus, & Cyprian, but Stephen B of Rome more than the rest, thinking it reason to excel all others in devotion towards the faith, so much as he was superior to them in the authority of his place. And what else doth he throughout that whole Treatise, but declaim against you, who have brought novelties 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 Answer to Optatus, contradicteth himself. OPtatus proveth the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church, by the succession of Bishops in the chair of Rome, numbering them all from S. Peter to Siricius that lived in his time (r) L. 2. cont. Parmen. , and defineth all them to be schismatics, and sinners, that are separated from the communion of that only singular chair. You answer (s) Pag. 269. , that Optatus, by One chair meant not the particular chair of Rome, but the whole universal Church. But the contrary is evident: for he reckoneth not the succession of Bishops in any other Church, but only in the Roman, and saith (t) L. 2. cont. Parmen. , that the Episcopal chair was set up in Rome for Peter, to the end, that in that chair unity might be preserved to all, and that he might be a schismatic, and a sinner, that against this only chair should set up another. What expression can be more effectual to prove you to be a schismatic, and a sinner, than these words of Optatus, who condemned the Donatists (u) Ibid. of bold and sacrilegious presumption, for fight against this Chair of Peter, as you do. But you reply (x) Pag. 269. : The particular Church of Rome is but a portion of the universal Church, and therefore Optatus objecteth against the Donatists their want of union with the Churches of Asia, commended by S. john in the Revelation, as well as with Rome. This you repeat afterwards again (y) Pag. 273. , and had objected the same before (z) Pag. 100 101. 229. 230. . Your answer you have received already (a) Chap. 15. sect. 9 Chap. 34. sect. 8. , to which I add, that as he who should object to rebels their want of union with their Prince, & his loyal subjects, doth not thereby deny the supreme authority of the Prince over all the subjects of his dominions: so Optatus objecting to the rebellious Donatists, the want of union with the Roman Church, and other Orthodoxal Churches of Asia subject to her, doth not thereby deny her authority over all the Churches of the world. But you say (b) Pag. 270. : Rome having departed from the sincerity of the Apostolical profession (as Asia hath done) the departure from that, must dissolve necessity of Union with Rome. You grant then that the Asians have fallen from the Apostolical profession, as Rome hath done: and Rome (if we believe you) hath fallen so far, that her doctrine is false, impious, heretical, blasphemous, damnable, sacrilegious, Antichristian, Satanical etc. Ergo the Asians having fallen from the Apostolical profession, as Rome hath done, their doctrine is also damnable, heretical, blasphemous, Satanical etc. And yet afterwards you say (c) Pag. 407. the Asians have continued visible parts of the Catholic Church, and Protestants stand in Christian unity with them. I conclude therefore, that when it is for your purpose, the Asians are truly professed Christians, and parts of the Catholic Church, and Protestants stand in Christian Union with them: and when it is not for your purpose, they have fallen from the sincerity of the Apostolical profession, as Rome hath done: from whence it must follow, that it is as unlawful to be in union with them, as with Rome, whose doctrine to you is Heretical, blasphemous etc. SECT. VI Other untruths of Doctor Morton discovered, & his cavilling against the Title of Holiness given to the Pope. YOu set down (d) Pag. 273. this Thesis as of Bellarmine: When the Fathers say, that the Church of Rome cannot err, the word (cannot) is not to be taken absolutely, and simply, but with this cantion, so long as the Apostolical See continueth at Rome. This is not a Thesis of Bellarmine, but of a few other Divines, who hold that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome not by divine ordination, but by his own free election: and therefore that if the Successors of S. Peter should remove their See from Rome, the Roman Church in that case might err. This opinion (saith Bellarmine (e) L. 4. de Pont. c. 4. is not heretical, nor manifestly erroneous: but he holdeth and proveth the contrary, namely, that the See of S. Peter was fixed at Rome by especial command from Christ, and cannot be removed from thence, and therefore that when the Fathers say, The Roman Church cannot err, the word (cannot) is to be taken simply and absolutely, without the caution which you falsely ascribe to him. You add (f) Pag. 273. Bellarmine should have said with you, that the Roman Church cannot err, so long as the ancient and sincere faith is preserved at Rome, which is to say, that she cannot err, as long as she errs not. Bellarmine was of more judgement, then to prove idem per idem. But you say (g) Pag. 276. : The list of all the Fathers which Bellarmine in the strength of his learning, and judgement hath produced to guard, & defend the Monarchy of the Church and B. of Rome, is, of the Greek Fathers, but thirteen, & of the Latin, not above eleven, within the space of the first 600. years. This is notoriously untrue: for in the two Chapters immediately preceding, he produceth the testimonies of above 1340. Fathers in the four first General Counsels, and that under Menas: and of 26. Popes, the greater part of them, glorious Martyrs, and the rest holy Confessors, as S. julius, S. Damasus, S. Siricius, S. Zozimus, S. Innocentius, S. Leo, S. Gelasius, S. Gregory. Were not all these Fathers, that lived within the first 600. years, which you call the primitive times? But what if Bellarmine had produced no more, but thirteen Greek, & eleven Latin Fathers? Doth not Cardinal Baronius throughout his learned Annals? Doth not jodocus Coccius (h) To. 1. thesau. l. 7. art. 4.5.6.7.8. ? Do not Doctor Sanders (i) Visic. Monar. tot. & Clau. David. tot. , and other Catholic writers produce testimonies of Popes, Counsels, and of the most religious Emperors, and Kings, that have lived since Christ, in great numbers, all of them professing their belief of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and necessity of union with the Church of Rome? Why do not you subscribe to so great a cloud of witnesses, rather than to Martin Luther, and a few Sectaries broaching Novellisme, & opposing all Orthodox antiquity? Lastly to close up your answers to the Fathers, you produce Tertullian (k) Pag. 277. after his defection into Montanisme calling the Pope, The blessed Pope, and the chief Bishop of Bishops; but that he did it by Irony, and scorn. So indeed saith Massonius a forbidden author. But be it true, that he spoke it by Irony: yet that very manner of speech showeth, it was then the custom of the faithful, to give those titles to the Pope. If Tertullian called him so by Irorny, and scorn, it was because he was an heretic. And so you imitating him, cavil at us, for instiling the Pope, Your Holiness: which title say you (l) Ibid. being first given to Pope Leo, for his Holiness sake, and sanctity of life, is continued to Popes, who have been most wicked, and retained only in respect of their functions. The case is this: Benedict the cleaventh (m) Extrau. l. 5. C. Dudum. calleth Boniface the eight, his Predecessor bona memoria, of good memory. The gloss saith: If a Pope have defiled the Church, with exactions, simonies, and filthy speeches, he is not therefore to be instiled mal● memoriae, not of evil, but of good memory, according to the civil Law, determining that regard is not to be had, to what he did, but to what it was fit for him to do, that is (saith the gloss) not to his person, but to his dignity: for although his person have offended, his dignity hath not: and his personal offence is not to redound to the damage of the Church. And howsoever Prelates have offended, they are Precedents, and Fathers of the whole community, and therefore to be honoured, as the Philosopher teacheth, & also the Civil Law, calling them, Gods, for the Excellency of their Order, and dignity of their office. And for the same cause Kings, albeit wicked in their lives, are instiled Clara memoria▪ vel Inclyta memoria, of famous or renowned memory; and Emperors, Dina memoria, of sovereign, or divine memory. To which I add (n) Act. 24.25. , that S. Paul called Festus Precedent of jury, Optime Fest●, Most excellent Festus, and this, nor for his Virtue, or Honesty, (for he was a wicked man) but for his Office, the custom being, that all Precedents of Provinces were so instiled (o) Baron. Anno 58. n. 33. All this I suppose you will allow: for having read most of it in the Gloss, you except not against it, or if you do, your exception is without ground. Other Prelates therefore although they be of vicious lives, may be instiled Bonae memoriae: Kings, Clarae, vel Inclytae memoriae: Emperors, Divae memoriae: Temporal governors may have the title of Optimi, yea, and be called Gods, for so you call Kings (p) Serm, before his Ma. at Durham pag. 14. . The Pope only (forsooth) who is the Vicar of Christ on earth, because it displeaseth you must not be saluted by the title of Your Holiness, whiles he life's, nor be said to be, Bonae memoriae, after he is dead. Other governors must be honoured by reason of their dignities, and offices: The Pope only must be excepted: and Doctor Morton to help out the matter, must falsify the Gloss, making it say, that an ill Pope after his death is to be entitled, Of blessed Memory; which words, howsoever you (q) Pag. 277. set them down, as of the gloss, and in great letters, to make your falsification more remarkable, are not of the gloss, but feigned by you. And finally, whether an ill Pope after his death, be or be not, to be entitled, Bonae, or Malae memoriae, what makes it to your intent, which is to prove, that Salvation may be had out of the Roman Church? But if your volume had not been stuffed with such impertinencies, it could not have risen to so Grand an Imposture. CHAP. XXXVII. Of the authority of the Epistles of ancient Popes. AS the Arians and other Heretics have contemned the Epistles of the Bishops of Rome; so all orthodox Christians have ever held them in great veneration. Eusebius Caesariensis (r) L. 3. hist. c. 12. writeth, that the epistle of Clement Pope to the Corinthians, was so highly esteemed, that the custom was to read it publicly in the Churches: which also he reporteth (s) L. 4. hist. c. 22. of the Epistle of Soter Pope. And how greatly these Epistles were reverenced, may appear out of S. Irenaeus, who highly commending the Epistle of Clement (t) L. 3. c. 3. , setteth down a summary thereof. And in like manner Clemens Alexandrinus (u) Serm. l. 4. c. 7. , and S. Hierome (x) Ad cap. 52. Isai. have set down certain fragments of the same epistle, to the end that what was not lost of it, might come to the knowledge of posterity. And for the authority of the Epistles of Popes in general, we have the third Council of Toledo (under Ricaredus King of Spain, newly converted from Arianisme) which for the cleansing of that kingdom from heresy, and restoring it to the purity of the Catholic faith, among other decrees, ordained (*) Capit. 1. that the Synodical Epistles of the Bishops of Rome remain in their force. And how great a crime it hath ever been held to contemn them, the Council of Tours, under Landramus Archbishop of that city declared (y) Inter Ep. Lupi Ferrar. ep. 84. , condemning and threatening excommunication to Nomenoius Prior of Britain for not obeying the Pope's Epistle. SECT I. Of the Epistles of Pope's living within the first 300. years after Christ. BEllarmine (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 14. in proof of the Roman Primacy, allegeth the Epistles of 14. holy Popes, that lived within the first 300. years after Christ; which though he dare not affirm to be undoubtedly certain, yet he proveth to be most undoubtedly ancient, and convinceth the Centuriss of a lie, in saying; That no Author worthy of credit cited them before the time of Charles the Great. For he proveth that an ancient Council in the time of Leo the first, 350. years before Charles, (which was not long after the first 300. years) cited the epistles of S. Clement, as now they are. He proveth, that Ruffinus 60. years before that time cited other of those Epistles. And that Isidore 200. years before the same Charles, out of a Council of 80. Bishops cited the epistles of Clement, Anacletus, Euaristus, and the rest of those Popes. Again you know, that Turrianus hath written an especial volume in defence of the Epistles of ancient Popes, and learnedly dissolved the cavils of heretics against them. Of all this you take no notice, but to disprove the Epistles of ancient Popes, living within the first 300. years after Christ, object (a) Pag. 279. Cusanus his Concordia (which you know he hath retracted) and Robert Cook a Protestant Minister, who (say you) proveth the objected Epistles to be undoubtedly bastard, and adulterate, partly by the errors that are apparent in them, no less absurd, then to turn Cephas into Caput, A stone into a Head. This he proveth, or you for him, by the testimony of Bellarmine, out of the third epistle of Anacletus, the first of Clement, and the first of Anicetus. But his and your dealing is undoubtedly fraudulent: for Bellarmine in that place (b) L. 2. de Monachis c. 40. makes no mention at all of Anacletus, nor of Clement; and much less, of turning Cephas into a Head. Wherefore you, and your Cook falsify Bellarmine, and with him those holy Popes: for Anicetus in his first epistle, makes no mention of Cephas. Clement saith; Peter by the merit of true faith was appointed to be the foundation of the Church, and for that cause, by the divine mouth of our Lord, surnamed Peter: but of turning a stone into a Head, or of Cephas there is no mention at all. Anacletus saith; A Domino concessum est Petro, ut reliquis omnibus praeesset Apostolis, & Cephas 1. caput, ac principium teneret Apostolatus. It was granted by our Lord to Peter, to be the chief of the Apostles, that is to say, that he should have the Head and principality of the Apostolate. If this be to turn Cephas, into Caput, why do you not for that fault (if a fault it be) blame Optatus that most learned and holy Bishop, highly esteemed by S. Augustine? Doth he not say (c) L. 1. cont. Parmen. c. 2. & l 2. de doctri. Christi c. 40. , Thou knowest that the Episcopal chair was first set up in Rome for Peter, in which first sat the Head of all the Apostles Peter from whence he hath been called Cephas? Optatus alluding to the Greoke word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Head, and resembles the Hebrew word Cephas, that signifies a Rock, declared, that because Peter was Head of the Apostles, and foundation of the Church, our Saviour called him Caphas, that is, a Rock: for in buildings the foundation is the same, that the Head is in the body. And in this explication other learned and ancient writers agree with Optatus. Philo Carpathius time-fellow with him, faith: (m) Ad cap. 5 Cant. vers. 11. Petrus, qui & Cephas, caput Ecclesiae futurus eràt: Peter who is also Cephas, was to be Head of the Church. And Vigilius Pope (n) Ep. 2. apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 481. : The election of all the Apostles was a like; but it was granted to Peter, that he should be above therest; from whence he is called Cephas for as much as he is the Head, and chief of all the Apostles. And an ancient manuscript of the Bavarian Library (o) Tract. count. error. Graecor. distinct. 4. pag. 530. , set forth by Petrus Stevartius, Vice chancellor of the University of Ingolstade: Our Lord said in the Gospel to Peter: Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is in Latin, a Head, that by the very imposition of his name he might show him to be Head of the Church. Wherefore as it were a vain cavil to except against the writings of these ancient and learned Authors, for explicating Cephas applied to S. Peter, to import the same that Head; so it is in Cook, and yourself, to reject the epistle of Anacletus, as apocryphal, upon the same ground. 2. Anicetus commandeth Priests crowns to to be shaved: from whence you infer (p) Pag. 282. the epistle not to be his; because Bellarmine proveth out of all antiquity, that not, Rasura, but Tonsura, not shaving, but poling, was the cut of Priests in those days. You might have solued your own argument, together with Bellarmine's doubt, if you had pleased to observe that in the very same sentence, the author of that epistle useth the words, rasura, and tonsura indifferently, taking them both for the same. And therefore when he commandeth that Priests have their heads shaved, his command it not, that it be done by a razor precisely, but only, that they wear not long hair, but keep it short, by shaving, or poling. His words are (q) Anicet. ep. 1. : Clergy men (who ought to be a pattern of virtue, honesty, chastity, and gravity to lay people) command them with the Apostle, not to wear long hatre, but to shave the crowns of their heads, in form of a sphere, because as they ought to be discreet in their conversation, so likewise to show themselves discreet in tonsura, & in omni habitu, in their poling, and in their whole habit. Whereby it is evident, that by shaving he meaneth nothing else, but keeping the hair short, either by rasure, or tōsure. And this showeth your exception against this Epistle to be of no force. 3. You except (r) pag. 28. against the Epistle of Pius, because you will not believe him to have commanded, that if any drops were shed out of the Chalice, in the Eucharist, they should be licked up, and the board scraped You believe not this, because you believe not the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, but think it reverence enough, if your Clerk take home your bread that remains, and crimble it into his pottage, and drink up the wine merrily with his guests at dinner: and yet some of you tell the people, it is the body and blood of Christ. Howsoever, your Argument is wholly from the matter: for this command of Pius, is not in his first Epistle, which you deceitfully cite in your margin, nor in any of his Epistles, but in his decrees which the Church approveth (s) Breviar. Roman. jul. 11. : from whence to infer that his Epistles are apocryphal, is a consequence which I suppose you will not grant, & I am sure, every one will see to be absurd. The error which out of Baronius you mention (t) Pag. 282. in two of Pius his Epistles, might easily creep into the copies, by negligence, or mistake of the Scribe, and therefore is no sufficient Argument to disauthorize them, and much less the rest, in which there is no such mistake. 4. You reject (u) Ibid. the Epistles of Soter and Alexander, because you cannot think the use of Incense at the Altar, nor the expiation of small offences by holy water to be so ancient. For your better instruction concerning the ancient use of incense at the altar, I remit you to (x) L. 1. de ritib. Eccles. c. 9 Durantius (who showeth how foolishly it is relected by heretics) to Bellarmine (y) L. 2. de Missa c. 15. , and Brereley in his Liturgy of the Mass (z) Pag. 40. n. 12 & pag. 94. lit. D. . Concerning the antiquity of holy-water for the expiation of small offences, casting out of Devils, and other great miracles, wrought by sprinkling thereof, read Baronius (a) Spoud. Indic. V Aquae Be●ed. antiq. usus. , Bellarmine (b) L. 3. de Eccles. triumph. c. 7. & l. 2. de Missa c. 15. , Durantius (c) L. 1. de rit. c. 21. , and Brereley (d) Liturg. pag. 64. lit. u. & x. & pag. 94. l. b. etc. : They will certify you, that both these ceremonies are Apostolical traditions used in the Church from the beginning, & show your rejecting of those ancient Epistles, because they are mentioned in them, to be cavilling without ground. 5. Because Cooks findeth in some of those Epistles a word, or a phrase, which some one Author thinks not to be so ancient in that sense, or (forsooth) not so elegant and Ciceronian, you are pleased to call them all, horrid and barbarous (e) Pag. 279. : & to help out the matter, you exemplisy in Caius, which is none of the fourteen alleged by Bellarmine. But you consider not, that divers of those Epistles were written in Greek, and that the Latin phrase is not of the authors, but of the translators. And as Nicolas the first (f) Ep. 8. apud Been to. 3. pag. 682. , speaking to the Emperor Michael, of Latin translated into Greek, saith: If it beget barbarismes, the fault is not in the Latin tongue, but in the Translators, striving not only to keep the sense, but using force to render word by word: so I say to you; if in the Epistles of ancient Popes, you find some words, or manners of speech, not so usual, the fault is not in the Epistles, but in the Translators, striving to render them, word by word. And to go no further for the confutation of this cavil, you object against us (g) Pag. 291. out of an Epistle of Adrian the first, that lived almost 800. years after Christ, these words: Consecrationes Episcoporum, & Archiepiscoporum, sicut olitana constat traditio, nostra dioecosis existentes: in which, whether you regard the word, olitana, or the phrases, sicut olitana constat traditio, &, consecrationesnostrae dioecesis existentes; you may under colour, that the phrase of this Epistle is horrid and barbarous, reject it, with as much ground, as you do the Epistles of Popes that lived in the first 300. years after Christ. The truth therefore is, that you reject those, because they make wholly against you; and receive this, because you find something in it, which may serve you for an Argument against us, though without ground: for Adrian in that Epistle most effectually proveth the authority of the Roman See, whereof something hath been spoken already (h) Chap. 33. sect. 2. . SECT. II. The nullity of Doctor Mortons' answers to the testimonies of Popes, that lived in the second 300. years after Christ. THere is no stronger Argument, then that, which is drawn from the confession of the Adversaries: for (as Tertullian observeth (i) In Apologet. No man lieth to his own shame: and therefore he is sooner to believed that confesseth against himself, than he that denieth in his own behalf. Which truth the Father of the Roman eloquence understood by the light of nature, saying (k) Orat. P. Qui. : Thy testimony, which in another man's cause is little to be regarded, when it is against thyself is of great weight. And you acknowledge (l) Answer to the Prot. Apol. Epist. Dedicat. , that the testimony of the adversary is the greatest reason of satisfaction. Let us then see, whether you will not bear witness for us against yourselves, that the Popes of the first 600. years after Christ, acknowledged, and exercised their authority, and jurisdiction over all the Churches of the world, and this chief in their Epistles; for of most of them there are no other writings extant. Their testimonies in this behalf, are plentifully alleged by Master Brereley (m) Protest. Apolog●tra. 1. sect. 3. subdiu. 10. & sect. 7. subd. 5. : and in particular concerning the Popes of the second 300. years, of whom our question here is, he saith: They (Protestant writers) confess and say, that in the fifth age the Roman Bishops applied themselves to get, and establish dominion over other Churches. To this end they usurped to themselves the right of granting privileges, and ornaments to other Archbishops: they confirmed Archbishops in their Sees, deposed, excommunicated, and absolved others, arrogating (also) to themselves power of citing Archbishops to declare their causes before them; and that against a Bishop appealing to the Roman See, nothing should be determined, but what the B. of Rome censured: That they appointed Legates in remote Provinces, which were sometimes no meaner men, than some one or other of the Patriarches: That they challenged authority to hear, and determine all uprising controversies, especially in questions of faith: That they took upon them power of appointing general Counsels, and to be Precedents in them, and even by their Deputies, when themselves were absent. These testimonies of your own Brethren are so many sharp wedges in the hart of your cause, and show in you either ignorance, or lack of conscience, in denying so manifest a truth. Nor do your Writers testify this of those Popes in general, but in particular even of those very twelve, whose testimonies you here seek to elude. Of julius (whom you (n) Pag. 2841 call, the first man of the inquest) they say (o) Brerel. ibid. n. 60.61. , that whereas the Ecclesiastical canon decreed, that no Council should be celebrated without the sentence of the B. of Rome, julius made challenge thereby: for which Danaeus reproveth him and other Bishops of Rome. M. Cartwright and the Centurists say of him (p) Ibid n. 63. , that in the Council of Antioch he overreached in claiming the hearing of causes that appertained not to him: and M. Symonds (q) Ibid. n. 64. , that he decreed, that whosoever suspected his judge, might appeal to the See of Rome. And whereas in his Epistle to the Eastern Bishops, extant in the second Apology of S. Athanasius, he expresseth the authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome over all others, in these words: An ignoratis etc. Are you ignorant, that the custom is, we should be first written unto, and that from hence the just decision of things should proceed? And that if any suspicion were conceived against your Bishops there, you should have written to this Church; for the things which I signify to you, we have received from the blessed Peter? You answer (r) Pag. 184. ; julius plainly speaketh of document, and instruction received from Peter, not of dominton or jurisdiction: which may be an answer to many of the rest. But this answer is refuted, not only by the ancient historians (as afterwards you shall hear) but also by the Centurists, who set down these very words of julius (t) Cent. 4. col. 746. , and (u) Col. 529. reprehend him for them; and out of that his Epistle show, that with the authority of a judge he summoned the Eastern Bishops, commanding them to come to Rome, assigned them a day of appearance before him to be judged, and having heard the whole cause, gave sentence, rebuking the Eusebians, and by the preregative of his See, restored the Catholic Bishops to theirs. The same Epistle is alleged by D. Philippus Nicolai (x) De reg. Christ. l. 2. pag. 149. a learned Protestant, who out of Socrates, Sozomen, and the Epistle itself, witnesseth, that julius doth more than once declare himself alone by especial privilege to be Bishop of the primary See; and that by divine ordinance the right of calling Counsels, and of judging the causes of Bishops, and other weighty affairs of that nature belonged to him alone. I conclude therefore, that julius speaketh not, of document and instruction, received from Peter, but of authority, and jurisdiction. Not unlike to this answer, is your affirming (y) Pag. 284. fin. 285. , that the Bishops of the East challenged julius for writing to them alone, & by his own authority: for there is no such challenge in their Epistle (z) Extat Ep. apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 401. : Yea, as Sozomen (a) L. 3. c. 7. testifieth, and the beginning of the Epistle itself showeth, in it they profess the primacy of the Roman Church, though otherwise falsely objecting to julius, the breach of the Canons; a thing not to be wondered at: for they that wrote, were Arians, & in hatred of him, because he had annulled their Council of Antioch, and restored Athanasius. And as the Epistle was written by Arians, so it is also reported by Socrates, and Sozomen, from Sabinus, a Macedonian Heretic, who took part with the Council of Antioch against the Pope, and against the Council of Nice; to which as also to Athanasius, and to the Blessed Trinity itself, he was a professed enemy. In regard whereof their Epistle is of no more weight, then if Lutherans, or Caluinists should now write the like. And hereby it appeareth, how untruly you say (b) Pag. 185. that, Some (of the testimonies of ancient holy Popes expressing the universal jurisdiction of the Roman See) may be confuted and indeed confounded by as ancient opposisions of the orientals against Pope julius etc. for those orientals were heretics. Having thus shifted off the testimony of julius, (whom you call the first man of the inquest) you pass immediately to S. Gregory, the last of the twelve, which Bellarmine allegeth, omitting all the rest. And whereas he out of the works of this holy Pope, produceth divers testimonies, clearly convincing the subjection of all Churches to the Roman, you omitting the rest, as being unanswearable, find means to except against one (d) Pag. 284. , which is: Who doubts, but that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the See Apostolic, which the most religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City continually protest? This testimony of S. Gregory you reject, upon pretence, that the Epistle is supposititious and counterfeit. Some (of the Popes alleged by Bellarmine (say you) speak not, but their counterfeits, as the last jurist, Pope Gregoryin an Epistle, wherein Eusebius B. of Constantinople is said to have been subject unto him, when as (as our Doctor Reynolds hath proved) there was no Eusebius B. of Constantinople in the days of S. Gregory. But to Doctor Reynolds I oppose the most eminent Cardinal Peron, a man of greater renown, learning, & authority; who answereth (e) Replip. l. 1. Chap. 34. 1. That Cyriacus, which was then Bishop of Constantinople, might have two names, and be called Eusebius Cyriacus, as S. Hierome was called, Eusebius Hieronymus. 2. That Eusebius might be there taken adiectively, and signify pious, or, religious, as when Arius (f) Apud Theod. l. 1. hist. c. 5. writ to Eusebius B. of Nicomedia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Farewell Eusebius, truly Eusebius, that is, truly religious. And 3. that it is an error of the Exemplarist, who of eiusdem ill written, and blotted, made Eusebius: for the ancient copies of this Epistle current for the space of 200. years after S. Gregory, make no mention of Eusebius, but read simply, and our brother B. of the same City, as it appears out of the relation of Amalarius Fortunatus, who lived 800. years since, and setteth down this whole Epistle of S. Gregory, word by word (f) De dini. offic. l. 4. c. 2. in Biblioth. Pat edit. Colon. to 9 part. 1. : and his testimony alone, living 800. years nearer S. Gregory's time, than Doctor Reynolds, or yourself, is a sufficient proof of the authority of this Epistle against you both. But what? Though you except against this Epistle, yet in the next, which no man hath doubted of, S Gregory in like manner saith (g) L. 7. ep. 64. : For whereas, he (the B. of Constantinople being accused of a certain crime) profefieth himself subject to the See Apostolic, if any fault be found in Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject unto it. Doth not this testimony immediately follow in Bellarmine? Yes, and it is so evident that Caluin (h) L. 4. Iust. c. 7. § 1●. on the rack of truth is enforced to confess, that, S Gregory in no place of his works vaunteth more of the greatness of his See, then in these very words; and that in them, he attributeth to himself the right of punishing Bishops, when they offend. Is it not then imposterous, to conceal this so clear an evidence, and others brought in by Bellarmine, and reject them all, because you have found a way to cavil at one; especially since not only out of S. Gregory's works, and the testimonies of your Protestant Brethren, it is a truth not to be denied, that he believed himself to have, and practised jurisdiction over all Bishops whatsoever? But you say (k) Pag. 285. : If Gregory in some terms seem to speak somewhat loud, as though he were very Great, yet be confined himself to the Constitution of justinian. He resolveth according to the constitution of justinian, that the trial of Bishop's causes in the first instance, belongs to their Metropolitan, as the cause of the Metropolitan doth to his Patriarch. But withal he teacheth (l) L. 2. ep. 6. , that they may appeal to the See Apostolic; and furthermore addeth (m) L. 11. ep. 56. , that, If a Bishop have no Metropolitan, nor Patriarch over him, than (saith he) his cause is to be heard, & decided by the See Apostolic, which is the head of all Churches. And this is agreeable to the profession which justinian himself made in the Law Inter claras (n) Cod. tit. ●. l. 8. , and in the Law to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople (o) Cod. 'tis. 1. l. 7. . In the rest of this Section (p) Pag. 284. , you tell us, that ●●n of those Popes (eited by Bellarmine) call the Church of Rome, and Bishop thereof, Head of all Churches, or one that hath the care of all Churches, or one having principality. They do so: and withal so unanswearably affirm the Universal jurisdiction of the Roman Church, that you thought best not to mention their words, but to put them off, saying: The like attributes have been anciently ascribed to other Churches, and Bishops: which how false it is, you have already heard (q) Chap. 17. sect. 2. Chap. 19 sect. 3. Chap. 35. Chap. 36 sect. 3. . To give a good farewell, you conclude thus (r) Pag. 285. fin. 280. : There are divers other testimonies out of Leo, Gelasius, and other Popes, who breathed out many sentences full of ostentation of their own greatness. Hitherto you have held us in hand, that the primitive Popes did not challenge any jurisdiction over the universal Church: but now you say, that, S. Gregory in some terms seems to speak somewhat loud, as though he were very Great; and that Leo, Gelasius, and other Popes breathed out many sentences, full of ostentation of their own greatness; but whatsoever they vented out, it was typhus saecularis, and a swelling imposthume, which was lanced (that it bled withal) by the Council of Carthage under S. Cyprian, and the Council of Africa under S. Augustine; and that self-love bewitching many Popes of the more primitive times, they boasted themselves to be the only Vicars of Christ, and have been taxed for their great arrogancy▪ by the ancient Fathers of their own times. And afterwards (s) Pag. 303. fin. 304. you compare S. Leo, and S. Gregory to Adonias, that sought traitorously to pull the crown from his Father's head, and make himself King, to which he had right. This (forsooth) is the reverence you bear to the primitive Popes, whom antiquity hath had in so great veneration, as of S. Leo, and S. Gregory in particular you have heard (t) Chap. 15. sect. 3. . Truth (which enforceth testimony from her enemies) compelleth you to confess (u) Pag. 172.178.182.287. , that the Primitive 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 here to confess, that those Popes acknowledged themselves to be, the only Vicars of Christ on earth, to have an universal authority, and to have practised the same: for which, albeit you tax them with great arrogancy, yet in adding, that the ancient Fathers of their own time, did the like, you pass the limits of modesty, and truth. And who seethe not the absurd manner of arguing which in proof hereof you use? Your words are (x) Pag. 286. in titulo sect. 13. : Our general discovery of the vanity of your proofs of Papal Monarchy, from the mouths of Popes themselves, who have been anciently noted of pride. Your assumpt then is, to disprove the Papal Monarchy from the mouths of Popes themselves. But you produce not any one testimony, nor any one word of any one Pope, but make a brief repetition of your Arguments, which in their several places have been proved to be partly impertinent, partly false, and partly heretical. Impertinent, as of Tertullian: False, as of the African Council, S. Cyrill, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Augustine: Heretical, as of Polycrates resisting Victor, and of the Arians, whom (to conceal that they were heretics) you call, The orientals. And finally, part of them, of such as for a time defended the false doctrine of Rebaptisation, as S. Cyprian, and his Council of Carthage, which though S. Augustine have answered (y) L. 6. de Baptism. per tot. , and confuted word by word, you take no notice thereof, but urge it as currant, and of authority, against the B. of Rome; yet that all may not seem to be repetitions, you bring forth one new Argument (z) Pag. 286. , as drawn from the mouths of Popes themselves, which is, that one Flaccidius relying on the greatness of the City of Rome, equalled the Deacons of Rome, with Priests. This you object, as the testimony of S. Augustine himself, pointing at the vain boasting of Rome: whereas it is not S. Augustine's, but of the Author quaestionum novi & veteris Testamenti, whom heretofore (a) Pag. 52. , when he was not for your purpose, you rejected as an heretical author: but now his words are of S. Augustine himself, and an Argument drawn from the very mouths of ancient and holy Popes. Necessity enforceth you to such absurdities: for better Arguments are not to be found in such a cause. The blindness of your zeal permitted you not to see the inconsequence, & contrariety of your doctrine, whiles you profess (b) Pag. 287. , that the primitive Popes were Holy men, and yet, that they were proud, arrogant, and challenged dominion above others, beyond the limits of their own jurisdiction. 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 left in his kingdom. They were holy Apostles, that sought among themselves, without any ordinance of their Lord, who should be chief. They were indeed Disciples, and Apostles of Christ, but as yet imperfect: nor did they arrogate to themselves, & much less seek to practise superiority over the Church of the whole world, as the Popes from the beginning have done. Which, if it were not given them by Christ, could not stand with Christian Modesty, & much less, with sanctity: for such a claim is not a small blemish, nor a venial offence, but the very height of Luciferian pride (for so you call it (d) Pag. 336. , and the very mark of Antichrist himself. Again, the ambition of the Apostles was reform, and they perfected, and confirmed in grace, by the coming of the holy Ghost. But there is no testimony of antiquity, that any one of the primitive Popes (whom you tax with pride, and great arrogancy) did at any time, before their death, relinquish that claim: yea contrarily, all of them constantly mantained their authority, as given them by Christ, in S. Peter, and exercised the same over all the Churches of the world until their dying day. And if this were in them great arrogancy▪ and Luciferian pride, they were far from being holy Saints of God: which yet you truly confess them to have been, condemning thereby your doctrine against their supremacy, of falsehood, and yourself of slandering Gods Saints with Luciferian pride and arrogancy. Your last refuge (e) Pag. 286. , that Popes are not fit witnesses in their own cause, was refuted above (f) Chap. 15. sect. 3. . CHAP. XXXVIII. The Universal jurisdiction of the B. of Rome proved by the Exercise of his Authority over other Bishops. AS among the Arguments for the Pope's universal jurisdiction, there is none more convincing, then that from the first ages after Christ, by their authority they have ordained, deposed, and restored Bishops, throughout the whole Church; so there is none, which with more sleights you seek to elude. That the Popes anciently exercised this authority, is a thing so certain, that Danaeus a learned Protestant is enforced to acknowledge the truth thereof (g) Resp. ad Bellar. part. 1. pag. 117. , and answer: It follows not, that because the B. of Rome used that right, he had therefore that right: for certainly he had no right to do this, but only tyranny, and usurpation. Which to be an unconscionable answer, no man can doubt: for the B. of Rome, as now he doth, so much more did he then, want temporal power, to compel Bishops, especially in Countries far remote from Rome, to obey him, which yet he must have had, if that use of his power had not been from a true right, given him by Christ, but only by tyranny and usurpation. Wherefore you finding this answer of Danaeus not to satisfy, have made a bold adventure, to deny, that the ancient Popes exercised any such power: which how untrue it is, the ensuing Sections shall demonstrate. SECT. I. The Pope's universal authority proved; by the Institution, and confirmation of Bishops: and of the use, and signification of the Pall, or Mantle granted to Archbishops. YOur first position is (h) Pag. 288. : Anciently, Institutions of Metropolitans, and Patriarches, were done by communicatory letters to the chief Patriarch, which were letters of correspondence, to show their agreement in faith: in which case, the B. of Rome sent his Pall in token of his consent. That the B. of Rome hath ever accustomed to institute Bishops in the most remote Provinces of the world, appeareth out of the book entitled, Vitae Romanorum Pontificum, written by Damasus, or (as others more probably think) by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, in which are reported the ordinations of Bishops made by Linus, immediate successor to S. Peter, and successively by all other Bishops of that See. The letters you mention, of Metropolitans, & Patriarches, written at the time of their Institution, to the chief Patriarch (the B. of Rome) were not only of correspondence, to show their agreement in faith: for howbeit they did contain a profession of their agreement in faith with the Roman Church, that thereby they might be received into her communion, and have the title of Catholic Bishops: yet moreover, they contained an oath of Obedience, and subjection to the B. of Rome. And by the same letters, they asked his Pal, which (S. Gregory witnesses (i) L. 7. ep: 5. indict. 1. was granted to none, until they did humbly, and earnestly desire it. It is true, that the Pope by sending his Pal to Archbishops, did express his consent to their Institution. But if they did not owe subjection to him, there had been no need of requiring his consent, and much less, of ask his Pal: for the Pal did not only contain an expression of the Pope's consent to their Institution, but a grant of great authority, and power, which by the Pal was signified, and given unto them. So testified the irrefragable Doctor Alexander of Hales 400. years since: When the Pal is given (saith he (k) Part. 4. q. 10. memb. 5. art. 2. §. 6. there is given fullness of Pastoral power; for before a Metropolitan be honoured with the Pal, he is not to ordain Priests, consecrate Bishops, or dedicate Churches. And before him the fourth Council of Lateran consisting of 1280. Fathers, declared (l) C. 5. , that after the Patriarches of the East have taken their Oath of Fidelity, and Obedience to the B. of Rome, and have received the Pal from him, as a token of the plenitude of Pontifical office, they may grant it also to their Suffragans, receiving in like manner from them an oath of Obedience both to themselves, and to the Church of Rome. And before the Council of Lateran, Innocentius the third (m) Myster. Missae l. 1. c. 63. : The Pal contains the fullness of Pontifical office, for as much as in it, and with it, the fullness of Pontifical office is conferred: for before a Metropolitan be honoured with the Pal, he ought not to ordain Priests, consecrate Bishops, or dedicate Churches, nor have the Name of Archbishop. Which also was testified before him, by Honorius the second (n) Ep. add suffragan. & Episcop. Tyri. , and by S. Bernard (o) Vitae S. Malach. cap. 19 reporting of S. Malachias, that having founded a Metropolitan See in Ireland, and knowing it to want authority, until it were confirmed by the See Apostolic, he traveled to Rome in person, to procure the Pal, as well for that See, as also for another, which Celsus had founded. And before him Wilfrid an English Abbot, who for his great labours in preaching the Gospel to the Germans, and converting that nation to Christ, hath deserved to be entitled, The Apostle of Germany, coming to Rome, and bring consecrated Bishop by Gregory the third, and in his consecration called Boniface, after he had taken the oath of obedience to the See Apostolic, as all Bishops used to do (p) Spond. an. 723. n. 1. & Author Vitae eius apud Sur. 5. junij. , returned into Germany, & Gregory sent him the Pal, conferring on him the authority of an Archbishop (q) Greg. 3. ep. 2. add Bonifac. . And before him S: Gregory the Great (r) L. 4. Ep. 8. , writing to john Bishop of the first justinianea: The relation of our brethren, and fellow-Bishops (of Illyria) hath declared unto us, that thou art called to the Episcopal dignity, by the agreeing consent of dall the Council, and by the will of the most excellent Prince (Mauritius the Emperor) whereunto we also give our consent etc. And send thee the Pall according to the custom, and decree, by a reiterated innovation, that thou exercise the Vicarship of the See Apostolic. And before him, Celestine Pope sending the Pal to cyril Patriarch of Alexandria (s) Balsam. in Nomocan. Phot. tit 3. c. 1. Niceph. l. 14. c. 34. , made him his Vicar with full power, to preside in the Council of Ephesus, and judge the cause of Nestorius. And again before him, Marcus Pope granted the Pal to the B. of Ostia (t) Vit. Rom. Pontif. in Marco. , confirming to him, and his successors, the authority of consecrating the B. of Rome. All this showeth, that the Pal which the Pope sendeth to Archbishops, is not only an expression of his assent to their election, and institution, but a grant of most ample power, and authority, which they require from him, by ask the Pal, and receive from him, together with the Pal. And moreover, that their letters to him, are not only to profess their agreement in faith with the Roman Church, but also to acknowledge their subjection, and to promise obedience to him. Which promise was likewise made by all Bishops, at their return from Schism, to the Catholic Church, as appeareth by the form of oath, which Hormisdas Pope (u) Apud Baron. anno 517. , S. Gregory (x) L. 10. Ep. 30. , and the eight general Council (y) Bin. to. 3. pag. 923. Canus l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200. , prescribe to be taken by them; as also, by the profession, which john Patriarch of Constantinople (z) Ep. add Hormisd. , made to Hormisdas' Pope. And finally, the ancient custom (which Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem (a) Ep. ad Honor. Pap. calls. An Apostolical tradition) was, that when Bishops were first instituted, they should send a profession of their faith to the B. of Rome, which he approving, did thereby confirm them in their Bishoprikes. This custom (saith Sophronius) we following, writ unto you, who have the knowledge of divine things, to the end we may give testimony of what faith we hold: We writ, I say, to you, who have knowledge not only to discern true doctrines from false, but are able to supply whatsoever is wanting. SECT. II. A shift of Doctor Morton rejected. YOur second answer is (b) Pag. 288. , that as the sending of the Pall to Archbishops was only a declaration of the Pope's assent to their institution, so his deposing of other Bishops without the Roman Dieces, was but an expression to others that he thought them justly deposed: & that his power in restitution of others that had been deposed, was the like manifestation of his consent to have such, and such restored; even as other Patriarches often did. These are words, but not an answer. For any inferior, as a Suffragan Bishop, or a lay man, may express his opinion, or his assent, that his Metropolitan is to be deposed, or if he be already deposed, that he is justly deposed, and yet nether depose him, nor any way concur to his deposition, but leave him in the state he found him: for deposition (whether it be of an Ecclesiastical Prelate, or of a temporal Officer) is iuridicall sentence, whereby a Superior actually exerciseth the authority of a judge, and really depriveth his inferior of a dignity whereof he was possessed; and therefore can be performed by none, but by him, that hath power of a judge to condemn his inferior. And so likewise, the restitution of a Bishop to his seat, is an operative act of power, whereby the sentence of deposition pronounced against him is reversed, and annulled: which therefore can be performed by none, but by one, that is Superior in power, as well to the Bishop deposed, as to the Superior that deposed him. In this manner, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon requested the Legates of Pope Leo, Precedents of the Councell, (c) Act. 3. to pronounce sentence of condemnation against Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, which they accordingly performed, deposing him in Leo's name, from his Episcopal dignity, and from all Sacerdotal function. And the Ecclesiastical histories are full of examples of the same nature. SECT. III. The Popas power of instituting, and confirming Bishops, proved by Examples. YOur third answer is (d) Pag. 288. : You produce no one example. wherein it can appear, that the Pope could either institute, confirm, depose, or restore any Bishop by his own authority alone, without the help of a Council. This answer is a shift, vain, as the former was, and withal a notorious untruth. A shift; for when his Majesty makes a law, with the assistance of his Parliament; or the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury an Ecclesiastical decree, with a Council of his Suffragans, were it not sophistry to argue from thence, that his Majesty is not supreme governor in his dominions, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury hath not jurisdiction over his Suffragans? No less than it is to argue, that the Pope hath not jurisdiction over other Bishops, because he deposeth, or restoreth them not, without a Council. For as it is not necessaty, that a King in his kingdom, or an Archbishop in his Diocese, exercise all acts of jurisdiction, alone, without the advice, or help of their subjects: so neither is it, that the Pope institute, depose, or restore Bishops, alone, without the advice, and help of a Council. And so much the more, because when Counsels have proceeded to the deposition of Bishops, they have acknowledged the last desinitue sentence to belong to the Pope. So did the Councell of Ephesus, professing themselves to depose Nestorius, by the command of Pope Celestine (e) See above Chap. 18. sect. 1. and in reserving to him the last sentence against john Patriarch of Antioch (f) See Ibid. sect. 2. . And when the Council of Chalcedon was to depose Dioscorus, they beseeched the Pope's Legates, as representing his person, that was supreme governor of the universal Church, and judge of all Bishops, to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against him, which the Legates performed (g) See above Chap. 19 sect. 2. . And when they admitted Theodoret, that had been deposed in the second Council of Ephesus, to enter, and take his place among the Bishops, they did it upon this ground, that the most holy Archbishop Lee had restored him to his Bishopric (h) See above ibid. . And as this your third answer is a shift, so it is an untruth: for even Bellarmine (i) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. , against whom you writ, and in that very place which you cite for the contrary, proveth, that all Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarches were instituted, or confirmed by the Pope, and that by sending them the Pal, he conferred on them, the plenitude of Pastoral power: which being an act of supreme authority, & a convincing argument of his universal jurisdiction, and performed by him alone, proveth unanswerably, that he instituted Bishops by his own authority, alone, without the help of a Council. And to prove the same by particular examples: When Agapetus Pope came to Constantinople, he deposed Anthinus in the Imperial city, in the presence of justinian the Emperor, and this alone, without the help of any Councell, yea and without any support at all (k) See this proved above Chap. 20. sect. 2. . And Honorius the first Pope of that name (as appeareth out of his epistles to Edwin King of England, and Honorius B. of Dover) (l) Extant Epistola apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 994.995. according to the petition made to him by Honorius, sent to him, and Paulinus too Palls (m) Beda hist. Anglor. l. 2. c. 17. with Apostolical authority, that the Superuiver of the two, might ordain an Archbishop in place of him that first departed this life. And S. Gregory a little before that time, sent the Pal to Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury (n) Bed. l. 1. hist. Angl c. 29. , who converted us to Christ, giving him thereby full authority, to ordain Bishops subject to him, and to erect a new Archbishopric at York. And doth not Socrates' report (o) L. 7. c. 35. , that Perigenes being ordained B. of Patras in Achaia, and the Citizens not receiving him, the B. of Rome commanded, that he should be Bishop of the Metropolitan Church of Corinth (the Bishop of that place being dead), and that he governed in that Church all the days of his life? And when in the false Council of Ephesus, Anatolius had been ordained Patriarch of Constantinople, and Maximus of Antioch, by what means was their Ordination legitimated, and they confirmed in those Sees, but by the authority of Leo Pope alone? You wish us (p) Pag. 296. , in good faith, to tell you, whether we can believe, that Maximus of Antioch, was iuridically instituted, or confirmed by Pope Leo, because his own Legates said so? We tell you in good faith, that you are quite mistaken: for not only the Legates of Pope Leo said so, but also Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, with approbation of the whole Council of Chalcedon (q) Conc. Chale. Act. 10. : My voice is (saith he) that none of the things ordained by the pretended Council of Ephesus, remain firm, but only that, which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch; for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome, Leo, receiving him into his Communion, hath judged that he rule the Church of Antioch. And because you ask us in good faith, we must needs say, that you are no less mistaken concerning Anatolius: for when Theodosius the Emperor requested Leo Pope to confirm him in the See of Constantinople, Leo answering (r) Ep. 33. , beeseeched the Emperor, not to take it in ill part, if he did not confirm him, until he had performed the things, which he ordained. And when Anatolius had performed them, Pulcheria the Empress giving notice thereof to Leo (s) Ep. ad Leo. inter Ep. pream bull. Conc. Chalced. , he confirmed him, verifying, that by his assent Anatolius obtained the Bishopric of so great a City. But what if there were no other proof extant, but the bare affirmation of Leo? Was not Leo a most holy Prelate, worthy of all credit? And when he said that Anatolius by his assent obtained the Bishopric of so great a City, did he not speak it to Martian the Emperor, who knew the truth of that business? But what need we to dwell in the rehearsal of more particulars? Did not S. Leo, alone (t) Ep. 84. , without any Councell, make Anastasius B. of Thessalonica his Vicar in the East, with full power to confirm the ordinations of Bishops lawfully made in the Oriental Churches, & to annul those, that were made against order? And did not S. Gregory (u) L. 4. ep. 7. write to the Bishops of Illyria, following the desires of your demand, we confirm by the consent of our authority, our Brother john in the Bishopric of the first justinianca? And this power it is, which S. Bernard expressed saying (x) Ep. 131. : The Roman Church ●ath power is ●rect new Bishoprics, where hitherto no●● have been: Of those that are in being, the way depress some & advance others, as reaso is shall ●●ctare unto her: so that of Bishops, she hath power to make Archbishops; and contrarity, if is seem con●●●ient. SECT. IV The Pope's power of deposing Bishops without a Council, proved by Examples. IF the Pope have not authority to depose Bishops alone without the help of a Council, why did S. Cyptian (f) L. 2. ep. 13. ad Steph●. write to Stephen Pope, that by his letters addressed into the province, & to the people of Arles, Marcian Bishop of that city might be deposed, and another substituted in his place? And S. Cyprian did so title doubt of Stephen's authority in this kind, that he beseecheth him, to let him understand, who was instituted in Marcians place at Arles, to the end, he might know, to whom to direct his brethren, and letters. Wherefore you are much mistaken, when you say (g) Pag. 295. text. & marg. , Stephen's letters were but admonitory, signifying that Marcianus ought to be deposed. If you will not believe S. Cyprian, believe Danaeus your Protestant Brother, who speaking of this very example (h) Respons. ad Bellarm. part. 1. pag. 317. , findeth it so convincing, that he is enforced to confess, that the Bishops of Rome did anciently depose other Bishops; which (saith he) they had no right to do, but only tyranny, and usurpation. So he, confuting you, and confessing against you, & himself, that Cyprian speaketh absolutely of deposing Marcian, not of admonishing that he ought to be deposed. This power was likewise acknowledged, when the Fathers of the first Council of Constantinople beseeched Damasus Pope, to depose Timothy, an heretical Patriarch of Alexandria, and Damasus answering them said (i) Apud Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 10. : Whereas your charity (my dear children) yieldeth due reverence to the Apostolic See, it shall turn you to great honour etc. But what need was there to require from me, the deposition of Timothy, seeing he was long since deposed were, with his Master Apostimarius, by the judgement of the See Apostolic. And again (k) Ibid. paulo superiùs. : Know yea brethren, that we have long since deposed that profane Timothy, disciple to Apollinarius the heretic. And Theodoret reporting the same (l) Ibid. : Damasus a man most worthy of all praise, as soon as he understood that this sect was broached, deposed not only Apollinarius, but also Timothy his Disciple. The same appeareth by the authority, which the Popes of Rome have showed in the deposition of eight Patriarches of Constantinople (m) Nicol. primus Ep. 8. apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 688. , Maximus, Nestorius, Acacius, Anthymus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus: for not to dispute, whether all of them were deposed without Counsels, it cannot be denied, that Agapet Pope coming to Constantinople, deposed Anthymus, in the very Imperial City, in presence of the Emperor justinian, that favoured him, and excommunicated the heretical Empress Theodora, that protected him; & this not only without a Council, but being very poor, and without assistance; yea contrarily the Empress tempting him with promises of great rewards, if he would leave Anthymus in that seat, & with great threats, if he deposed him: The Empress in secret (saith Liberatus (o) In Breu. c. 11. promising great presents to the Pope, if he would leave Anthymus in his seat; and on the other side tempting him with threats, the Pope persisted in not harkening to her demand. And Anthymus seeing himself cast out of his seat, gave up his mantie to the Emperor, & retired himself, where the Empress took him into her protection. And then the Pope for the Emperor's sake, ordained Menas Bishop in his steed, consecrating him with his own hands. The same is reported by justinian himself (p) Novel. 42. , and by Victor of Tunes (q) In Chron. , set forth by joseph Scaliger (r) Ad calc. Chron. Euseb. , adding hereto: the excommunication, which Agapet pronounced against the Empress. To this I add, that Celestine Pope by his authority alone commanded Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria to depose Nestorius an heretical Bishop of Constantinople, writing thus unto him (s) In Cont. Ephef●ro. act. 1●. : Adding to thee the authority of our See, and with power the representation of our place, thou shalt execute exactly and severely this sentence, namely, that if within ten days after signification of this admonition given to Nestorius, he do not in express words anathematike his wicked doctrines etc. thy Holiness shall provide for that Church without ●●ay, and decl●●● him to be wholly cut off from our body. In like manner S. Leo the Great deprived Hilary B. of Arles from the authority of ordaining Bishops in the Province of Vienne, which he had injustly usurped. Hilary is to know (saith Leo to the Bishops of Vienne (t) Ep. 89. that he is deprived of all power over the Province of Vienne, which he had usurped unlawfully. And Valentinian the Emperor acknowledging that Leo might for this fault have justly deposed Hilary, from his Bishopric of Arles, said (u) Nou. Theod. 〈◊〉. 14. : The Pope's clemency alone, permitted Hilary to bear still the title of a Bishop. And Gelasius 40. years after, speaking of the power of Leo Pope, said (x) De anathem. vinc. : Flavianus having been condemned by the Congregation of the Greek Bishops, the See Apostolic alone, because he had not consented thereunto, absolved him: and contrariwise by his authority condemned Dioscorus Prelate of the second See, who had been there approved; and alone annulled the wicked Synod, in not consenting to it; and by his authority alone, ordained that the Council of Chalcedon should be kept. In like manner, when john Archbishop of Larissa in Thessaly, had injustly condemned Adrian B. of Thebes, one of the Bishops of his jurisdiction, that had appealed from him to the See Apostolic, S. Gregory exempted the B. of Thebes from his jurisdiction. We ordain (saith he (y) L. 2. ep. 7: indict. 11. to john Archbishop of Larissa) that thy brotherhood abstain from all the jurisdiction which thou hast formerly had over him, and his Church etc. And if at any time, or for any occasion whatsoever, thou that attempt to contradict this our statute, know that we declare thee deprived of the sacred communion, so as it may not be restored to thee, except in the article of death, but with leave of the B. of Rome. Finally omitting other examples (of which Ecclesiastical histories are full) to these I add the testimony of S. Bernard, who speaking to Eugenius Pope, said (z) L. de Considerate. : The power of others is confined within certain limits; thine extendeth even to them, who have power over others. Hast not thou power if there be cause, to shut heaven to a Bishop, to depose him from his Bishopric and deliver him to Satan? And upon this known right of the Pope, he required him to depose the Bishops of York (a) Ep. 217. and Winchester, & likewise (b) Ep. 230. a wicked Bishop of the Ruthens. SECT. V The Pope's power of restoring Bishops without a Council, proved. ANastasius Patriarch of Jerusalem that lived 1100. years since in acknowledgement of this power, writ to Felix B. of Rome (c) Ep. ad Belic. : The prerogative of your Apostolic See, hath ever been, to restore by the authority of your power, them, that have been injustly condemned, or excommunicated, and to return unto them, all that hath been taken from them, and by the Apostolical privilege, to punish those, that condemned, or excommunicated them, as we know it to have been done, both in our, and in former times. The practice of this authority is no less certain, out of the Ecclesiastical writers. Eustathius B. of Sebaste in Armenia, being deposed from his Bishopric by the Councell of Melitine, traveled to Rome, and bringing letters of restitution from Liberius Pope, the Council of Tyana in Cappadocia, obeying, received him, without enquiring of the conditions, by means whereof he had been restored. The things (d) S. Bafil. Ep. 74. that were proposed to him, by the most blessed Bishop Liberius, & what submission he made, we know not: Only he brought a letter, that restored him, which being showed to the Council of Tyana, he was reestablished in his Bishop's seat. Again, when the Emperor Valens had driven Peter that famous Patriarch of Alexandria (whom Theodosius and Valentinian call (e) Cod. titulo 1 l 1. a man of Apostolical sanctity) from his See, and placed in it Lucius an Arian heretic, Peter going to Rome appealed to Damasus Pope, & obtained letters of restitution from him. Peter (saith Socrates) (f) L. 4. c. 30. being returned from Rome to Alexandria, with letters from Damasus B. of Rome, which confirmed the creation of Peter, the people encouraged, drove away Lucius, and restored Peter in his place. And when Theodoret B. of Cyre bordering upon Persia, was deposed from his Bishopric by the Council of Ephesus, he was restored by Leo Pope. Whereupon the Senators which assisted at the Council of Chalcedon, said (g) Act. 1. : Let the most religious Bishop Theodoret come in, that he may take part in the Council, because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Bishopric. These examples show, that the venerable Counsels were so far from thinking, the Pope could not restore Bishops, without their help, that they made themselues executors of his authority, & caused the letters of restitution which he he had granted to Bishops injustly deposed, to be obeyed. SECT. VI Doctor Morton, to cross the Pope's Authority in restoring Bishops deposed, takes part with the Arians, and justifies their impious proceed against S. Athanasius, and other Catholic Bishops. TO prove the Pope's authority of restoring Bishops, by his letters, & authority alone, we have for precedents the examples of the great Prelates, Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus Primate of Ancyra in Galatia, Asclepas B. of Gaza in Palestine, & Lucius of Adrianopolis in Thracia, who being injustly deposed by the Arians, appealed to julius' Pope, and he by his authority restored them to their seats. You not knowing how otherwise to avoid the force of these examples, have thought best to take part with the Arians against S. Athanasius, to iustlify their opposition against Pope julius, & maintain their contempt of his authority. To this end, you say (h) Pag. 290. : Among those Eastern Bishops (which condemned Athanasius in the Council of Antioch) there were many orthodox. There were indeed in that Council according to the relation of S. Athanasius (i) De Synod. and Socrates (k) L. 2. c. 5. , 90. Bishop's: and according to S. Hilary (l) L. de Syn. . 97. or if we believe Sozomen (m) L. 3. c. 5. , 96. Of this number there were only 36. Arian Bishops. These only were they that plotted the deposition of Athanasius; these only made the decrees of that Council and subscribed to them, as julius in his Epistle afterward written to them, and out of it Athanasius (n) Apolog. 2. testify. These only were they, that capitulated with julius' Pope, to have communion with him, not upon condition, that he should communicate with those Bishops, whom they had ordained, (as you ignorantly affirm), but, upon condition, that he should abandon the communion of Athanasius, and the other Catholic Bishops, which being deposed by them, had appealed to him for redress, and by his authority recovered their Churches again. And because the decrees of that Council were made by Arians only, they have ever been held to be absolutely heretical: The Arians (saith Sozomen (o) L. 8. c. 20. after they had with calumnies circumvented Athanasius, and cast him out of his Church of Alexandria, fearing lest things might be brought about again, made this Canon, endeavouring to have their plots against him remain indiscussed. The same is expressly affirmed by S. chrysostom (p) Apud Niceph. l. 13. n. 18. ; against whom, when his adversaries, that had deposed him, to justify their fact, and blame him for returning to his Church, alleged a Canon of this Council of Antioch, he answered; It is not a Canon of the Church, but of the Arians. And the same is testified by the holy Pope Innocentius (q) Apud Niceph. l. 13. c. 31. , so much commended by S. Augustine. Wherefore you cannot be excused from an untruth, in saying, that among those Eastern Bishops (that condemned Athanasius, & reproved the Pope for restoring him) there were many Orthodox: for none of the Orthodox Bishops consented thereto. But that the Arians, who had spit in the face of Christ, and trampled his Divinity under their feet, should also contemn the Pope, his Vicar on earth, ti's no wonder; as neither it is, that you should therein bandy with them: for no heretic ever fell from the Church, but he took the Pope for his enemy at the same tyme. 2. To justify your disobeying, and resisting the authority of the Church of Rome, and Bishop thereof, you say (r) Pag. 295. lit. O. marg. & text. : The Orientals (to wit the Arian Bishops) resisted, and excommunicated the Pope: and in proof hereof, you set down in your margin, these words, as of Sozomen l. 3. c. 7. Illi Iulium Episcopum Romanum, quòd cum Athanasio & Paulo communicaret, abdicarunt. Sozomen there hath no such words. He saith, They objected to Inlius, as a crime, that he communicated with Athanasius, and the Bishops that were with him; and accused him that in annulling their Council, and abrogating their sentence, he had done against the Ecclesiastical Law (so they called the heretical Canon, which themselves had made in the Council of Antioch to justify their impious proceed) and promised to communicate with him, on condition he would confirm the deposition of Athanasius, and the Orthodox Bishops, which had fled to him for succour. 3. You say (s) Pag. 306. fin. 307. : The Pope's command to the Orientals (who had deposed Athanasius) to receive him again, was answered with contempt; and they argued, àparibus, with him. What else could be expected from sacrilegious Arians? or what from you, but to object against us, their resistance to the Bishop and Church of Rome, as lawful, to make good yours, not unlike to theirs? But what did all their arguing avail them? for notwithstanding their contempt, and all the resistance, they were able to make by themselves, and by the power of Constantius the Arian Emperor, their abettor and patron, Athanasius, Paul, and the other Bishops, whom they had deposed, were by virtue of julius his letters, restored to their Churches, and their restitution embraced as just, by universal consent of all the Catholics in the world; in so much, that when the Arians meeting at Philippopolis, required the Orthodox Bishops assembled in the Council of Sardica, to abstain from the Communion of Athanasius, and those other Catholic Bishops, protesting, that otherwise they would have no communion with them, the godly Bishops there assembled, and representing all the Orthodox Bishops of the world, answered (t) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. , that they never had, nor would now abstain from their Communion; and principally, because julius B. of Rome having examined their cause, had not condemned them. But that the Arians were not so refractory to the Pope's authority, as you are, and would make them to be, to countenance your error, is a truth easily proved: for at last Vrsacius, and Valens, the two principal adversaries of S. Athanasius, departed from their pursuit, and went to Rome, to ask pardon of the Pope: They came in person (saith Severus Sulpitius) (u) Hist. sacraae l. 2. to ask pardon of julius B. of Rome. And themselves in the Act of their Penance (x) Athan. Apol. 1. : Your Piety in your natural goodness, hath vouchsafed to pardon our error. And at the end of their Act, they made this protestation (y) Athanas. ibid. : Moreover we promise, that if upon this occasion, those of the East, or Athanasius himself, shall maliciously appeal us in judgement, we will not departed from what you shall ordain. 4. You tell us (z) Pag. 306. lit. k. out of Sozomen; The restoring of S. Athanasius to his Bishopric again (by julius) was only by his communicatory letters, to declare, that he thought him worthy to be restored: for if we inquire after the authority, whereby Athanasius was restored, it was by the command of the Emperor Constantius, as the same historian recordeth. These are your words, than which none can be more untrue: for that julius in his letters, did not only give his advice, declaring that he thought Athanasius worthy to be restored, but operatively exercised his power, & authority, and by virtue of them effectually and absolutely restored Athanasius and those other Bishops, is a truth not only acknowledgeth by your Protestant writers (as you have heard (a) Chap. 37. sect. 2. , but in itself so certain, that I think no man, but Doctor Morton could have the face to deny it. julius' B. of Rome (saith Socrates) (b) L. 2. c. 11. by reason of the privilege of his Church above others, defended their cause, and sent them back with letters written to the Eastern Bishops, whereby each of them might be restored to their place; and reprehended severely those that had rashly deposed them. And they going from Rome, and relying upon the letters of julius recovered their seats again. Which is also expressed in the title of that Chapter: The B. of Rome (saith Sozomen) (c) L 3. c. 7. having examined their complaints, and found, that they agreed touching the Decrees of the Council of Nice, received them into his communion, and because by reason of the dignity of his See, the charge of all belonged to him, he restored to each of them his Church. And in the title of that Chapter: Athanasius & Paul, by the letters of julius received their seats again. Are not these words clear enough? But yet moreover, doth not Nicephorus say (d) L. 9 c. 8. that, julius by the greatness of his See, and out of the ancient privilege & prerogative thereof, knowing that the charge of all Bishops whersoever, belonged to him, as to a judge, armed each of them with powerful letters, and sending them back into the East, restored their Churches unto them? And do not he, and Sozomen add (e) Ibid. , that he rebuked the Arians, for that they had rashly deposed those Bishops, and troubled the Churches, not standing to the decrees of the Council of Nice; and commanded, that some of them in the name of all should on a set day appear at Rome, to give account of the justice of their sentence; and threatened, not to let them pass without punishment, unless they did cease to innovate? And doth not Felix Pope (f) Ep. ad Athanas. & cet. Episc. Egypt. , who lived soon after that time deliver the same in most clear and effectual words? And finally do not he, Theodoret (g) L. 2. hist, c. 4. , Sozomen (h) L. 3. c. 7. , and S. Athanasius himself (i) Apolog. 2. , out of the undoubted Epistle of julius' report, that julius following the Ecclesiastical Law, commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome, and summoned the divine Athanasius canonically to present himself in judgement; and that as soon as he received this citation, he transported himself in diligence to Rome; but the Authors of the tragedy went not, because they knew, their lies would be openly discovered. How think you now? Did not julius with the authority of a judge, restore those Orthodox Bishops to their Churches? and that, by the prerogative of his See, and because the charge of all Bishops belonged unto him? Did he not command, and Canonically cite both Athanasius, and his adversaries to appear in judgement at Rome, and appoint them a day for it? And finding Athanasius to be free from the crimes, which his enemies had maliciously forged against him, did he not threaten to punish them, unless they desisted to innovate, and trouble the Churches? Is this nothing, but to declare, that he thought those Orthodox Bishops worthy to be restored? Is it not to exercise the authority of a judge? And this showeth the falsehood of your addition (k) Pag. 306. fin. , that the authority whereby Athanasius was restored, was the command of the Emperor Constantius. For he being an Arian, was so far from commanding him, or any of those Catholic, Bishops to be restored, that (as Socrates writeth (l) L. 2. c. 12. , when he heard that Paul B. of Constantinople was restored by the letters of julius, he stormed thereat, and caused the Perfect of the City, by his secular power to thrust him out again, as he in his own person once before had done (m) See Spon. anno 342. n. 7. & 8. . And the Arian crew supported by him, so molested Athanasius, that they enforced him to fly again to Rome: and Constantius himself persevered in persecuting him, as long as he durst, which was (witness Sozamen (n) L. 3. c. 19 , and Theodoret (o) L. 2. c. 11. & 12. until Athanasius, and julius made complaint thereof to his brother Constans, a Catholic Emperor, who assisting the Ecclesiastical authority of julius, with his Imperial power, writ threathing letters to Constantius, and so effectual, that he durst resist no longer, but permitted Athanasius according to the just sentence given by julius, to return to his Church, and affisted him therein. And how far Constantius was, from having any power to restore Bishops, or to forbid them from returning to their seats, appeareth in this, that when he commanded the Bishops assembled at Ariminum (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 29. , not to dissolve their Council, but to expect his answer, they sent a peremptory message unto him, and neglecting his command, as of one that had no authority to meddle in Ecclesiastical affairs, presently dissolved their Council, and returned to their Churches. Let the reader now judge, how many untruths you have told in this one history; and whether you may not be thought guilty of impiety, in defending, and canonising the outrageous proceed of blasphemous heretics, and iultifying the sacrilegious violence offered to Catholic Bishops, for not subscribing to their heresy; and finally in answering (q) Pag. 285. , that the testimonies of ancient Popes in proof of their authority, may be confuted, and indeed confounded, by as ancient oppositions; as of the Orientals, against the authority of Pope julius? Such examples we allow you, to maintain your doctrine, and disobedience to the Bishop & Church of Rome. But I presume, that every understanding Protestant, will disclaim from such an Advocate, and think that by such precedents his cause is not defended, but disgraced, condemned, and parallalled with Arianisme. SECT. VII. Other passages of Doctor Morton examined. BEllarmine in proof (z) L. 2. de Pont. c. 18. of the Pope's authority, allegeth that Sixtus the third deposed Polychronius. You say (a) Pag. 195. margin lit. l. ; He numbereth him as one of the eight Patriarches which Nicolas the first of that name, reckoneth in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor. This is another untruth: The eight Patriarches which Bellarmine mentioneth out of the Epistle of Nicolas, were of Constantinople; namely Maximus, Nestorius, Acacius, Anthymus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus. All these were deposed by the Bishops of Rome, and are so many witnesses against you, of the Pope's authority, acknowledged, and practised over the Bishops of Constantinople. Polichronius was B. of Jerusalem, and deposed by Sixtus Pope, as Bellarmine proveth out of the Acts of Sixtus: which acts (witness Baronius (b) Anno 432. fin. are cited by Nicolas the first, by Petrus Damiani, and other later writers. And if (as you object (c) Pag. 295. Baronius found no other Records of any Polychronius, that was B. of Jerusalem at that time, doth it therefore follow, there was none such? To omit the later writers he mentioneth, Petrus Damiani, and Nicolas were men eminently learned: the one lived 600. the other 800. years nearer the time of Sixtus, than Baronius did: and the Acts of Sixtus are yet more ancient then either of them. Wherefore in those day's Record might be extant of Polychronius, and his deposition by Sixtus, reported in those Acts, which before Baronius his time were lost; or if not lost, yet might not come to his knowledge. 2. You answer (d) Pag. 295. : Your Popes must be thought to have restored Bishops only, by endeavouring, and desiring, that they might be restored. You exemplify in Basilides, whose cause showeth, it was a known truth in those days, that the Pope had authority to restore Bishops deposed: for why else did Basilides travail from Spain to Rome, to procure letters of restitution from him? Of this Basilides you say (e) Pag. 289. fin. 190. : Cyprian constituted Sabinus Bishop, instead of Basilides, whom he had deposed. But you show great ignorance in Ecclesiastical history: for Cyprian neither deposed Basilides, nor constituted Sabinus in his place. Basilides was not an African, nor any way belonging to Cyprians jurisdiction (who was Primate of Africa only) but Bishop of Leon in Spain; and for his enormous crimes being justly deposed by the Bishops of that Country, fled to Stephen Pope, and by a false information of his own innocency, deceived him, that by his authority, and command, he might be restored to his Bishopric. The Bishops of Spain, who had condemned him▪ scent Sabinus and Felix into Africa to inform S. Cyprian truly of the case, to ask his advice, and require his intercession to the Pope, that he would not restore Basilides. S. Cyprian approved their proceeding, and answered, that if Basilides had obtained from the Pope any sentence of restitution, it was surreptitious, by reason of the false information he had given; which alone was sufficient to make his restitution void, as not only the Civil (f) Cod. count. ius L. Etsi. , but also the Canon Law (g) De Rescrip. C. Dilectus. declareth, decreeing in a case like to this of Basilides, that sentences procured from the See Apostolic by surreption, are invalid, and of no force. Wherefore S. Cyprian rightly answered, that albeit Stephen for his incircumspection, might be argued of negligence, in giving so easy credit to a false information, and suffering himself to be deceived; thereby yet the chief fault was in Basilides, who with lies had sought to justify himself. This is all that antiquity recordeth of this controversy; which showeth, that in those ancient times, the custom of Bishops, when they thought themselves wronged by their Metropolitans, was, to appeal to the Pope, as Basilides did: against which custom, nor against the Pope's authority to admit of Appeals, neither the Bishops of Spain, nor S. Cyprian excepted, as appeareth in this, that they blamed not Basilides, for appealing to one that had no power to reiudge his cause, but for his surprise made upon the Pope, and the Pope's want of circumspection in suffering himself to be deceived by a false information. 3. You say (h) Pag. 290. : Cyprian confirmed the election of Pope Cornelius, whose communion both he (as himself speaketh) & his Colleagues, and fellow-bishops gave approbation unto. To confirm the election of a Bishop, is an Act of jurisdiction, which therefore can proceed from none, but a Superior. This authority though you deny to the Pope, yet out of a desire to annihilate his authority, you overshoote your mark so far, as to make him inferior to all the Bishops of Africa, and to stand in need of their confirmation; a thing, which S. Cyprian mentioneth not. He only signifieth to Cornelius, that Novatianus having made a schism in the Church, and set himself up, as Antipope, in opposition to Cornelius, and the Africans being doubtful, which of the two they should acknowledge and obey, as true Pope, S. Cyprian saith, he exhorted all that sailed (out of Africa to Rome) to abandon Novatianus, and adhere to Cornelius, and procured letters from his brethren at Rome, to those of Africa, that being fully certified of the truth, they might (saith he to Cornelius) acknowledge and firmly embrace you, and your communion, that is to say, the communion of the Catholic Church. All therefore that you have gained out of S. Cyprian, is to prove yourself to be out of the communion of the Catholic Church: for to be of the Catholic communion, and to be united to the Pope, in S. Cyprians belief, is one, and the same thing. 4. The like abuse you offer to S. Gregory, saying, (i) Pag. 29●. that he sought approbation from the four Patriarches. As soon as this holy Pope was placed in the chair of S. Peter, following the custom of his Predecessors, he writ a circular, or Synodical letter (for so anciently those letters were called) to the four Eastern Patriarches, that having notice of his election, they might know, whom to obey, and whom to have recourse unto in all doubts of faith, and other mayor causes: which was no more to seek confirmation, or approbation from them, then if a King of Poland, or any other electiu● Prince being chosen, should write a circular letter to hi● Nobles, giving them notice of his Election, and admonishing them of their duty and allegiance unto him. This to have been the effect of those Synodical letters, is proved out of Gelasius: Because (saith he to Laurence Bishop of Lignidis) with fraternal love, you put us in mind, that we should send a form of faith, as a certain medicine, to the Bishops throughout Illyria, and others; although this hath been most amply performed by our predecessor of Blessed memory, yet because the custom is, that when a Bishop of the Roman Church is newly made, he send a form of his faith to the holy Churches, I have endeavoured to renew the same in a compendious brevity, to the end, the reader by this our Epistle may understand, in what faith he is to live, according to the ordinations of the Fathers. And as the Popes when they were chosen, did send these Synodical letters, prescribing a form of faith to be observed by all Bishops; so likewise, all Metropolitans did send to the Popes newly chosen, a profession of their faith, to the end, it might be approved by the See Apostolic. So did S. Cyprian to Cornelius Pope, calling it (k) L. 2. ep. 10. a divine tradition, and an Ecclesiastical institution: and moreover adding, that he had commanded all the Bishops of his Province to do the like. SECT VIII. Doctor Mortons' ignorance concerning Excommunication: And of heretics excommunicating the Pope. EXcommunication is a most grievous Ecclesiastical censure, which can be inflicted by none, but an Ecclesiastical Superior, that hath jurisdiction & power to bind, and lose, to punish, & absolve the person excommunicated. A thing so certain, that no puny-divine can be ignorant thereof. Wherefore you discover more than vulgar ignorance in defining (l) Pag. 290. , Excommunicating of others, to be, but, a denying to have communion with them. By this definition, every subject may excommunicate his Superior, Ecclesiastical, or temporal: for every subject of never so mean a rank, Ecclesiastic, or laic, may deny to have communion with his Bishop, or his Sovereign, and thereby excommunicate them: Yea by the same definition, any Heretic may excommunicate the Pope, or any other Bishop, or Council, by which he is condemned; for he may deny to have communion with them. Is this good Divinity? And yet it is yours; who from this definition, as from a true principle, deduce, that when ancient Popes excommunicated heretical Bishops of the Eastern Church, it was no act of jurisdiction in them over those Bishops, but (m) Ibid. only a disuniting of themselves from them, by denying to have communion with them which also the same Bishops might deny to have with the Popes And upon this ground, you justify (as well you may) the Arians, who being excommunicated by julius' Pope, took to themselves liberty to excommunicate him, in their false Council at Philippopolis (n) Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. . And upon the same ground (when Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria grew to so great a height of madness, as to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against Leo the Great, and first Pope of that name, because he had condemned Eutyches, and his heresy) you say (o) Pag. 290. fin. 291. , He did it upon the known judgement of the Eastern Church, and upon a common right, and hability to do it: which as it is an answer full of ignorance, so I know not how to excuse it from impiety: for although Dioscorus were an Archheretic, though contrary to the Laws of the Church, he had by his own authority assembled a Council at Ephesus, and approved in it the heresy of Eutyches, and condemned the Orthodox Doctrine, and not only excommunicated, but beaten, and wounded to death, Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople, a stout champion of the Catholic faith; yet none of these crimes were alleged against him, as the cause of his excommunication, and deposition, but only his presumptuous attempting to excommunicate the Pope, and his disobedience to him. Dioscorus (saith Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople (p) Conc. Chalced. Act. 9 Socrat. l. 2. c. 18. speaking to the Council of Chalcedon) hath not been deposed for the faith, but because he had excommunicated my Lord the Archbishop Leo, and that having been thrice cited, he would not appear. And the Council of Chalcedon itself writing to Leo (q) Relat. ad Leon. : After all these things, he hath extended his frenzy even against him, to whom the guard of the Vine is committed by our Saviour, that is to say against your Holiness; & hath moditated an excommunication against you, who hasten to unite the body of the Church. So enormous a crime did this holy Council judge it to be, for any Bishop (even the greatest Patriarch of the East, as Dioscorus was) to pronounce sentence of Excommunication against the Pope. But to make this matter more evident, what Christian ever heard, that the judgement of any Bishop could be valid against the Bishop of the primary See? which (saith the Council of Sinuessa (r) Nicol. Papa Ep. ad Micha. Imper. is to be judged by no man. The primitive Fathers thought it so unlawful to be separated from the B. of Rome, that they pronounce all that are divided from his communion, to be branches cut of from the Vine, which is the Catholic Church, to be heretics of a perverse judgement, or else presumptuous selfe-liking schismatics, and sinners, not to gather, but to scatter; not to be of Christ, but of Antichrist (s) See above Chap. 1. sect. 4. . And finally, so absurd a thing it was ever held, for any Christian, to excommunicate the Pope, that the Emperor Martian writing to certain heretical Monks of Palestine, who being enemies to the Council of Chalcedon, had presumed to excommunicate Leo Pope, telleth them (t) Apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 144. . that thereby they had (and with good cause) made themselves a laughing stook to the Heathens themselves. What you object (u) Pag. 290. out of Nicephorus, that Menas Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius. Cardinal Peron hath learnedly proved to be a mere fable: and were it true, it was an unlawful attempt, and invalid, as you have heard. SECT. IX. Adrian, and Nicolas Popes, objected by Doctor Morton. ADrian, and Nicolas, the two first Popes of those names, required of Constantine, and Michael Emperors of the East, the restitution not only of the temporal patrimony of S. Peter, injustly taken away from the Roman Church, by heretical Emperors, their predecessors, & still withheld by them; but also of the Ecclesiastical right of ordaining, and governing ten Provinces of the East, as their peculiar Diocese, according to the custom of their predecessors. This objection you (x) Pag. 291. 292. took from Baronius (y) Anno 800. : He hath given you an answer; to him I remit you. But whereas you say. These Popes did not think themselves to have jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, it is worth the nothing, that they, even in those very Epistles, which you object, not only affirm, but most effectually prove the jurisdiction of the B. of Rome, over the whole Church: and of Adrian, something to this purpose hath been said already (z) Chap. 33. sect. ●. . SECT. X. Of the deposition of Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch. BEllarmine (a) L. ●. de Pont. c. 18. produceth many examples of Eastern Bishops, deposed by the Pope. In answer whereto, you say (b) Pag. 295. fin. 296. : The chiefest example which your Cardinal may seem principally to insiston, is, that Pope Damasus (as he calleth it) deposed Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch. And therefore have I singled out this example, for a singular Argument of retorsion, to prove the no-iuridicall, or judicial authority of the Roman jurisdiction, over the Patriarches of Antioch. Bellarmine's first, and chiefest examples are of eight Patriarches of Constantinople, which are so many witnesses of the Pope's authority against you. Among these, he chief inssisteth on the example of Anthymus, whom Agapet Pope deposed in the City of Constantinople itself, as you have heard (c) In this Chap. sect. 4. , and he proveth out of Nicolas the first, Liberatus, Zonaras, and Gelasius. The reason therefore why you passing over these examples, single out that of Flavianus, is not, because that is the chiefest Bellarmine insisteth on, but because in that you find something to quarrel at, which you find not in the rest. But upon examination, the evidence of this very example singled out by yourself, will show how unanswearable the rest are. The ease is this. The Church of Antioch being in schism, two Bishops, Paulinus, and Meletius pretending right to that patriarchal seat, and some adhering to the one, some to the other, not without danger of a great tumult, they came to agreement (d) Socrat. l. 5. c. 5. Sozom. l. 7. c. 3. , that all such ecclesiastics, as were thought fit to govern that Church, or were in expectation thereof, (which were six in number) should bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to admit of that Bishopric, so long as either Paulinus, or Meletius lived; and after the death of either of them, to let the superuiver peaceably enjoy that seat alone. Meletius being dead, the Antiochians, contrary to their oath, advanced Flavianus to the Bishopric, in opposition to Paulinus; and he contrary to his oath admitted thereof: at which Damasus Pope, and all the Bishops of the West were greatly offended (e) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. ; & not without cause, by reason of the new schism it caused, not only in that Church, and in a great part of the East, but also because it was contrary to the agreement made by oath, and a great wrong to Paulinus, who was very old, and a personage of so great veneration, for his sanctity, and merit, that Valens an heretical Emperor driving many Catholic Bishops from their Churches in to banishment, never offered to touch him (f) S. Hieron. Bp. 61. add Pamach. Socrat. l. 4. c. 2. . Wherefore Damasus, and the rest of the Western Bishops, writ communicatory letters to him, as to the true Bishop of Antioch, but abstained from the communion of Flavianus, and excommunicated Diodorus, and Acacius that had ordained him (g) Sozom. l. 7. c. 11. . And whereas the Council of Constantinople under Nectarius, had confirmed Flavianus, they (the Western Bishops) annulled that confirmation, and by their letters accompanied with others of the Emperor Gratian (using also therein the help of Theodosius, who writ to the same effect) they commanded the Council of Constantinople to come to Rome, (h) S. Hiero. Ep. 27. ad Eustoch. Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 8. fin. etc. 9 & put the election of Flavianus again in trial, at a general Council assembled there, giving withal to both party's assignation to appear. Flavianus distrusting the equity of his cause, appeared not (i) Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 23. , but had recourse to excuses, and to the Emperor. But Paulinus obeying, transported himself to Rome, in company of other Bishops, and renowned personages of the East. Whereof S. Hierome speaking saith (k) Ep. 16. ad Princip. : The Ecclesiastical necessity drew me to Rome, with the holy Bishops Paulinus, and Epiphanius, whereof, the one governed the Church of Antioch in Syria, and the other the Church of Salamina in Cyprus. And again (l) Ep 17. add Eustoch. : When the Imperial letters had drawn to Rome, the Bishops of the East, and West, Paula saw there the admirable men, and Bishops of Christ, Paulinus B. of Antioch, and Epiphanius B. of Salamina in Cyprus. Whereby it appeareth, that albeit the election of Flavianus had been confirmed by the Council of Constantinople, Paulinus was still held to be the true B. of Antioch, and Flavianus his competitor, in reputation of an intruder, for want of confirmation from the See Apostolic. And therefore as he appeared not, so neither did the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan Council which had confirmed him, but by letters written to to the Pope, and Council of Rome, excused themselves. You (say they) (m) Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 9 moved with brotherly charity, called us, as your members by the letters of the most religious Emperor etc. But beside, that our Churches being newly restored, (if we should have done this) had been wholly abandoned, it was a thing, which many of ut could no way put in execution; for as much as we travailed to Constantinople, upon the letters of your Reverence, sent the last year, after the Council of Aquileia, to the most religious Emperor Theodosius, having prepared ourselves for none, but that journey of Constantinople only, and having gotten the consent of the Bishops, remaining in the Provinces, for none but that. And in the end of the same Epistle they make intercession for Flavianus, fearing lest the cause of Paulinus would be favoured by Damasus, by reason he had been ordained Patriarch of Antioch, by Lucifer a Sardinian Bishop, and Legate to Liberius, predecessor to Damasus. The business standing thus, Paulinus died; but the schism lived still. For his Disciples created to themselves Euagrius a new Bishop, in opposition to Flavianus (n) Socrat. l. 5. c. 15. Sozom. l. 7. c. 15. : whereby not only that Church, but the whole world was shaken (o) Amb. Ep. 78. , and brought into danger of schism: for remedy whereof, Siricius Pope called a Council at Capua; to which, though the Bishops of the East and West resorted in great numbers, yet Flavianus still appeared not. Flavianus (saith S. Ambrose (p) Ibid. hath cause to fear, and therefore he flies a trial. And again (q) Ibid. : One only Flavianus not subject to Laws, as it seems to him, appeareth not when we are all assembled. The Council to prevent further danger of schism, ordained, that whiles the cause was in agitation, communion should not be denied to the Catholics, that adhered to either party: and to make an end of that long strife, committed the examination, and decision of the whole cause, to Theophilus' Patriarch of Alexandria, both by reason of the great authority of his See in the East, as also because his Pariarkship bordered upon that of Antioch, where the parties were present; and finally because he was a man impartial. The sacred Synod (saith S. Ambrose (r) Ibid. writing to Theophilus) having committed the right of examining this cause to your unanimity, and to our other Colleagues of Egypt. it is necessary, that you summon again our brother Flavianus. And moreover he advertiseth Theophilus, that he ought to carry the business so, as that the final decision thereof might be reserved to the B of Rome, and confirmed by him. We conceive (saith he) (s) Ibid. that you ought to refer the cause to our holy brother B of the Roman Church: for we presume, you will judge so, as cannot displease him. And all use after: When having received the tenor of your acts, we shall see, you have judged things so, as the Roman Church shall undoubtedly allow thereof, we will receive with joy the fruit of your examination. By this it appears, that S Ambrose held the B of Rome to be the supreme judge of Bishops, and that to him appertained the final decision of their causes. And the same appears yet further in this, that S. john chrysostom, who was then Archbishop of Constantinople, and favoured Flanianus, as having a little before been a Priest of his, beseeched Theophilus (t) L. 8. c. 3. to labour with him, and help him, to make the B. of Rome propitious to Flavianus; and to this end, by mutual consent of both were chosen (as Legates to be sent to Rome) Acacius B of Beroea, & Isidore Priest. And the same is confirmed by Sociates (u) L. 5. c. 25. : Theophilus (saith he) sending the Priest Isidore, appeased Damasus that was offended, and represented to him, that it was profitable for the concord of the Church, to parson the fault of Plavianus: and so the Communion was restered to him. Finally, notwithstanding that the Emperor favoured Flavianus, and took upon him to plead his cause in judgement at Rome, yet he never was received as Patriarch of Antioch; nor his Legates admitted, until the Pope at the intreary of so great personages, had pardoned his fault, and confirmed him in that See. This is the true history of Flavianus, which you have singled out, as an especial example of retorsion against Bellarmine, to prove the Pope's no-iuridicall authority over the Patriarches of Antioch; but you perform it not: for this example evidently showeth the Pope's authority exercised over the Eastern Churches, many ways; as 1. In annulling the Confirmation of Flavianus made in the Council of Constantinople. 2. In calling those Bishops to Rome, to put the cause in trial again: nor did they in their answer except against his authority, to call them, but humbly acknowledging him to be their head, and themselves to be his members, excused their not coming for want of time, and other reasons expressed in their Epistle. 3. In calling not only the Western, but also the Eastern Bishops to the Council of Capua, they obeying his command. 4. By the Epistle of S. Ambrose, wishing Theophilus to procure a confirmation of his sentence from the B. of Rome. 5. By the intercession of Theophilus, of S. chrysostom, and of the Emperor Theodosius himself, made to the Pope to pardon Flavianus his fault, and to confirm him in the Bishopric of Antioch. And 6. by the Legates, which Flavianus himself in the end was feign to send to the Pope, before he could be received, as true Bishop of that See: which he needed not to have done, if his confirmation had not depended on the Pope's approbation. All this being manifest out of Socrates, and Sozomen, (whom Bellarmine citeth) and also out of S. Ambrose, impartial relators of this cause, you mention not any of them, but fasten upon the relation of Theodoret, who being a Suffragan of the Patriarkship of Antioch, and a creature to one of Flavianus his Successors, was a great favores of his person, and hath reported his cause, with more relation to favour, then to truth. For first (x) L. 5 c. 23. he makes Flavianus absolute and lawful Successor to Meletius; and Paulinus an injust pretender to that See: whereas contrariwise Paulinus was the true Successor, and Flavianus an in●●●der, as being bound by oath, not to permit himself, nor any other to be ordained Bishop in place of Meletius, but to let Paulinus enjoy that dignity alone, and peaceably, whiles he lived. 2. He mentioneth not this oath of Flavianus, but signifieth, that he came to the Bishopric, by a lawful and Canonical election, without breach of any oath. 3. To make good the cause of Flavianus against Euagrius, he reporteth, that Paulinus alone, before his death, ordained Euagrius, contrary to the Laws of the Church, when as Socrates (y) L. 5. c. 15. and Sozomen (z) L. 7. c. 15. impartial writers testify, that Euagrius was not ordained by Paulinus, but by his Disciples after his yeath. 4. Nor is he to be credited in his report, that Theodosius having heard Flavianus at Constantinople, did not press him to go to Rome, but bid him return home to Antioch, and that coming himself afterwards to Rome, he undertook to answer for Flavianus, and to plead his cause in judgement. And yet notwithstanding, even this relation of Theodoret (partial as it is) proveth the iuridicall authority of the Pope over the Patriarches or Antioch, if it be taken entirely, as it is set down by him, and not mangled as you report it: for he saith (a) L. 5. c. 23. , The Bishops of Rome, not only that admirable man Damasus, but also after him Siricius, and Anastasius successor to Siricius, inveighed greatly against the Emperor, telling him, here pressed them that practised tyranny against himself, but left unpunished those, that by tyranny sought to overthrew the laws of Christ. Whereupon, as the Emperor before had commanded him, so now again he laboured to compel him, to go to Rome, to have his cause judged there. This showeth that the Emperor acknowledged no less obligation in the greatest Patriarches to obey the Pope, then in the subjects of the Empire to obey the Emperor; and that such Bishops, as show themselves disobedient to him, violate the Laws of Christ, and deserve no less punishment, than subjects that rebel against their Prince. Again: The Emperor (saith Theodoret (b) Ibid. coming long after that time to Rome, and being blamed again by the Bishops, for not repressing the tyranny of Flavianus, said, he would take upon himself the person of Flavianus, and plead his cause in judgement: which last clause, you in your relation of Theodoret's words omit, because it showeth, that the judgement of Flavianus his cause belonged to the Court of Rome: for the pleading of causes in judgement, is only before them, that have authority to judge. Finally, though Theodoret relate partially this story of Flavianus, yet that he intended not thereby, to deny the authority of the Pope over the Bishops of Antioch, appeareth, not only by what hath been here proved to the contrary, but also because in express words he professeth (c) In Ep. ad Kenat. that, the Roman See hath the stern of government over all the Churches of the world; and therefore he being a Suffragan of the Patriarkeship of Antioch, when he was deposed from his Bishopric, by the second Council of Ephesus, had not recourse to his own Patriarch, for redress, but appealed to Leo Pope, and by him was restored. He likewise knew that john Patriarch of the same See had been deposed by Celestine Pope (d) See above Chap. 18. sect. 2. , and Maximus confirmed in that See by Leo the Great (e) See this Chap. sect. 3. . All this showeth, how untruly you say (f) Pag. 296. fin. , that Damasus deposed not Flavianus, nor executed any act of iuridic all proceeding against him but that he was confirmed in his Bishopric by the Emperor: for Damasus annulled the sentence of the Council of Constantinople that had confirmed him, and cited both the Fathers of that Council, and him, to appear at Rome, to have his cause tried there; and thereupon the Emperor once, and twice urged him to go: and Siricius successor to Damasus, gave to Theophilus' Patriarch of Alexandria, power to judge his cause. And notwithstanding all the Emperor's favour, he was not confirmed in the Patriarkship, until at the entreaty of Theophilus & chrysostom, the Pope had pardoned his offence, and he himself had sent Legates to obtain his confirmation. If this be not sufficient to prove the Pope's authority over the Bishops of Antioch, what is? And when you ask (g) Pag. 297. , Whether the Christian Churches could be good Catholics, and in state of samation, that communicated with Flavianus, at the time of his opposition, to the Pope, it is a question sprung from ignorance: for the cause of Flavianus being in agitation, it was so far from being unlawful to communicate with him, or with them that adhered either to him, or Paulinus, and Euagrius, that for avoiding of further schism; the Council of Capua ordained that Communion should be denied to neither party. SECT. XI. Doctor Morton in defence of his Doctrine, chargeth ancient Bishops, with exercising Acts of authority out of the limits of their own jurisdiction. WE have proved the Popes to be supreme Governors of the universal Church, because they have exercised acts of jurisdiction over the greatest Bishops of the East and West. You make your apposition (as you say (h) Pag. 297. by parallels, and examples of other Bishops in antiquity, executing Acts of confirming, and deposing Bishops, without the limits of their own jurisdiction: which is tacitly to contradict yourself, confessing that the Popes have confirmed, and deposed Bishops out of their own Patriarkship (to which you confine their authority.) but that they had no jurisdiction our those Bishops. The falsity of this answer, who seethe not? for confirming and deposing of Bishops, is an act of jurisdiction, which no Bishop hath power to exercise out of the limits of his jurisdiction. And therefore to say, that either the Popes or other Bishops, have executed acts of confirming, or deposing Bishops, without the limits of their own jurisdiction, is to accuse them of pride and injustice, in arrogating to themselves liberty to transgress the limits of their jurisdiction, executing acts of authority, where they had no right. But as to deny the universal jurisdiction of the Popes, you wrong them; so to make good your denial of their authority, you wrong the other Bishops in whom you instance. The first is S. Athanasius B. of Alexandria; who (say you) (i) Pag. 300. appointed a Bishop over the Indians. This Bishop, though you name him not, was Frumentius, who having lived among the Indians, and returning from thence, informed S. Athanasius of the great hope he conceived of their Conversion to Christ, if preachers were sent unto them. The faith which Frumentius preached, was the Roman faith, and he served God after the manner of the Roman Church and induced all Christians that traded with the Indians to do the like (k) Ruffin. l. 2. c. 9 Sozom. l. 2. c. 2.3. . S. Athanasius, with the advice of his Clergy, created him Bishop at Alexandria, and sent him with other Priests, to preach the Gospel to the Indians, and reduce them to the Communion of the Roman Church. Where do you find in all this, that S. Athanasius instituted, or confirmed any Bishop without the limits of his own jurisdiction? Did he not consecrate Frumentius Bishop in his own Church at Alexandria? Did he send him to preach, or exercise jurisdiction, within the Diocese of any other Bishop? No. He sent him to a barbarous people, to reduce them to the faith of Christ, and obedience of the Roman Church; which was then, and is still lawful for any Bishop, in like case to do, that being no where forbidden, nor contrary to any Law, divine, or humane, nor any way derogating from the authority of the B. of Rome, but most grateful to him, whose greatest desire is, to reduce the whole world, to the faith of Christ, and whose approbation for such enterprises is always justly presumed: especially since thereby the glory of the Roman Church is increased, and her jurisdiction enlarged, as by the conversion of both Indies, in these later times, we see. Your second example (l) Pag. 300. is, of Theophilus B of Alexandria, labouring to ordain chrysostom to be the B. of Constantinople. For this you allege Sozomen, who saith (m) L. 8. c. 2. that chrysostom being famous for his Virtue, & learning, throughout all the Roman Empire, by voice of the Clergy, and people of Constantinople, and of the Emperor himself, was chosen Archbishop of that Imperial City: but that Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria resisted his ordination, labouring to promote to that dignity, Isidore a Chaplain of his own. This is the relation of Sozomen: why do you report it untruly? Your third example (n) Ibid. , is of S. Gregory Nazianzen, unto whom (say you) Meletius B. of Antioch, and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed the See, and Patriarkship of Constantinople. For this you bring Theodoret (o) L. ●. hist. c. 8. , and Gregorius Presbyter. Theodoret saith no such thing; but only that albeit the Canons to prevent ambition, forbidden the removing of Bishops from one See, to another; yet the opinion of Meletius was, that in those circumstances, Gregory might hold the Bishopric of Constantinople, by reason of the great damage that Church sustained for want of a Bishop, in so dangerous a time: But that Meletius designed, or ordained him Bishop, Theodoret saith it not; nor is it true: for he was created Bishop by the Council of Constantinople, which Theodoret in that Chapter mentioneth. And the same is verified by other historians. Gregory (saith Socrates) (p) L. 5. c. 5. by the common consent of many Bishops was transferred from the Bishopric of the City of Nazianzum, to the Bishopric of Constantinople. And Sozomen (q) L. 6. c. 17. : Gregory by the voices of many Bishops, was designed B. of Constantinople: for no Catholic Bishop, nor Church of Orthodox people, being in that City, the doctrine of the Council of Nice, was in danger to be wholly exploded. How then could you say, that Meletius, and Petrus of Alexandria confirmed unto Gregory Nazianzen, the See of Constantinople? Especially since Theodoret in that very Chapter expresseth the names of divers of those Bishops which in the general Council of Constantinople conferred that dignity on him, and repressed the insolency of Maximus, whom Timothy B. of Alexandria would have intruded into that See. Your fourth example (r) Pag. 300. , is Moses, who being a man famous for miracles was ordained Bishop by certain exiles. It is true: for the Romans, upon agreement of peace, with Mavia Queen of the Saracens (who desired to have Moses' created Bishop of her Nation) brought him to Alexandria to be consecrated by Lucius, than Patriarch of that city, who being an Arian heretic. Moses' refused to be consecrated by him: and therefore the Arians were enforced to permit him to be consecrated by the Catholic Bishops of the Roman Communion (s) Ruffin. l. 2. c. o. Socrat. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉. Sozo. l. o. c. 38. , who though banished by the Arians had not thereby lost their jurisdiction, and therefore might ordain Moses, without entrenching on the liberties of other Bishops, or passing the limits of their own. And what they did, was confirmed by Damasus Pope, who (saith Socrates (t) L 4. c. 30. by his letters approved the faith of Moses, and confirmed the creation of Peter, that is to say, of that renowned Patriarch, successor to S. Athanasius, who being expelled by Lucius, appealed to Damasus Pope, and by him was restored to his Church of Alexandria. Wherefore this example showeth the Roman Church to be the Head of Catholic communion, and that if Moses had been brought to to you to be consecrated Bishop, he would have shunned you, as he shunned Lucius. Your fift example (u) Pag. 300. is of Athanasius B. of Alexandria, deposing Bishops without Egypt. This you report out of Socrates, (x) L. 3. c. 20. who hath no such words, nor treateth of any such subject. Your last example (y) Pag. 300. is of cyril of Jerusalem, who was cast out of his Bishopric by Acacius B. of Caesarea. This maketh against yourself: for the B. of Jerusalem was Suffragan to the B. of Cęsarea, who therefore might depose him without exceeding the limits of his jurisdiction. It is true, that the Metropolitan cannot without just cause depose his Suffragan: and therefore because Acacius being an Arian, deposed Cyril merely out of hatred to the Catholic faith, and for certain crimes which himself had feigned against him, the deposition was injust, and judged to be such by the Council of Seleucia (z) Theod. l. 2. c. 27. Sozo. l. 4. c. 24. So crat. l. 2. c. 35. Niceph. l. 9 c. 19 , where Acacius durst not appear, to have the cause of Cyrill examined: and therefore both he, and his complices for the wrong done to cyril, and for other their heretical machinations, were themselves deposed, and Cyrill restored to his seat at Jerusalem. These are your six examples, which upon examination prove all against yourself: and therefore your horned argument, framed out of them, doth nothing else, but gore your own bowels. CHAP. XXXIX. Of Appeals to Rome, decreed in the Council of Sardica. SECT. I. Whether the Council of Sardica were a general Council. IN the Council of Sardica, it was decreed * Cap. 3.4.5. . 1. That if in the cause of a Bishop, who thinks himself to be wronged, a new judgement be required, the B. of Rome is to give the judges. 2. That if a Bishop deposed by the next Bishops, say, his cause ought to be judged again, none is to be placed in his See, until the B. of Rome have pronounced upon it. 3. That a Bishop accused may have recourse to Rome, by way of Appeal. Against the authority of the Council of Sardica you object (a) Pag. 301. 1. That Bellarmine produceth in this place this Council as a sound argument, which elsewhere heranketh among those Counsels, that are to be partly allowed, and partly rejected: as if coin partly mixed, and counterfeit, aught to be taken for good payment. This argument is an imposture: for to the Council of Sardica came 376. Bishops, of which 300. were Catholics: the other 76. Arians (b) Socrat. l. 2. c. 16. . These 76. refused to enter into the Council at Sardica, unless Athanasius, and Paul were expelled: which condition the Catholic Bishops admitted not, but answered (c) Sozom. l. 31. c. 10. : They never had, nor would now abstain from the communion of Paul, and Athanasius, especially because julius B. of Rome, having examined their cause, had not condemned them. Hereupon those 76. Arian Bishops, separating themselves from the body of the Council, held an Antisynod of their own, at Philippopolis (a City not far from Sardica) which is reproved, as being a Conventicle of Arians. Of this Bellarmine speaketh, when he saith; The Council of Sardica is partly reproved. But the decrees for appealing to Rome, were not made in this mock-Councell (yea this reproved Athanafius for appealing, and julius' Pope for admitting his appeal) but by the true Council held at Sardica, which hath ever been approved by the Church, & in no part reproved. This Council of 300. Bishops it is, which Bellarmine allegeth in proof of Appeals. How then can you be excused in saying, that he produceth this Council in this place as a sound Argument, which elsewhere he ranketh among those Counsels, that are to be partly allowed, and partly rejected? for he never saith, that this Council of 300. Bishops is in any part to be rejected. 2. You object (e) Pag. 302. , that this Council, is not a general Council: for (say you) though in respect of the calling of it by Constantius, we may not unworthily say, that it was general yet if we observe, that it was afterwards distracted, and divided into two places, we may rather esteem it particular. This urgeth not: for the distraction consisting in so small a number of Bishops, and they Arians, their absence could not take from the true Council of Sardica (which represented all the Catholic Bishops in the world) the name of a general Council, which had been imposed on it at the first calling; no more than the Antisynod held at Ephesus in favour of Nestorius, by the Bishops of the Patriarkship of Antioch, hindered the true Council of Ephesus, from being perfectly and absolutely general. And in conformity to this you else where suppose and confess (f) Pag. 144. sin. 145. , the Sardican Council to be a general Council; according to the testimonies of S. Athanafius, Socrates, Severus Sulpitius, justinian, Baronius, & Binius. To which number you might have added Vigilius that ancient. B. of Trent (g) Cout. Eucych. l. 5. . Theodoret (h) L. 2. c. 8. , & Hincmarus (i) Opuse. ●●. c. 20. . Nor did Constantius alone call this Council, but also his brother Constans; and that not by their authority, but by the authority of julius' Pope, who (as it is plain out of Socrates) (k) L. 2. c. 16. called the Bishops, and appointed a day for them to meote at Sardica, to begin the Council. SECT. II. Other objections of Doctor Morton, against Appeals to Rome, answered. YOu third objection (l) Pag 302. , that the right which the Pope can claim for Appeals, dependeth altogether upon humane constitutions, hath been already answered (m) Above Chap. 27. sect. 4. . 4. You except (n) Pag. 304. against some of the examples (which Bellarmine produceth of Appeals made to the Pope) as being of such, as were within his own Patriarkship and therefore rather subject to him, then to others: from whence to infer, that appeals out of other Patriarkships may be made unto him, is (say you (o) Ibid. as if a Proctor should say: My Client had tith in his own parish, therefore do the next Parishes adjoining own their tithes unto him. But this example condemneth your Doctrine: for if all that are in the Patriarkship of the West, be the Pope's subjects, and have right to appeal unto him, why do you Protestant's (who cannot deny yourselves to be within his Patriarkship) disclaim from his obedience? Why do you not submit to your lawful Superior? Why do you forbidden appeals, and all recourse unto him? And if (as here you confess) he hath as much right to the appeals of them which are within his own Patriarkship, as a Parson hath to the tithes of his own Parish, why do you defend, that it was lawful for the Africans (whom you acknowledge to be within his own Diocese (p) Pag. 289. , and therefore rather subject to him then to others, (q) Pag. 304. to forbid appeals unto him? Why do you so often inveigh against the Popes, for requiring and maintaining their own right herein? 5. You except (r) Ibid. against other appeals, because they were of heretics, or other persons notoriously impious, as of Basilides, Martion, Fortunatus, and Felix, or Felicissimus, for so you should have said. But by this Argument you may as well prove, that a King hath no right of Appeals in his kingdom: for who knoweth not, that not only persons that are wronged by inferior judges, but also others, which have been justly condemned, do sometimes appeal: the former to be righted, and the later in hope to procure their just condemnation to be revoked by favour, or by misinforming their Sovereign? Wherefore as it were sophistry, to inferie, that a King hath not sovereign authority in his kingdom, because some that appeal unto him, are wicked persons; so it is to except against the Pope's supreme authority, because some that appeal unto him, are wicked persons, that have been justly condemned by their immediate Superiors. Your inference should have been, that because all sorts of persons, nocent, and innocent, have appealed to the Pope from all parts of the world, it rightly followeth, that he is supreme judge of the universal Church. SECT. III. Examples of innocent Appellants. IN proof of the ancient custom of appealing to Rome, we produce the examples of S. Athanasius, S. chrysostom, Theodoret, and Flavianus. You answer (s) Pag. 304. : They addressed their requests to the B. of Rome, not as to a peremptory Ludge, but as to a Patron, and arbitrary Days-man. And of Theodoret, and chrysostom you had said before (t) Pag. 255. : They only required from the Bishops of Rome a subsidiary help, as one King may from another, and as the B. of Arles, may from the B. of Paris. But this to be false sophistry, I shall easily prove, if first I give the reader a taste of your ignorance, concerning the antiquity of Appeals to Rome from remote Nations in general. SECT. iv Doctor Mortons' ignorance, concerning the Antiquity of appealing to Rome from remote Nations. THeodoret being injustly deposed from his Bishopric of Cyre, a City bordering upon Persia, appealed to Leo Pope, saying (u) Ep. ad Leon. : I attend the sentence of your Apostolic throne, and beseech your Holiness to secure me, appealing to your right and just judgement; and to command that I be brought before you, and verify that my Doctrine follows the Apostolical paths. You startling at these so unanswearable words of Theodoret, bid us (x) Pag. 255. marg. lit. m. note, that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations, was very uncouth in those days, giving us thereby a good testimony of your ignorance in Ecclesiastical history: for that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations, was not very uncouth, but very familiar in those days, and long before those days, even from the first ages of the Church, who knoweth not, that is versed in antiquity? For 1. Sixtus Pope, that lived 300. years before Theodoret, ordaineth (y) Ep. 2. . that, if any Bishop be wronged he appeal freely to the holy, and Apostolic See. 2. Marcellus the first, declareth (z) Ep. 1. ad Episc. Antioch. Prou. , that according to the constitutions of the Apostles, and their successors, all Bishops, when there is occasion, may appeal to the See Apostolic. 3. Felix the second (a) Ep. ad Syn. Alex. : As often as Bishops shall think themselves wronged by those of their Province, or by their Metropolitan, or have them in suspicion, let them appeal to the See of Rome. 4. The same is ordained by Victor (b) Ep. ad Theoph. caterosque Episc. Aegyp. , by Zephyrinus (c) Ep. ad Episc. Sicil. , by Fabianus (d) Ep. ad Hilar. , and Melchiades (e) Ep. ad Episc. Hispan. . 5. And what these ancient Popes decreed, the holy Council of Nice related by julius (f) Ep. 2. , confirmed; ordaining, that all Bishops accused of grievous crimes, may freely appeal to the See Apostolic, & fly to it, as to a Mother, for defence, and secure. The authority of this Canon is proved by Pisanus (g) L. 3. Conc. Niceni apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 350. : And that the Nicen Council made such a decree, S. Leo (h) Ep. 25. testifieth, and you else where forgetting yourself, acknowledge (i) Pag. 308. marg. lit. r. . 6. The Council of Sardica related not only by Catholic writers, but also by the Centurists, decreeth (k) Cap. 4. , that if any Bishop being deposed by the next Bishops, and protesting, that his cause ought to be judged a new, fly for succour to the B. of Rome, no other is to be installed in his See, after he hath put in his Appeal, but that his cause be sentenced by the B. of Rome. 7. And when john, surnamed Talaia, Patriarch of Asexandria, was cast out of his See by the Emporor Zeno, and Peter Moggus set up in his place, john (saith Liberatus (l) Liberat. 6.18. addressed himself to Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, and having taken from him Synodic all letters of intercession, appealed to the Pope of Rome Simplicius. 8. When Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople was condemned by the false Council of Ephesus, Valentinian the Emperor writ to Theodosius his Father-in-Law (m) Extat Ep inter Ep. preamb. Conc. Chalced. , that Flavianus according to the custom of Counsels, appealed by petition to the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome. And Liberatus (n) Cap. 12. : That, sentence having been pronounced against Flavianus, he appealed to the B. of Rome, by petition presented to his Legates. 9 And Leo (o) Ep. 8. writing to the same Flavianus: Eutyches protests, that in full judgement he presented to you a request of appeal, and that it was not received. 10. And Flavianus answering Leo (p) Extat Ep. inter Ep. Leonis ante Ep. 7. : Eutyches hath informed you, that in the time of judgement, he presented to us, and to the holy Council hear assembled, libels of appeals to your Holiness which was never done by him. 11. And the same Leo (q) Ep. 25. writing to Theodosius the younger, beseecheth him, that for as much as Flavianus being wronged by the false Council of Ephesus, had presented a libel of appeal to his Legates, he would command a general Council to be held within Italy: for the Nicen Canons require this necessarily to be done, after the putting in of an Appeal. To these I add Theodoret, testifying in express words that he appealed to Leo Pope. These witnesses show, that the phrase of appealing to the Pope from remote nations, was not very uncouth, but very familiar in the days 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 primitive times, by general Counsels, by Emperors, by Bishops, and by all ancient writers. And the same might be proved by other examples, if these were not sufficient to show your ignorance in denying, if not rather your boldness, in outfacing so known a truth. SECT. V That S. Athanasius appealed to julius' Pope, and Theodoret to Leo, as absolute judges: and that by their authority, both of them were restored to their Churches. THat S. Athanasius appealed to julius' Pope, and by his authority was restored to his seat, hath been effectually proved (r) Chap. 38. sect. 6. . And to what there was said, I add here the testimony of Liberatus, who speaking of john Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperor Zeno, saith: (s) In Brevia. c. 18. He appealed to the B. of Rome, as also Blessed Athanasius did. And that Theodoret appealed to Leo, as to an absolute judge, that had power to command him, and sentence his cause, he himself witnesseth, as you have heard (t) Sect. praeced. init. . Nevertheless you taking upon you to know, what passed in Theodoret's cause, better than Theodoret himself, say (u) Pag. 304. : He addressed his requests to the B. of Rome, not as to a peremptory judge, but as to a Patron, and arbitrary dais-man, & one upon whose authority he depending, acknowledgeth in express words his reason, to wit, the integrity of the faith 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 event showeth, that there was in this business no iuridicall proceeding at all: Only Theodoret upon his confession of his Orthodox faith, was received into communion with Leo, as Leo might have been with john of Constantinople, in like case. These are your words, to prove, that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope, as to an absolute judge, that had authority to annul the sentence of the Council that deposed him, and restore him to his See, but only as to an Arbitrator, by reason of the integrity of his faith; when as he contrarily in express words beseecheth Renatus (y) Ep ad Renat. to persuade the most holy, and most blessed Archbishop (of Rome) to use his Apostolical authority, and command him to appear before his Council (that is, his Consistory) because that holy See hath the guidance, and government of all the Churches of the world. And writing to Pope Leo, he saith (z) In Ep. ad Leon. : I attend the sentence of your Apostolic throne, and beseech your Holiness, to secure me appealing to your right, and just judgement, and to command, that I be brought before you etc. And I promise to stand to your judgement, contenting myself with that which you shall determine, what ever it be: And I beseech you, that I may be judged according to my writings. If Theodoret had studied to express the Pope's judicial authority, to sentence his cause, could he have done it in more clear, and effectual words then these? It is true, that as he acknowledgeth the Roman Church to be privileged above others, for many causes, so especially, for that she hath remained free from all blemish of heresy, none having ever possessed that See, which hath held any thing contrary to truth, or which hath not kept the Apostolical grace entire and without blemish. The reason why he mentioneth the purity of faith always preserved in the Roman Church, is, because he had been accused, and deposed as guilty of heresy in his writings. And therefore he appealeth confidently to the Pope, as to one, whose judgement in matters of faith is is infallible, and to whom the decision of all such Controversies belongeth, acknowledging withal (as you have heard) the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches, and the Pope to be his absolute Superior, and judge, with authority to command him, and sentence his cause. And Leo Pope accordingly using the authority of a judge, declared him free from heresy, and restored him to his See: whereupon the Senators, that assisted at the Council of Chalcedon, said with the approbation of the whole Council (a) Act. 1. : Let the most Reverend Bishop Theodoret come in, because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his See. Who then seethe not the insufficiency of your answer, that Theodoret appealed not to the Pope as to an absolute judge, but made his requests unto him, as to an arbitrary Dais-man? for appeals are not made to Arbitrators, but to absolute judges. An Arbitator is he, to whom the determination of a controversy is remitted by agreement of both parties, which in Theodoret's cause can have no place: for his adversaries never agreed to have his cause remitted to the Pope. If therefore the Pope had not been an absolute judge, Theodoret's appealing to him, had been in vain: nor could he have recovered his seat by the Pope's sentence: for a sentence pronounced without authority, is of no effect. And though, after the Council of Chalcedon had admitted Theodoret upon the Pope's restitution, to take his place amongst the Bishops, some of them doubting of his faith, because he had written against Cyrill of Alexandria in favour of Nestorius, and therefore fearing the Pope might have restored him upon misinformation, urged him to anathematise Nestorius again, yet that no way helpeth your cause, nor derogateth from the Pope's authority: for when Theodoret had anathematised Nestorius, the Council proceeded not to a new sentence of restitution, but subscribing to that of Leo, cried out all with one voice (b) Act. 2. : Long live Archbishop Leo: Leo hath judged the judgement of God. SECT. VI That S. chrysostom appealed to Innocentius Pope, as to an absolute judge, and by his authority was restored to his Church of Constantinople. S. chrysostom being deposed from his patriarchal See at the procurement of Eudoxia the Empress, wife to Arcadius' Emperor of the East, by a Council of Bishops, under Theophilus' Patriarch of Alexandria, had recourse by letters of appeal to Innocentius Pope. This you deny, saying (b) Pag. 307. n. , that whereas Bellarmine and Baronius refer you to the story itself, you can find nothing less in it, than the matter of Appeal: for (say you) chrysostom made his requests not to the Pope alone, but to the other Reverend Bishops within the Roman Province, together with him. But this is a mistake proceeding from your ignorance: for as the Syrians to express, Master, or Lord, use the word, Rabbi, which hath a plural signification, because a person of quality contains in himself the authority of many; so when we writ to an Honourable person, it is usual to speak unto him in the plural number, to signify that he hath in himself the dignity and authority of many. So writ Eusebius B. of Milan to Pope Leo alone (c) Extat inter Ep. Leo. post ep. 52. ; God hath placed ye Prelates of the Apostolic See, worthy Protectors of his worship. So writ Theodoret to the same Pope alone (d) Ep. ad Leon. : Vos enim per ●mnia convenit esse primos. So writ the Bishops of Syria to justinian the Emperor (e) Conc. Constant. sub Mena. Act. 1. : Our Lord preserve ye devout and zealous guardians of the faith. So writ the Council of Mopsuestia to Vigilius Pope (f) In Conc. 5. Act. 5. : It is convenient, O most Holies, that since you hold the chief dignity of Priesthood etc. And so did chrysostom write in the plural number to Innocentius Pope alone, as it is manifest, both out of the inscription of his Epistle, which is singular, and directed to Innocentius alone, as also out of Paladius (g) In vita Chrysost. , who citys it, as addressed to him alone. 2. You say (h) Pag. 307. : chrysostom made his requests to the Pope, not to cite the parties complained against, but only to write unto them, and this not by any peremptory charge, but only by reproof of their umust dealing, and of admonition etc. Hear I accuse you of something more than ignorance: for the words of chrysostom to Innocentius are (i) Ep. 1. ad Innocent. : Vouchsafe to write, and ordain by your authority, that these things so wickedly done, I being absent, and not refusing judgement, may be invalid, as of their own nature they are: and that they who have proceeded so injustly, may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiastical Laws: And command, that I, who am innocent, and not convicted of any crime, be restored to my Church. And again (k) Ep. ●. ad Innocent. . One thing I beseech your vigilant Soul, that albeit they, which have filled all with tumulies, be sick of an impenitent, and incurable disease, if yet they will remedy those things, that then they may not be punished, nor excommunicated. What more express form of appeal, or what more evident acknowledgement of the Pope's authority, & judicial power, than this? Doth not chrysostom beseech Innocentius, to disannul by his letters & authority, the Acts of the Council which had deposed him? To abrogate their sentence pronounced against him? to replace him in his Bishopric? and to punish his adversaries, according to the Laws of the Church, but yet to spare them, if they would repent? Is not this to acknowledge in him the power of an absolute judge? And is not this extant to be read in Chrysostom's Epistles, and in his life written by Palladius? You to keep this from your readers, set not down any of Chrysostoms' words, in the text of your discourse. And though in your margin you set down some of them in Latin, in a small letter, yet even that you do not without imposture: for you mangle them, leaving out those, in which he beseecheth the Pope to use his authority, in punishing his adversaries, according to the Ecclesiastical Canons, and in restoring him to his Church. Again, you are guilty of untruth, in saying (l) Pag. 307. , that chrysostom made not any requests to the Pope, to cite the parties complained against. For doth he not say (m) Ep. ad Innoc. apud Pallad. in vita ipsius. : But yet if the authors of wickedness will declare, for what crimes they have injustly deposed me, let their evidences be given in: Let processes be produced: let my accusers come: let a true, and incorrupt judgement sit: I refuse it not: I decline it not; yea I earnestly desire it: let us be judged? I● his to request the Pope to write to his adversaries not by any peremptory charge, but only by way of reproof, and admonition, for their unjust dealing? Doth he not beseech him, that his adverlaries may appear, and bring in their evidences against him, and that his cause may be tried a new by him, as by a just and in corrupt judge? But you say (n) Pag. 30●. : When all the Pope could do is performed, what the last refuge was, he did signify in his letters to the orientals▪ saying: The only remedy of curing these evils is the calling of a Council: and until then, the matter is to be committed to the will and pleasure of God Here you are accusable of an injust reticence of what Innocentius did, and how he shown himself, alone, and without a Council, to be an absolute judge: for doth not Palladius say (o) In vit. Chrys. : Innocentius decreed, that the judgement of Theophilus should be abrogated, and annulled? Doth not Sozomen in that very place which you allege (p) L. 8. c▪ 26. testify, that Innocentius condemned those things, which were done against john? And by this single sentence of Innocentius alone, without any Synod. john was absolved, as Gelasius an Author of the same age reporteth, saying (q) Ep. ad Episcop. Dardan. : A Synod of Catholic Bishops having condemned john of Constantinople, of holy memory, the See Apostolic alone, because it consented not thereunto, absolved him. Nor did he show the authority of a judge, only, in absolving john, and condemning his adversaries, but especially, in that hearing of his death, he excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius, & the Empress Eudoxia his wife, who had been the chief causes of his condemnation, and banishment: for as Nicephorus (r) L. 13. c. 33. , and Georgius Patriarch of Alexandria (s) In vita Chrys. an Author of 1000 year's antiquity, cited by S. Damascens and Photius (u) In Georg. Alex. , and followed by Cedrenus (x) In Arcad. , Glycas (y) In Annal. in Arcad. , & other Greek Authors testify, (t) L. 1. de Imaginibus. Innocentius having severely reprehended them both, for the enormity of their offence, pronounced Excommunication against them, in these words: And therefore I the meanest, and a sinner, as Depositary of the Throne of the great Apostle Peter, cut off thee, & her from the participation of the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God, and ordain that whatsoever Bishop, or Clerk of the holy Church of God, which shall presume to administer them to you, after he hath read this my Censure, shallbe deposed. All this is to be read in the history of chrysostom, to which (you say) Baronius and Bellarmine refer you. Had it not then been honesty, to take notice of these particulars? but that was not for your purpose. This also convinceth you to speak untruly, when you say (z) Pag. 308. : The Pope confesseth insufficiency in himself, and that the only remedy is in the judgement of a Council: for in case of an appeal, two things are necessary: the first is, to judge whether the cause be lawful; if it be, to admit of the appeal; to annul 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 chrysostom. He admitted his appeal: he absolved him: he annulled the Council that condemned him: he excommunicated the Emperor, and the Empress, by whose procurement he had been condemned: and upon their repentance absolved them. All this he did without a Council, showing that he acknowledged not insufficiency in himself, nor thought the only remedy to be in a Council. The second thing required in case of an Appeal, is, to proceed to a new judgement, naming judges, either of Bishops of the adjoining Provinces, or else by sending Legates from Rome, with authority to judge the cause, together with the Bishops of the Provinces adjoining; or if the weight of the cause require it, to call a general Council, in which it may be determined with satisfaction of the whole Church, as the Council of Nice hath prescribed (a) Leo Ep. 25. . This also was exactly performed by Innocentius Pope, in the appeal of chrysostom. Innocent (saith Palladius) (b) In vit. Chrysost. having received both parties into his Communion, determined, that the judgement of Theophilus should be abrogated and annulled, saying: They should hold another Synod irreprovable, of the Prelates of the West, and East. This was Innocentius his desire, which (as Sozomen reporteth) he proposed by five 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 Council; but could not effect it, not for want of Ecclesiastical authority to call the Bishops, (as you misinterpret) but because (as Sozomen declareth (d) Ibid. the enemies of chrysostom opposed it, being supported by the temporal power of Arcadius, and Eudoxia, without whose consent a Council could not be held; the cities in which it should be held, being subject to them, and at their command. Wherefore Innocentius did not acknowledge any Ecclesiastical authority in the Emperor, to call a Council (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 Council might be held, which he by his spiritual power intended to call. It resteth therefore, that whatsoever you have objected out of this history of chrysostom, against the Pope's authority, is nothing but untruths, and ignorant mistakes; among which I will score up one other, which is, that in this matter of Appeals to Rome, you say (e) Pag. 307. m. : both your Cardinals (Baronius and Bellarmine) give for instance the example of chrysostom B. of Antioch. Those Cardinals were not so ignorant, as to call chrysostom, 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 Patriarch of Constantinople, by a Council of Bishops chosen▪ Patriarch of that Imperial City, and by means of the Emperor Arcadius brought from Antioch thither, and there consecrated Bishop. SECT. VII. That Flavianus appealed to Leo Pope, as to an absolute judge. AN other example of appealing to Rome, is of Flavianus, to which you answer two things, showing ignorance in the one, and falsehood in the other. Ignorance, in saying (f) Pag. 308. fin 309. ivit. , that of this same Flavianus you have said enough already. You have indeed already spoken of Flavianus enough, to the discredit of your cause (g) Pag. 296.297. ; but not, of this same Flavianus: for Flavianus of which there you spoke, was B. of Antioch, and lived in time of Damasus Pope. But Flavianus, of which now you speak, was B. of Constantinople, and lived in time of Leo the Great, 70. years after the other. Is it not then too great a mistake, in a man that professeth so much learning, to shift of what we allege in proof of Appeals, from the example of the one, by what you have said of the other, especially their cases being fare different? To ignorance you add falsehood, saying (h) Pag. 308. fin. : It will be a hard matter for you, out of the example of Flavianus, to collect a right of appeal to the Pope, from his appeal to a Synod. To prove that Flavianus appealed not to the Pope, but to a Synod, you rehearse in your margin a Latin sentence of Leo writing to Theodosius the Empetor, which you English not; because Leo saith not, that Flavianus appealed to a Synod (that's your false comment) but expressly affirmeth, that he put up a petition of Appeal to his Legates, which was not to appeal 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 Council, was not Flavianus, but Leo himself, yielding for his reason, the Nicen Canons, which command, that after the putting in of appeal in causes of such weight, the calling of a general Council is necessary. Moreover that Flavianus 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. Flavianus (saith Liberatus (i) Cap. 1●. appealed to the Apostolic 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. Ch●lced. : We ought in our days to preserve to the Blessed Apostle Peter, the dignity of reverence proper to him, inviolate, that the Blessed Bishop of the City of Rome, to whom antiquity hath yielded the Priesthood over all, may have way to judge of Bishops, and of faith: for therefore Flavianus B. of Constantinople, following the custom of Counsels, hath appealed to him by petition, in the contention moved concerning faith. And if you believe not these witnesses, believe the Centurists, who testify against you (l) Cent. 5. col. 778. , that sometimes Bishops condemned in Synods, appealed to the See of Rome, as did Flavianus in the Council of Ephesus. What testimonies more express than 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 Flavianus appealed not to a Synod, but to him? Who but Doctor Morton, could deny so invincible a truth? And no less apparent it is, that antiquity acknowledged in the Pope, authority, to judge of Bishops, and of faith, and that appeals unto him, were ordained by the ancient Counsels: for why else did Valentinian say to Theodosius his Father-in-Law, that Flanianus appealed to the See Apostolic, according to the custom of Counsels? SECT. VIII. Of Nilus equalling the B. of Constantinople with the Pope, in his right of Appeals. Nilus' an heretical Bishops of Thessalonica, and a professed enemy to the Roman Church (as all heretics are) against Appeals to Rome objecteth the Council of Chalcedon, in which (saith he) it was decreed, that if a Clerk have a cause against a Clerk, it is to be judged by the Bishop; if against a Bishop, by the Archbishop; if against an Archbishop, by the Primate, or of the Bishop of Constantinople. To this objection the holy, and learned Pope Nicolas the first, answered near 800. years since (m) In Ep. ad Michael. Imper. , that by Primate (which is there in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signifies a Prince) is meant the B. of Rome. This explication Turrianus (n) Pro Ep. Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 4. , Bellarmine (o) L. 2. de Pont. c. 2●. , and Binius (p) Tom. 2. pag. 129. confirm, both because the title of Prince more fitly agreeth to him, then to any other Primate; as also because, it cannot be showed, that in time of the Council of Chalcedon, there were (especially in the East) any Primates, distinct from the Archbishops, and Patriarches. Wherefore the sense is, that if a Bishop have a cause with his Metropolitan, it is to be judged by the Pope, or by the B. of Constantinople, if the parties be nearer to him, and willing to stand to his judgement. This (say you) (q) Pag. 309. it false: for the Canon useth a Climax, or gradation from Clerk, to Bishop; from Bishop, to Archbishop; from Archbishop, to Primate, or the B. of Constantinople: from whence you infer, that, if our exposition be true, the B. of Constantinople is above the Pope, as a General is above a Colonel, because in gradation of Appeals, the last is always the highest, and most excellent. A thing, not only contrary to the Council of Chalcedon (which acknowledgeth the Pope to be supreme Head of the whole Church) (r) In relat. ad Leon. , but never so much as dreamt of, by any of the Greeks', nor by the Bishops of Constantinople themselves, who by their claim of equal privileges, never challenged authority above the Pope, nor equal with him over the whole Church, but only, that as he by the institution of Christ is supreme judge of all causes ecclesiastical, throughout the world; so they in the second place, under him, and by his permission, might have authority to judge throughout the East, the causes of all, that should be willing to accept of their judgement: which authority the Pope though entreated by the Council of Chalcedon refused to grant unto them, as being a wrong to the other Patriarches. And therefore Bellarmine (s) L. 2. de Pont. c. 22. out of Leo, and Liberatus, rightly observeth, that this Canon objected by Nilus, was never received in the Church, as being unlawfully made in absence of the Pope's Legates, who presided in the Council. This is the substance of this controversy, in the prosecution whereof, you falsify the Council of Chalcedon, and are guilty of some other errors, of which I shall briefly advertise you. 1. Therefore Bellarmine truly saith, that custom (the best interpreter of laws) plainly showeth, it was never lawful to appeal to the B. of Constantinople, but only from places within his own Patriarkship: and that no example can be given of an Appeal made to the Eastern Church, out of the West, South, or North. You to cross Bellarmine, say (t) Pag. 310. , that the Council of Chalcedon speaketh generally of every Church; and in proof thereof falsify the Council, adding to the beginning of the Canon, these words. In quacunque Ecclesia, In every Church, putting them down in a different character, as the words of the Canon, and citing both it and them out of Binius, who hath this Canon (u) Tom. 2. pag. 129. , of three different versions, and yet no such words in any of them. 2. You have hitherto pretended, & afterwards repeat, again, that no one man can be Head of the whole Church on earth. Yet now upon condition, that the Pope may not have that dignity, you are contented to allow it the B. of Constantinople. For you say (x) Pag. 302. fin. : We confess, that the supreme right of appeals is proper to a Monarch, it being as essential a part of his Monarchy, to have the right of appeals, as it is for him to be a Monarch: from whence it will follow, that you here granting to the B. of Constantinople, a supreme right of appeals from all the Churches of the world, make him a Monarch over all the Churches of the world. 3. Out of the gradation which the Council maketh from Clerk to Bishop; from Bishop to Archbishop; from Archbishop to the Pope, or the B. of Constantinople, you infer the Bishop of Constantinople to be above the Pope which is a senseless paradox, collected from a false ground: for if because an Archbishop is to be judged by the Pope, or by the B. of Constantinople, you may infer the B. of Constantinople to be equal with the Pope, or above him; you may by like consequence infer, that in an army, a Colonel is equal to the General, or above him, because a common soldier is to be judged by his Captain, & the Captain by his General, or by his Colonel: for in this gradation the Colonel is the last, and therefore by your rule, the highest, and most excellent. With such sophistry you answer our arguments, and frame your own. 4. Bellarmine saith: The Council is to be understood of the first judgement: But this (say you) (y) Pag. 311. evidently crosseth the Pope's exposition. False: for the Pope alloweth to the B. of Constantinople permissively the first judgement of Eastern causes, if the parties be willing to accept of his judgement; but not the second by way of appeal, out of his own Patriarkeship. 5. Why do you conceal, what Bellarmine, and Binius add? namely, that if we should grant to you, your inference out of this Canon, it would not follow, that the B. of Constantinople is of equal authority with the Pope: for the Pope's power extendeth not only to right them which are wronged by their Metropolitans, but also to judge the Metropolitans, and Patriarches themselves, and to right them, even when they are wronged by whole Counsels of Bishops; as the examples of Athanasius, chrysostom, Flavianus, Theodoret, and others convince. SECT. IX. The rest of Doctor Mortons' Arguments against Appeals to Rome. THe rest of your instances against appeals, as of Fortunatus, and Felicissimus (z) Pag. 311. taken from S. Cyprian, of the Council of Milevis (a) Pag. 321. , of the cause of Cecilian (b) Pag. 324.325. from S. Augustine, have been already (c) Chap. 25.26. & 30. sect. 2. answered. One only remaineth, taken from an Epistle (as you say) (d) Pag 318. of Damasus Pope. It is not among the epistles of Damasus, but of S. Ambrose: and yet his it cannot be; for in it mention is made of him, as of a third person. Wherefore whose the epistle is, is a thing uncertain. Many think it to be of Damasus; and his you will have it to be. But the contrary is manifest: for the epistle speaketh of Bonosus, an Archheretic, who had been condemned by judges appointed in them Council of Capua, which was not held in time of Damasus, but of Siricius successor to Damasus. It is therefore evident, that the request of Bovosus (which you object out of this epistle) to have his cause heard again, could not be to Damasus, his first condemnation being not until after Damasus his death. When you can show this epistle to be of Damasus, you shall receive an answer, which it were easy to give you now, if I listed to spend time, in refuting your tedious discourse of racking the verb Competit, to a strict sense, and which, not one, but many ways, is deficient, as all your arguments for the most part are. Your addition (e) Pag. 318. marg. l. , that if the epistle be not of Damasus, it is certainly of some Pope, and that all hold it so, is affirmed by you gratis, and as easily denied by me. CHAP. XL. Whether the Eastern Churches be at this day, accordant in Communion with Protestants. SECT. I. The state of the Question. THE nine first Sections of your fourtenth Chapter, you spend in proving, that the Grecians, Egyptians Aethiopians, Assyrians, Armenians, Russians, Melchites, and other remote nations, at this day descent from the Roman Church, and are accordant in Communion with Protestants. The foundation of your whole discourse, you lay in these words (f) Pag. 330. : Whatsoever Christians have not ruinated any fundamental article of saving faith, set down in our ancient Creeds, and are united unto the true Catholic Head, Christ jesus our Lord, by a living faith, all Protestants esteem them, as true members of the Catholic Church; and (notwithstanding divers their more tolerable errors, and superstitions) to be in state of salvation, albeit no way subject, or subordinate to the Roman Church. These are your words, which contain in themselves open implication; namely, that, one may be united to the true Catholic Head Christ jesus by a living faith, and be in state of salvation, and yet be out of the Catholic Church, which to be none else, but the Roman, and that out of her there is no salvation, hath been already proved (g) Chap. 1. sect. 2.3.4. . From this false principle you deduce, that the Grecians, Asians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Aethiopians, Africans, Melchites, Russians, and Armenians, notwithstanding their separation from the Roman Church, are at this day, truly professed Christian Churches (h) Pag. 379. , parts of the Catholic Church (i) Pag. 406. fin 407. init. , faithful Christians, professing the faith of the ancient Fathers (k) Pag. 417. , & in state of salvation, and rail bitterly at the Church of Rome for denying the same. But how great ignorance, and impiety you show; and how many most shameful untruths you utter in the prosecution of this Argument, it is easy to declare. Some of them I shall present to the Readers view. And to proceed methodically, I will reduce what I am to say, to two heads. 1. I will prove, that as the Christians of these remote nations anciently were, so many of them, at this day, are accordant in belief, and communion with the Roman Church, & yield obedience to the Pope, as to the Vicar of Christ on earth, and as to the supreme Pastor, and Governor of the universal Church. 2. That the inhabitants of these nations, which are not Roman Catholics, are not of one belief, or Communion with Protestants, but wholly descent from them, holding most blasphemous, and damnable heresies, acknowledged for such by Protestants themselves. From whence it will follow, that you affirming them to be faithful Christians, of the same belief with the ancient Fathers, charge the ancient Fathers with blasphemous heresies, and make them incapable of salvation. SECT. II. Whether the Grecians of the primitive, and successive times, agreed in faith, and Communion, with the Bishop, and Church of Rome, and particularly at the Council of Florence. THat the Greeks' in the first Council of Constantinople, and afterwards in that of Chalcedon, endeavoured to give to their Patriarch of Constantinople, the second place of dignity in the Church, next after the Pope, and before the other Patriarches, we acknowledge: But that they sought thereby to exempt themselves from their obedience and subjection to the Pope, hath been effectually disproved (l) Chap. 17. sect. 5. Chap. 19 sect. 4. . I speak not this, to deny, that anciently there were of the Grecians, many Heretics, which opposed the Roman Church, and by her authority were condemned; and that eight Patriarches of Constantinople in particular, as also Eutyches an Archheretic of the same City, were anathematised, and east out of the Church for heresy. And whereas the Western Church, by the example, and diligence of the Bishops of Rome, was preserved from heresy; the Churches of the East (new heresies daily springing up) were so pitifully torn, and ten in pieces, that S. Hierome complaining thereof to Pope Damasus, said (m) Ep. 57 : Because the East striking against itself by the ancient fury of the people, tears in little morsels the undivided coat of our Lord, woven on high; and that the foxes destroy the vine of Christ, in such sort, that it is difficult, among the dry pits that have no water, to discern where the sealed fountain, and the enclosed garden is; I have therefore thought, that I ought to consult with the Chair of Peter, and the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle. This was the miserable state of the Eastern Churches in those days, being governed sometimes by Catholic Bishops, that acknowledged subjection to the Church of Rome, and sometimes by Heretics that opposed her authority; until at length Photius having injustly driven Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople from his See, and intruded himself into his place, and being for that cause often excommunicated by Nicolas the first, and john the eight, Popes of Rome, to maintain his injust title, withdrew himself from their obedience: and to the end he might have some colour to persever in that separation, cavilled at the doctrine of the Roman Church, which teacheth that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, and writ against it. And the Greeks' following him in this error, separated themselves from the Communion of the Roman man Church: Yet not so, but that they have often (eleven times saith S. Antoninus (n) Hist. par. 2. tit. 22. c. 23. acknowledged their error, and reconciled themselves to her, and especially thrice in most solemn manner, in three several Counsels, of Barium in Apulia, of Lions in France, and of Florence in Tuscany; but still returning to their error against the holy Ghost, and disobedience to the Church of Rome, as dogs to their vomit, Almighty God punished them with a heavy hand, delivering them up to a miserable captivity, & servitude, under the Turk. And that they might know the cause of God's wrath against them, to be their obstinacy, in defending their error against the holy Ghost, he ordained by his providence, that upon the very day of Pentecost, their City of Constantinople should be taken by the Turk, their Emperor slain, and their Empire wholly extinguished. A thing, which S. Brigit foretold (o) Revel. l. 7. c. 19 , almost 100 years before it happened, denouncing to them, that their Empire, and dominions should not stand firm, unless with true humility, they did submit themselves to the Roman Church, and faith. All this you were ignorant of, or if you were not, dissemble it, and quarrel at us, for reporting that the Greeks' in the Council of Florence renounced their errors, and submitted themselves to the Church of Rome, and Bishop thereof. Some (say you) (p) Pag. 338. would scrape acquaintance with the Greek Church, in the year 1549. (*) You should say 1439. at the Council of Florence, as though all than had been subjects to the Pope. So you: but with what conscience you know, and so do we: for not only Catholic writers, but your Protestant brethren, M. Marbeck (q) Common plac. pag. 258. , and Osiander (r) Epit. Centu. 15. pag. 477. testify, that in the Council of Florence, the Grecians, Armenians, and Indians were united to the Church of Rome. And the same is apparent out of the Council itself (s) In lit. unionis. ; in which, after the Grecians had abjured their two chief errors, the one, concerning the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father alone, and the other of Purgatory, they made open profession of their obedience and subjection to the B. of Rome, in these words (t) In lit. unionis. : Mareover, we define, that the holy Apostolic See, and B. of Rome, hath the primacy throughout the whole world; and that the same B. of Rome is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church; and that he is the Father, and Doctor of all Christian; and that to him was given by our Lord jesus Christ, full power of feeding, and governing the universal Church, as it is also declared in the Acts of the Ecumenical Counsels, and in the sacred Canon. Benewing moreover the order set down in the Canons, concerning the other Venerable Patriarches, that the Patriarch of Constantinople be the second after the B. of Rome. And the like profession of their belief, they had made before in a private Session of their own, in the Emperor's Palace, none of the Latins being present (u) Conc. Flor. sess vlt. apud Bin. to. 4 pag. 474. fin. 475. init. . To this profession subscribed the Emperor of the Grecians, & all their Bishops assembled in that Council, he of Ephesus only excepted: and not only they, that were then living, but also joseph their Patriarch, who before the end of the Council, finding himself strucken with death's dart, set down in writing this profession of his faith, which after his death was found in his closet (x) Ibid apud Been pa. 474. : I joseph by the mercy of God, Archbishop, and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, new Rome, because I am come to the end of my life, by the mercies of God, according to my duty, I publish by this writing, my verdict to my beloved Children: For I profess, that I hold, and believe, and give full assent to all those things which the Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Lord jesus Christ of old Rome, shall judge, and ordain. And I refuse not to grant, that the most Blessed Father of Fathers, the chief Bishop, Pope of old Rome, is the Vicar of our Lord jesus Christ, and that there is a Purgatory for souls. Would you think, gentle Reader, that any Christian man could put on so brazen a face, as to deny, that the Grecians in the Council of Florence were united to the Church of Rome, or that they acknowledged themselves subject to the Pope, as to one, whom the sacred Counsels declare to have the primacy throughout the whole world, to be the successor of S. Peter, the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, the Father, and Doctor of all Christians, and that to him was given by Christ full power of feeding, and governing the universal Church? Are not these their very words? And yet you, Doctor Morton, deny all this saying (y) Pag. 331. : Upon due examination, you yourselves find the Grecians there, to have been so fare from subjection to the Pope, that they would not permit him to constitute a Patriarch among them, professing, that they could do nothing without the consent of their own Church. So you with your wont fidelity; both for that you set down the first part of these words in a different character, as the Grecians answer to the Pope, when as they are not their, but your words, and contrary to truth: for that the Grecians united themselves to the Latins, and acknowledged their subjection to the Pope, and Church of Rome, is there testified by a public declaration (z) In lit unio. apud Bin. to. 4 pa. 476.476. , in the Letters of Union, subscribed by joannes Palaeologus the Emperor, and by all the Prelates, Greeks' and Latins, that were present in the Council. And after this perfect accord was made, the Pope calling unto him the Grecian Bishops, not by way of command (as not willing to irritate them) but of persuasion to that which was most decent, and convenient, exhorted them before their departure, to choose a new Patriarch in place of him, that was deceased, that they might not return home, without a Head. They answered, that the custom of the Grecians was, to choose, and consecrate their Patriarch at Constantinople; and that the Emperor, who was not ignorant of their ceremonies, and customs, would not permit them to do otherwise. Whereupon the Pope urged no further, but with all courtesy dismissed them. How can you infer from this, that the Greek Bishops denied subjection to the Pope? It mattereth not where their Patriarch was chosen, since (as you have heard) they acknowledged both themselves, & him, as being members of the universal Church, to be subject to the Pope, as to their Head, and to be governed by him, as sheep by their Shepherd, and as children by their Father. But you say (a) Pag. 331. : They were fare from subiecting themselves in doctrine: for when some few points were propounded, they answered the Pope, that they had no licence to treat of such matters. This is an other evasion, as untrue as the former. For the next day, after that the Greeks' being convinced, had yielded to the Latins in that main controversy, concerning the Procession of the holy Ghost from the Father, and the Son, for the decision whereof, that Council was chief called, the Pope desired, to have some of their Bishops sent unto him. They sent four, to whom the Pope said (b) Tom. 4: pag. 474. : We by the grace of the holy Ghost are united, and so fully agreed in the chief question, which was most in controversy, that no further speech thereof is necessary. But that our agreement may be so absolute, & firm, that hereafter there be no difference between us, it will not be amiss, that we treat of the fire of Purgatory, of the primacy of the Pope, of celebrating in leavened, or unleavened bread, and of Transubstantiation. Those Bishops answered: We, O most holy Father, have no licence to treat of these things; which words you set down as the answer of all the Greek Prelates, when as they were spoken only by four of them, who having received no commission, to treat of those Questions, refused to make answer unto them, in the name of all their brethren: But nevertheless (which you conceal) they declared their own judgement, concerning the three first, to be conformable to the doctrine of the Roman Church; adding moreover, that of the fourth, which was Transubstantiation, they could not treat, without the authority of all the Eastern Church. How doth this prove, that the Greeks' in the Council of Florence agreed not in doctrine with the Roman Church? especially, since these four Bishops declared to the Pope, that concerning the three first points of the four proposed by him, they believed as the Roman Church did: and concerning the fourth, as at that time, they did not affirm it, so neither did they deny it: and soon after not only they, but all the rest of the Greek Bishops, and Abbots, together with their Emperor, in the Letters of Union, expressly declared, that not only in the three first, (namely of the Pope's supremacy, of Purgatory, of the lawfulness of celebrating Mass in unleavened bread) they believed as the Roman Church did, but also in the fourth of Transubstantiation, saying, that by the Priest upon the Altar, of bread is made the very body of Christ. All this you could not be ignorant of, and yet blush not to deny it, and to add another untruth, saying (c) Pag. 331. fin. 332. init. : Yea and their Emperor Palaeologus, that was so earnest to piece them together, was himself but hardly welcomed home, to the Greek Church, which was now much more exasperated against the Roman Church: in so much that they did now pronounce their Patriarch of Constantinople, the supreme and chief of all Bishops. These your words cannot be freed from a notable imposture: for you falsify Bellarmine, alleging these words in a different letter as his: The Greeks' did now (to wit after their return from the Council of Florence) pronounce their Patriarch of Constantinople the supreme, and chief of all Bishops. Bellarmine speaketh of their fall from the Roman Church, the year 1054. which was not after the Council of Florence, but almost 400. years before it. You to persuade your reader, that he speaks of their fall after their return from that Council, cunningly insert into his words this adverb Now, and falsify the year, putting in stead of Anno 1054. (which Bellarmine hath) Anno 1454. Can there be more wilful fraud than this? But you show no less folly, than fraud: for whereas you say (d) Pag. 331. , the Council of Florence was the year 1549. to prove, that the Greeks' after their return from that Council, denied the primacy of the Pope, you say (e) Pag. 332. , Now (to wit the year 1454. which was (in your account 100 years before that Council) they did pronounce their Patriarch of Constantinople, the supreme, and chief of all Bishops? I deny not, that the Greeks, a few years after the Council of Florence, returned to vomit, and that a great part of them still persisteth in the errors which then they abjured. I only speak here of your simplicity, who to prove, that they fell from the Roman Church, after their return from the Council of Florence, say (f) Pag. 332. marg. , they fell the year 1454. which according to your account, was 100 years before that Council. With these impostures you delude your readers, who not doubting of your fidelity, take your doctrine upon your word. SECT. III. That many of the Grecians, at this day, are of the Roman Communion, and profess subjection to the B. of Rome. THat many of the Grecians are at this day accordant in faith, and Communion with the Roman Church, & profess subjection and obedience to the B. of Rome, is a thing notorious: for who is ignorant, that as in Rome there is a Seminary, wherein many youths of our English nation are trained up in virtue, and learning, to the end, that being ordained Priests, and returning into England, they may help to reduce their Country to the Catholic faith; so likewise, there hath been many years another of Grecians for the reduction of Greece? And who knoweth not, that (as Cardinal Peron (g) Repliqu. Chap. 22. advertised our late Sovereign K. james) in the Isles of Malta, Cyprus, Candia, Xante, Chios, Naxos, and other Greek, and Asian Islands, the Roman faith, and Communion hath place, even at this day, either wholly, or for the greatest part? And if it be true that (as you affirm) (h) Pag. 335. Russia, a good part of Polonia Dalmatia, and Croatia, belong to the Greek Church, and are under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, with what forehead can you challenge the inhabitants of these Countries in general to descent in faith & communion from the Church of Rome, when it is notorious, that in Dalmatia, Croatia, Polonia, as also in Lituania, and Transiluania, the faith and Communion of the Roman Church, is not only allowed, but publicly professed? And for the Russians, Michael Hipation, and Cyrill, with the rest of the Bishops of that Nation, have lately submitted themselves to the same Church, as both their Epistle, and profession of faith, addressed to Clement the eight, in the year 1595. abundantly testify (i) Apud Cocci. to. 1. l. 7. art. ●. . SECT. iv Of the Egyptians. YOur second example of remote nations dissenting from the Roman Church (k) Pag. 304.342.400.409 417. , is of the Egyptians. To show your error herein, these evidences may serve: for (as jacobus Navarchus (l) Ep. Asi●●. , Coccius (m) Tom. 1. l. 7. art. 6. , and Doctor Sanders (n) Monar. Visib. l. 7. n. 1121. relate) Eugenius Pope having actually united the Greeks', and Latins, in the Council of Florence, and wrirten to the Patriarches of the East to the same effect, they in their Epistles to him, writ back Honourably, catholicly, and resolutely of the Latin Church, and authority of the Pope. And in particular john Patriarch of Alexandria (that is to say, of the Christians of Egypt, and of all the countries, which first belonged to the Empire of Egypt, and afterwards to the Prefecture thereof) styleth the B. of Rome, The perfection of Priesthood, the Apostolical Father of all Churches, the Prince of Priests, the Guide of Pilgrims, that shows the way to the rest, the Physician of the diseased. And his Vicar of Jerusalem, Andrew, a Syrian Abbot (o) Navarch. & Sand. ibid. , calls the Pope, Head and Doctor of the whole Church. To which I add out of Surius, & Genebrard (p) In Chron. anno 1565. , that the year 1565. arrived at Colen, an ancient man, sent from Thebais in Egypt, by Alexander then Patriarch of Alexandria, to present by letter, his obedience to the B. of Rome. The like acknowledgement of subjection, extant in the end of the Council of Florence, was made by Isaias B. of Jerusalem (q) Apud Bin. to. 4. pa. 495. . And again, since that time, Gabriel Patriarch of Alexandria sent Ambassadors to Rome, with letters to Clement the eight, professing in them his belief of the Catholic faith, and obedience to the See Apostolic. And they, both in his, and their own names, made solemn, and public confession thereof, which together with the letter of that Patriarch, Baronius hath set down at large in the end of his sixth Tome, writing it in Rome, when the thing had newly passed, Pope Clement being then living, and not only the City of Rome, but all Europe (through which this fact was public) being ready to bear witness of the truth thereof against you, who by carping at Baronius, as having in this related a fable, gain nought else, but to declare your folly in carping at that, which you wish were false, but cannot disprove. SECT. V Of the Aethiopians. FOr the Aethiopians, whom you produce (*) Pag. 340.342.409. in the third place, as Christians dissenting from the Roman Church we have for the contrary, the testimonies of Helena Empress, and David her Grandchild, Emperor of Aethiopia, who the year 1524. (r) Genebrard. in Chron. pag. 1●23. Bozi. de ●ig. Eccles. to. 1. l. 4. c. 3. sent letters, and Legates to Clement the seaventh then Pope of Rome, promising obedience to him, and craving his blessing; and withal declaring their great desire, of frequent recourse to the Court of Rome, if they were not hindered by the distance of place, and the kingdom of Mahumetans, which lie in their way. These letters were turned into Latin, by Paulus jovius, & Petrus Aluarez, as also Damianus Goes, a knight of Portugal (s) Lib. de vita & morib. Aethiopum. , have set them down at large, together with the profession of the Catholic faith▪ made at Rome by Zaga Zabo, an Aethiopian Bishop, the chief of these Legates. And Helias Levites (t) In lib. B●bur. mentioneth, and setteth down the conference he had with them. The like profession was made by Nicodemus, and Peter, both of them Aethiopian Abbots, in their epistles to Eugenius the fourth, and Paul the third Bishops of Rome (u) Cocci. to. 1. l. 7. art. 6. . And who knoweth not, that (as jacobus Navarchus (x) Ep. Asiatica. , Doctor Sanders (y) Monar. visib. l. 7. n. 1057.1508. and other modern historians record (z) Franc. Sachin. hist. Soc. jesus l. 1. n. 49. , after that the Portugal Merchants, did not only traffic in Aethiopia, but with licence of the King married there, and both lived themselves, and instructed their wives to live in the faith, and obedience of the Roman Church, the Pope at the instance of john King of Portugal, sent to the Abyssines, with the title and dignity of Patriarch, john Nunnez, a Priest of the Society of jesus, who had laboured with great fruit in Africa, among the Saracens, & Christians that lived there. And though Andrea's Oui●do a man of singular prudence, and fortitude, whom the Patriarch by advice of the chief Governors of the East Indies, sent before him, was at his arrival entertained with all courtesy, the year 1556. yet the King that then lived, being dead, both he, and the Patriarch found great difficulties, which they suffered with invincible courage, until at length by their patience, industry, and labour they converted many of the Abyssines, and since their death, the King himself, and his brother, with a great part of that nation, by their successors, have been reduced to the faith, and obedience of the Roman Church, as the Annual relations sent from thence continually testify. SECT. VI Of the Armenians. YOur fourth example (a) Pag. 340.379. is of the Armenians, of whom Myraeus testifieth (b) De notit. Episcopat. l. 1. c. 16.17.18. , and especially of them which are called Franck-Armenians, with the jacobites, and Georgians, that they have often, and lately made profession of their obedience to the Pope, & of their accord in all points of faith with the Roman Church. And Cardinal Peron (c) Repliq. Chapit. 21. speaking to King james, of famous memory, averreth, that in Armenia the greater (which was formerly subject to the King of Persia, but is now under the Turk) there were, and are many Christians of the Roman communion, and many Monasteries of S. Dominick. And the same is testified by M. Edward Grimston your Protestant Historian, in his Description of countries (d) Pag 1050: : In Asia (saith he) there are many Christians, assisted in spiritual things, by the Religious of the orders of S. Francis, and S. Dominick: And those of Armenia, have their Archbishop of the Order of S. Dominick, who is made by the Chapter of the Religious of that Order, and then confirmed by the Pope. And he addeth (e) Ibid. pag. 1052. , that they hold themselves to be conformable to the Roman Church, & celebrate Mass in unleavened bread, contrary to the Greeks', and remember their first conversion from the Church of Rome, in the time of Sylvester Pope. And in the end of the Council of Florence is extant the Decree of Eugenius Pope, in which the Union of the Armenians with the Church of Rome, is testified by their Legates sent to the same Council. SECT. VII. Of the Russians. YOur fifth example (f) Pag. 340. is of the Russians, no less false then the former: for the Bishops of Russia, in the year 1595. submitted themselves to the Roman Church. Their epistle to this purpose written unto Clement the eight, together with the profession of their faith, who pleaseth may read in jodocus Coccius (g) To. 1. l. 7. art. 6. . SECT. VIII. Of the Assyrians. YOur sixth example (h) Pag. 338. is of the Assyrians, like to the rest: for Abdisus their Patriarch coming to Rome in time of Pius the fourth, to be confirmed by him in his Patriarkship, made public confession of the faith, and primacy of the Church of Rome, and of believing whatsoever the holy Ecumenical Counsels, and in particular, what the Council of Trent believeth. This profession he made, not only in his own name, but in the names of all the Metropolitans, and Bishops subject to him, many of them, being in the Dominions of the great Turk, divers in the territories of the King of Persia, and others in the East Indies, under the Kingdom of Portugal. The truth of this is testified by Surius and Genebrard (i) Chro. an. 1562. , by Doctor Sanders (k) Mon. visib. l. 7. n. 1555.1556. , by Coccius (l) To. ●. l. 7. art. 6. , and by the Protestant edition of the Acts of the Council of Trent, in which it is acknowledged, that this profession of Abdisus was made in presence of two Cardinals, and subscribed by them. All which notwithstanding, you (m) Pag. 338.339. reject this wholly story, as a tale of Robin Hood, and merely fabulous; which argueth in you much unshamefastness. For who is so little versed in the histories of these times, as not to know, that albeit the Christians of the East Indies living so many years under Heathenish, or Mahometan Princes, were debarred from entercouse with the Church of Rome, and run into divers errors, yet they thought themselves still to retain entirely that faith, which the Apostle S. Thomas had preached unto them? And when they came to be under the King of Portugal, being instructed by Preachers sent out of Europe, they reform their errors, and yielded due subjection to the Church of Rome, and in particular those very places, which Abdisus in his Profession nameth, to wit Cuscho, Cananor, Goa, Calicut, and Carangol; and many more are named by jacobus Payva, and Radius (n) L. de orig. Soc. jesus. , who testifieth, that even in those beginnings, in his time, to the number of 80000. of those Indians were reduced to the Roman Church. Who likewise knoweth not, that Ormus, and other places under the Persian, which both Abdisus, & Andradius nominate, are of the Roman faith, and Communion? and that the King of Persia hath given licence to preach the faith of Christ, and for Religious men (which go thither to that end) to erect houses, & build Churches in his Dominions, by which means many are converted, and live in the Communion, and obedience of the Roman Church? All which notwithstanding, you boldly pronounce, that these Christians acknowledge no subjection to the Church of Rome, & stand in Christian union with Protestants: which to be a grand Imposture no man can deny. SECT. IX. Of the Antiochians. YOur seaventh example (o) Pag. 330. is of the Antiochians, whom with their Patriarch you untruly deny to communicate with the Church of Rome, or to acknowledge any subjection to the Pope: for the Patriarch of the Maronites (p) Peron Repliq. Chap. 22. , which is one of the branches of the Patriarkship of Antioch, with all the Bishops of his jurisdiction, hath yet to this day always lived, and persevered in the communion of the Roman Church; whereof your Historian M. Grimston speaking (q) Descript. of countries'. pag. 1053. , saith: The Maronites have for these 400. years made profession of following the Roman Church. And the same is acknowledged by their Patriarch in his Epistle to Leo the tenth (r) Cocci. to. 1. l. 7. art. 6. . Moreover (as Genebrard recordeth) (s) Chron. an. 1555. Moses Mardenns being sent out of Mesopotamia, by the Patriarch of Antioch, and coming to Vienna in Austria, after he had procured the new Testament to be set forth in the Syriack tongue, and character, at the charges of the Emperor Ferdinand, went to Rome, and as well in his own name, as in the name of his Patriarch of Antioch, made a public and solemn profession of the Catholic faith, and Obedience to the See of Rome, which Andreas Masius hath translated out of the Syriack original into Latin, and both Coccius (t) Cocc. to. 1. l. 7. art. 6. & Sanders (x) Mon. vis. l 7. n. 1494. have inserted into their works. Moreover the Nestorians of Seleucia, who belong to that Patriarkship, having abjured their heresy by persuasion of julius' Pope the year 1553. written an Epistle to him, professing their belief of the Catholic faith, and their subjection to the B. of Rome, and sent it by three chief men of their nation, and with them, Sinned, a Monk, whom they beseeched julius to ordain, and send back unto them consecrated as their Patriarch (y) Cocc. Sand. loc. cit. . SECT. X. Of the Africans. YOur eight example (z) Pag. 341. 406. 407. 409. is of the Africans, among whom, the kingdom of Congo is of the Roman faith and Communion (a) Peron. Repliq. Chap. 21. Geneb. Chron. an. 1503. . And an Ambassador that came from thence a few years since, and died in Rome made public profession thereof, from before Luther's tyme. And it is notorious, that all the Christians which live in the borders of Africa, under the conquest of the Kings of Spain, & Portugal, are of the Roman faith, and Communion. SECT. XI. Of the Asians. YOur ninth example (b) Pag. 341. 406. 407. 409. is of the Asians, as untrue, as the rest: for the Antiochians, Armenians, and Maronites, whom with their Patriarches, we have already proved to be of the Roman faith, and Communion, are Asians. And who knoweth not, that in Asia, since the expulsion of Godfrey King of Palestine, and of Boemond Prince of Antioch, the guard of the holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, hath always remained to the Christians of the Roman Communion? CHAP. XLI. That in the aforenamed Countries, there are no Christians that agree in faith, & communion with Protestants. HAVING proved, that in all the Churches of remote nations, which you have nominated, there to be many Catholics of the Roman faith and Communion; it resteth, that your denial of so certain a truth, either proceedeth from gross ignorance, or is a grand imposture. And no less is your affirming the same Churches to be of your Protestant Communion: for the Christians of those nations which are not Roman Catholics are damnable heretics, and have no communion at all with Protestants, as the following sections will demonstrate. SECT. I. The Grecians, which are not of the Roman Communion, are absolute heretics: and Doctor Morton falsifieth Catholic Authors to excuse them. THat the Grecians dissenting from the Roman Church (whom therefore you challenge as accordant in communion with Protestants) are absolute Heretics, erring fundamentally in their doctrine of the Blessed Tinity, by denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father, and the Son, is a thing most certain out of the Council of Florence, where the chief dispute between the Greeks', and the Latins was of this subject; and the Greeks' being convinced, acknowledged their error, as the Letters of Union extant in the end of the Council record. The same is testified, not only by the Latin writers, but also by Laonicus Chalcondylas a Greek Historian. The Greeks' (saith he (c) De reb. Turcicis l. 6. in the Council of Florence, first defend, that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone: but afterwards being convinced with the arguments of the Latins, they confess him to proceed also from the Son: yet after their return inte Greece, they obstinately defend their former opinion. And when Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople sent a profession of his faith to the Lutherans of Germany, in the first Article thereof (which is concerning the blessed Trinity) he affirmed and laboured to prove, that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone: which error of the Greeks', is also testified, and learnedly confuted, by that famous Cardinal Bessarion, and by Gennadius Scholarius in two special Treatises of this subject: and before them by S. Thomas of Aquine (d) Opusc. contr. error. Graec. , against whom, writ Nicolaus Cabasilas, whose book is extant in the Vatican, & was soon after confuted by Demetrius Cidoinus a Greek Catholic. And (to omit other Protestant writers) Thomas Rogers in his book of the 39 Articles, perused, & by the authority of the Church of England allowed to be public, saith (e) Art. 3. propos. 3. pag. 25. : This discovereth all them to be impious, & to err from the way of truth, which hold, and affirm, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, but not from the Son, as this day the Grecians, the Russians, the Muscovites maintain: and in proof thereof, he allegeth other Authors. Finally the same is testified by Kekerman (f) Sistem. Theolog. pag. 63. , and Doctor White (g) Way Ep. Ded. n. 8. , affirming, that the Latin & Greek Churches broke upon the Controversy of the proceeding of the holy Ghost. From hence it followeth, that the Greeks', which are not of the Roman Communion, are absolute Heretics and err fundamentally: for what error can be more fundamental, then that which is immediately against the blessed Trinity God himself? This you could not be ignorant of but that you may not seem to be absurd in professing, that Protestants are accordant in communion with heretics, you seek to free the Grecians from heresy; which you have no other means to perform, but by falsifying Catholic Authors. 1. Therefore to this end, you allege (h) Pag. 334. lit. q. marg. these words, as of Cardinal Tolet: Gracus intelligens dicit Spiritum sanctum procedere per Filium, quod non aliud significat, quàm quod nos dicimus. And in your text you english them thus. The understanding Greeks saying that the holy Ghost proceedeth by the Son, signify thereby nothing, but what we ourselves profess. O egregious imposture! Tolet there explicating these words of S. john, qui à Patre procedit, expressly condemneth the Greeks' of error in that point, and proveth out of S. Cyrill, that these words of S. john confute their error. Locus prasens &c. This present passage (saith he) (i) In caput 15. joan. Annot. 25. doth no way favour the error of the Grecians, but rather confuteth, and overthroweth the same: for out of these words, it is plain, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, and the Father; which cyril though an understanding Grecian, confesseth, saying, that the holy Ghost is of the Son, and of the Father, and that he proceedeth from the Father, but by the Son: Which signifieth nothing else, but what we say. These are Tolers words; in which (you see) he chargeth the Greeks' with error in their belief of the holy Ghost; and thereby convinceth you of an untruth, in saying (k) Pag. 334. , that Tolet freeth them from heresy in this point. But to make good this untruth, you corrupt his words: for whereas he speaking, not of the later Greeks, but only of that ancient, and Orthodox Father S. Cyrill, saith, Cyrillus Graecus intelligens etc. Cyrill an understanding Grecian, saith in this point, no other thing, but what we profess, you both in your Latin and English, leave out Cyrillus, as if Tolet had not mentioned him; and translate Graecus intelligens in the plural number, The understanding Greeks'; which you do purposely, to persuade your reader, that Tolet speaketh not of S. Cyrill, nor of any particular man, but in general of the Later Grecians, and freeth them from that error of the holy Ghost, with which you have heard him so expressly charge them. Can there be a more wilful falfication than this? 2. But your dealing with others, is no better: You cite (l) Pag 331. lit. a. Castro to prove, that the Greeks have been divided many hundreds of years from the Latins. But because you would have your Reader conceive, that Castro holds them not to be heretics, and out of the state of salvation, you set down these words, as his: Per multas annorum centurias Graci à Latinis divisi, with is a plain falsification: for Castro's words are: Duodecima haeresis est, quae negat Spiritum sanctum procedere à Patre, & à filio. Hanc haeresim docuerunt, & tutati sunt Graeci per multas annorum centurias, itae ut haec fuerit una ex praecipuis causis, propter quas à Romana & Catholica Ecclesia divisi sint. The twelfth heresy is that which denieth the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father, and the Son. This heresy the Greeks' have taught, and mansained many hundreds of years, in so much, that this is one of the chiefest causes, for which they are divided from the Roman, and Catholic Church. Here therefore you mangle Castro's words. And to maintain your undertaken falsity, that the Greeks' notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church, are parts of the Church Catholic, and in state of salvation, you conceal that he affirmeth them to be heretics, and that the chief cause of their division from the Roman Church, is their heresy concerning the holy Ghost. 3. With like prejudice of conscience, you cite (m) Pag. 335. Azor, who in that very place (n) Instit. l. moral. part. 1. l. 8. c. 20. §. Decimo. , directly affirmeth the Greeks' to be heretics; and that although some think, that concerning their belief of the fire of Purgatory, and some other few points of faith, they differ not from the doctrine of the Roman Church, really, and in sense, but only in words, and in that respect are not heretics but schismatics; yet he concludeth, that whatsoever their belief concerning these articles is, they are Heretics, and perhaps in these very points, because they err culpably in them; but that we often call them Schismatics, because we retain the ancient manner of speech: for first the Greeks' divided themselves often from the Church by schism, and in progress of time brought heresies into the Church. 4. You cite (o) Pag. 334. Suarez, saying, that the Greeks' are schismatics, because they err in those things which belong to the unity of the Church, though indeed they be heretics also, because they deny the unity of the Head. And immediately before he had alleged out of S. Hierome, that all Schismatics feign to themselves some heresy, to the end they may seem not to have departed from the Church without cause. Again he expressly saith (p) De Deo trino & uno l. 10. c. 1. n. 2. that the Greeks err in holding the holy Ghost not to proceed from the son, and that for this error among many others, the Greek Church hath divided itself from the Roman Church, denying obedience to the Pope. These are the Authors, which you produce to save the Greeks' from the infamous note of heresy; wherein you have done nothing, but bring witnesses against yourself: for all of them condemn the Greeks' of heresy, and convince you of a notorious untruth, in saying (l), (p) Pag 336. that in our judgement the Greeks' are no heretics, excepting for the denying a necessity of subjection, and union to the Church of Rome. Nor do these only censure them for their heresy of the holy Ghost; but other writers more ancient condemn them, as guilty of other errors. SECT. II. Of the Lutherans of Germany writing to Hieremy Patritriarke of Constantinople, to be admitted into the Communion of the Greek Church: and his answer to them. THe Pelagians being condemned by the Roman Church, pretended to be of the communion of the Church of Greece; which S. Augustine speaking of to julian the Pelagian (r) Cont. julian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 4. said: I think that part of the world ought to suffice thee, in which our Lord would have the chief of his Apostles to be crowned with a most glorious Martyrdom: to the Precedent of which Church, blessed Innocentius, if thou wouldst have given ear, thou hadst ere now, freed thy dangerous youth from the Pelagian snares. The same we say to you, who have imitated the Pelagians in your pretence of union with the Greek Church. Your Germane brethren writ to Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople, sending him a procession of their faith, and desiring to be admitted into the communion of his Church. He answered them, addressing his letters to the Protestants of Prague in Bohemia. These letters of Hieremy, set forth by the Lutherans of Wittenberg, you object (s) Pag. 334. , to prove that Protestants accord in faith, and communion with the Greek Church; but with your wont sincerity: for as it appeareth out of the edition of Stanislaus Socolovius, Divine to the King of Poland, printed at Colen Apud Maternum Cholinum 1582. that epistle, as it is set forth by the Lutheran Divines of Wittenberg Anno 1584. is corrupted, and falsified, and for that cause justly forbidden (t) In Ind. lib. prohib. . Nevertheless, that very edition of Wittenberg, is sufficient to show the claim you make to the Grecians, as to men of your communion, to be a Grand imposture: for it expresseth, that the Greek Church to this day teacheth invocations of Saints and Angels, veneration of Relics, worship of Images, Transubstantiation, with the Mass, and significant ceremonies thereof, Auricular Confession, enjoined satisfaction, all the seven Sacraments, & in particular Confirmation with Chrism, and extreme Unction, prayer, sacrifice, and alms for the dead, free will, Monachisme, Vows of chastity, the fast of Lent, and other set fasting days, that Priests may not marry after orders taken, that the tradition & doctrine of the Fathers is to be kept; with many other things, as M. Brereley (u) Prot. Apol. tract. 1. sect. ● sub. 12. pag. 202. showeth, setting down exactly the Page, and part of the Page, where every one of these particulars, is to be read in that protestant edition. And the same is confirmed out of Sir Edwin Sands, who in his Relation of the estate of Religion used in the West parts of the world, in the fifth leaf before the end, affirmeth, that the Greek Church agreeth with Rome in opinion of Transubstantiation, & generally in the sacrifice, and whole body of the Mass, in praying to Saints, in auricular Confession, in offering sacrifice, and prayer for the dead, Purgatory, Worshipping of pictures etc. And I must not omit the testimony of justus Caluinus, who being brought up in Protestancy, was afterwards converted to the Catholic faith: and being taxed for it by many of his friends, writ a Book to satisfy them, and the world; in which he declareth the morives of his conversion, and among them, the agreement of extern Churches with the Roman in condemning Protestants. And he insisteth particularly on this Epistle of Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople, and the censure which in it is given of the Protestant doctrine, acknowledging that thereby he was greatly confirmed in his belief of the Roman Church. For (saith he (x) Pag. ●. fin. & seqq. the Greeks', and Latins agree so precisely in the chiefest Heads of doctrine that, I wonder much, the Novellists have not the same opinion of the Patriarch of Constantinople, that they have of the Pope: for if the one be Antichrist, the other must of necessity be Antichrist, by reason of their accordance in doctrine And so much more to be pitied is the simplicity of some of them, who dreaming still of I know not what accordance with the Greek Church▪ cease not to inquire of the doctrine of the East, by sending letters and Catechisms. What? have they so soon forgotten, how fatally the Confession of Augusta was rejected, and how deeply censured by the Patriarch of Constantinople? Let them go to Tubinga, and inquire: Crusius will inform them. Or if the journey seem tedious, let them read the Oration of Chytraeus, printed at Francford, Of the estate of the Churches in Greece, Asia, Bohemia etc. There p. 113.115.116.133. They shall find something to this purpose: but chief pag. 132. where out of Crusius he setteth down a sum of that Censure, in these few propositions. First the Patriarch laboureth to prove, that the holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father. 2. He attributes too much to freewill. 3. He holds that man is justified by faith▪ hope, and charity. 4. He alloweth seven Sacraments. 5. He invocateth Saints deceased, and Mary the Mother of God, and the holy Angels, and adoreth their sacred Images, not with Latria (for that is due to God alone) but coniunctively, that is, not in regard of the matter, but of the Saints represented by the matter, and with an amicable affection, declaring the veneration, and honour due to the Saints. 6. He defendeth Monastical institute, as an angelical profession. 7. He takes his proofs out of the Fathers, and Counsels. 8. He inviteth us courteoussy to agree with them. This is the sum of the whole Censure related by Crusius; which if any one with us please to read at large throughout, he shall find more and greater arguments, to condemn the new Faith, and especially these words, which the Patriarch addeth for a conclusion: We had resolved absolutely to be silent, and give no answer to these your writings, which so manifestly wrest both the Scripture, & the expositions of the holy Doctors to your fancy since we have this exhortation from Paul; Avoid an heretic, after the first, and second admonition. But because with our silence, we might seem to assent unto you as if you did understand, and believe a right and that you had the Scriptures, and holy Fathers on your side; we have thought good to set down these things, in defence of the truth, albeit we are fully satisfied, out of your writings, that you can never accord with us, or rather with truth. And in the same place, in the end of the third answer, pag. 370. Wherefore we desire you not to trouble us hereafter, nor to write, nor send to us any writings concerning these things▪ for you treat the Divines, which were lights of the Church, otherwise then is fit: you honour, and extol them in words, but with your deeds reject them, seeking to wrest out of our hands, their holy and divine words, with we might use to confute you. Wherefore for as much as concerns us, you have freed us from care: and therefore going on in your own ways, writ no more to us of your Doctrine, but only for friendship's sake, if you please. All these are the words of justus Caluinus, related out of the Censure, or Epistle of Hieremy Patriarch of Constantinople, by Chytraeus, and Crusius two chief Protestants of Germany, where justus Caluinus lived, & writ, Chytraeus and Crusius being then living; who might, and would have taxed him of falsehood, if he had misalleaged them. Wherefore I cannot sufficiently admire your boldness, who to prove that the Grecians accord in doctrine with Protestants and descent from the Church of Rome, dare adventure to allege this Censure of the Patriarch, out of which it is so manifest, not only by the Catholic editions, but even by that of Wittenberg, and by the relations of Chyrtraeus, and Crusius, that the Greeks' in very few points of those which are in Controversy between Protestants and us, descent from the Roman Church; and that they condemn the contrary doctrines of Protestants, as heretical, & avoid them as heretics, for so you have heard the Patriarch call them. But yet, as justus Caluinus (y) Pag. 1●. fin. rightly observeth, the accordance of the Greeks' with the Roman Church in so many chief Heads of doctrine, is not sufficient to excuse them from schism, and heresy: for if they were not guilty of other errors, their obstinate denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son, is alone sufficient to make them absolute schismatics and heretics, incapable of salvation, as S. Athanasius hath expressly declared in his Creed. You therefore have told a most solemn untruth, in saying (z) Pag. 330. that the Greeks' which descent from the Roman Church▪ have not ruinated any fundamental Article of saving truth. SECT. III. A particular instance of Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, produced by Doctor Morton, to prove that he dissented from the Roman Church, examined. FOr the corroboration of your former Arguments, you produce (a) Pag. 387. Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, as an especial pattern of disobedience to the Roman Church The case is this: The people of Bulgaria, having sent for preachers to Rome, and being instructed by them in the faith of Christ, submitted themselves voluntarily to the Pope, and in spiritual things were governed immediately by him, as part of his Roman Diocese (b) Spond. anno 869. n. 13. . Nevertheless, because the Grecians challenged the temporal state of that Province to belong to the Emperor of the East, Ignatius supposing the spiritualty of it, to belong in right to his Diocese, usurped it to himself, and consecrating a Bishop by his own authority, sent him thither, with other Priests: for which he was checked by Adrian Pope (c) Spond. anno 871. n. 1. , and afterwards excommunicated by john the eight, if within thirty days after notification of the sentence unto him, he did not desist from that usurpation. He died before the arrival of the sentence at Constantinople (d) Spond. anno 878. n. 1. & 8. ; which if he had received before his death, it is not to be doubted, but that he would have surceased from that claim which he made, not out of any desire, or intention of opposing the See Apostolic, whose authority over the Church of Constantinople he acknowledged, both in appealing to it against Photius, who had intruded himself into his Church, and also in his epistle to Nicolas Pope (e) Extat Ep. in Syn. 8. Act. 3. . And finally that he always lived & died in communion of the Roman Church, appeareth by divers letters of john the eight, written after his death (f) Spond. anno 878 n. 8. . His example therefore can be no help to your cause. SECT. iv The Egyptians, Aethiopians, Armenians, Russians, Melchites, Africans, and Asians which call themselves Christians and be not of the Roman Communion, are absolute Heretics. THe Egyptians and Aethiopians, that are not of the Roman faith, and communion, embrace the Heresy of Eutyches, which holdeth but one nature, one will, and operation in Christ, and was for that cause anathematised, and cast out of the Church, by the holy Council of Chalcedon, twelve hundred years since. And they, which are not of the Roman communion, still persist in the same error, in so much, that when of late years, Go●saluus Rodericius of the Society of jesus was sent into Aethiopia (g) Pran. Sachin. Hist. Soc. jesus l. 1. n. 49. , to prepare the way for joannes Nunnez, whom the See Apostolic had sent thither, honoured with the title and dignity of Patriarch, Claudius then King of Aethiopia answered, that he had no need of a Patriarch from Rome, having in his own kingdom, men that were able to govern the Patriarkship of Rome itself: Moreover that he would by no means approve the Council of Chalcedon, nor allow of Leo Pope; and that Dioscorus had done well, in excommunicating him. Finally the obstinacy of the Aethiopians, and Egyptians, in this particular error of Eutyches, is the sole cause of their continuance in schism, and separation from the Roman Church: for as Cardinal Peron (h) Repliq. Chap. 63. answered our late Sovereign K. james, they have often offered, and are all ready at this day to acknowledge the Pope, whom they confess to be the Successor of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, if they might be received into his communion, without obliging themselves to anathematise Eutyches, and Dioscorus. The Armenians which are not of the Roman faith, & communion, are guilty of many heresies. They acknowledge but one Nature in Christ with the Eutychians. They deny his divinity, with the Arians. They affirm the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father alone, with the Grecians. They rebaptize them that have been baptised in the Roman Church, with the Donatists. And finally, they hold many other gross and damnable heresies related by Prateolus (i) L. 1 tit. 67. out of Guido Carmelita, and Nicephorus Calixtus, who therefore rightly termeth them, A sink of all heresies. The Russians agree with the Grecians, in deniing the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son. So hath confessed your Minister Thomas Rogers (k) Art. 3. propos. 3. pag. 25. . Moreover they defend other heretical Tenets, to the number of 40. related by joannes Sacranius (l) Elucid. error. & rit. Rhuten. , and Prateolus (m) L. 6. tit. 4. . Whereunto I add, that Stanislaus Socolovius, in the attendance of the King of Polonia, whose Divine he was, visiting those Northern countries, and coming to Leopolis, the Metropolitan city of Russia, reporteth of it (n) Praefat. Censura Orient. , that although it hath embraced many other errors, yet it deserveth this singular praise, that by the special gift of God, it hath kept itself free from the heresies of this age, and with greatest care, & diligence made resistance unto them. And how fare the Russians, even those which are not of the Roman communion, are from allowing your Protestant doctrine, you may learn from M. Grimston, who in his Description of Countries (o) Pag. 697. 698. , writeth that the Russians have the Mass, that they pray to the Virgin Mary, & the Saints, and keep their Bodies with great reverence; that they never pass by any Cross, but they kneel down, & pray; that they often bless themselves with the sign of the Cross; that they have many Monasteries of Monks of S. Basils' Order, who in their quires in the night sing praises to God; that they use the Sacrament of Confession, and receive absolution, and penance; that they keep the holy Sacrament in their Churches in one kind for the sick, and in that kind alone administer it unto them; that they say Masses for the faithful deceased. And not to conceal, what other Protestants writ of the doctrine of the Russians, and all the other nations, which you affirm to be of your belief, and communion, Osiander (p) Epit. Centur. 16. pag. 970. speaking of all the Eastern Churches, ingenuously confesseth, that they have not sincere Religion, but are in most part of their articles, Popish. Doctor Philippus Nicolai testifieth (q) L. 1. de regno Christ. pag. 22. , that not only the Greek Churches, but also the Ruthens, Georgians, Armenians, Indians, Aethiopians that acknowledge Christ, hold the real presence of his body, and blood in the Eucharist. And speaking of the Armenians in particular, he reckoneth (r) Pag. 35. among their errors, Invocation and intercession of Saints, and oblation of the Sacrament. Of the Indians, he saith (s) Ibid. pag. 45.46. , that they offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, preparing themselves unto it by confession of their sins; that at their entrance into the Church, they sprinkle themselves with holy water, as the Papists do; that they pray for their dead, & bury them with the same ceremonies the Papists use; that their Priests shave their Crowns; that they observe strictly the fasts of the four Ember weeks, as also of Aduent, & Lent; and that they have Monks and sacred Virgins reclused in several Monasteries, where with great religion, they strictly observe Abstinence, and Chastity. These doctrines, though they be in themselves Orthodoxal, and Catholic, yet Protestants reject them as false, and superstitious: and yourself in particular censure the doctrine of the real Presence and sacrifice of the Mass as idolatrous (t) Pag. 403. , not blushing to compare Christ in the Eucharist, to the Idol Moloch, and calling our adoration of him, The adoration of our Romish Moloch in the Mass. Whereby it appears, that albeit you condemn these doctrines in us, as heretical, and Idolatrous; yet you are contented to allow them in the Russians, and other nations, which you claim to be of your Communion, and to canonize their blasphemous errors against Christ and the holy Ghost, with other their impious heresies, for Orthodox doctrines; and to tell your reader, that the Russians, Aethiopians, and other nations, which profess themselves to be Christians, & diffent from the Church of Rome, are truly professed Christians parts of the Catholic Church, in state of salvation, and in accordance of communion with Protestants. Of the Melchites, your Historian M. Grimston in like manner reporteth (u) Pag. 1051. , that they hold all the errors which were condemned in the Council of Florence, and that there are also Nestorians among them. And this showeth, how untruly (x) Pag. 341.406.407.409. you affirm, that the Asians, and Atricans are not guilty of fundamental errors: for the Egyptians, Aethiopians, Melchites, and Armenians, what are they but Asians, or Africans? And so likewise are the jacobites, of whom M. Grimston reporteth (y) Pag. 1052. , that they follow the heresy of Dioscorus, and Eutiches. Of the Persians he likewise writeth (z) Pag. 797. , that among them there are Nestorians. And of the Tartarians, that they follow the heresy of Nestorius, and hold him for a Saint, as also Paulus Samosatenus, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and Diodorus Tharsensis; and that they condemn S. Cyril of Alexandria, and reject the Council of Ephesus: And yet nevertheless, all these are to you, good Christians, and members of your Protestant Church. But among all the untruths, which you have uttered in your discourse of the Churches of remote Nations, there is none more remarkable, then that speaking of the Christians, which in those nations are not of the Roman Communion, you say (a) Pag. 336. , that in our own judgements they are not heretics, excepting for the denying of this false Romish article, Of necessary Subjection, and Union to the Church of Rome. And enlarging this untruth, you add (b) Pag. 340.341. , that we dare not directly charge them with heresy, and that there are scarce any among them chargeable for any fundament all heresy: for (to omit the error of the Grecians, denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son, which if you believe the Creed of S. Athanasius makes them incapable of salvation) the heresies of Nestorius, and Eutiches against Christ are against the most fundamental doctrine of the Church of which S. Paul saith, (c) 1. Cor. 3.10. None can lay any other foundation beside Christ. And S. (d) 2. joan. 7. If any confess not, that jesus Christ income in flesh, he is a seducer, and Antichrist. And again (e) Ibid. vers. 10. & 12. : If any one bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your houses, and say not to him, Well be it with thee: for whosoever saith to him, Well be it with thee, communicats in his wicked works. I conclude therefore, that the heretics of remote natios, of whom we have spoken, err fundamentally, if any error can be fundamental: and that, as you, by professing yourself to accord in Communion with them, show yourself to be of their spirit, and to be out of the Church of Christ, as they are; so on the contrary, the Roman Church by excluding them, and you, from her communion, sheweth herself to be the true Catholic Church, and of the same belief with the holy Counsels of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, in which those heretics were anathematised, and condemned. CHAP. XLII. Doctor Mortons' plea for his Protestant Church. AS profuse as you have been in your invectives against the Church of Rome; so brief and succinct you are in setting forth your Protestant Congregation, which affords you so little matter of discourse, that coming to treat professedly of her (f) Pag. 341. , you confine her praises, to less than a small leaf of paper. You commend her, for four things: for great Extent; for the purity of her Doctrine; for her freedom from Vice; and from Schism. SECT. I. The small extent of the Protestant Church proveth her not to be the Catholic Church. When first you began to appear in the world, Luther complained (g) Pref. in 1. tom & cont. Reg. Augl. fol. 497. , that he was alone, that he alone stood in the battle forsaken of all, and helped by none. The Centurists (h) Sleid. praef. hist. confess, that your beginning was slender, and almost contemptible, Luther bearing the brunt of all the world. Then you boasted yourselves to be the Pusillus Grex, which Christ speaketh of in the Gospel (i) Luc. 12.31. . But now, Luther's brood being increased, partly by his disciples, and partly by the accession of many new Sects sprung from him, & knowing that the Catholic Church, according to her name must be universally spread throughout the whole world whersoever Christ is acknowledged, you have thought best, to lay claim to all those Sectaries, and to shake hands with ancient heretics, that you may seem to have a Church of large extent. If (as Bellarmine (k) Cap. 14. Apolog. advertised our late Sovereign) you draw into your Church all the Nestorians, Eutychians and other heretics of the East, and South, of which I have spoken, if all the Hussites, Lutherans Zwinglians, Suinkfeldians, Anabaptists, Confessionists, Caluinists, Brownists, Familians, Arians, Samosatens, and many other Sects, with are at this day in the Provinces of Europe by you named (l) Pag. 341. , they will (I confess) make a great rabble of Sectaries, that are so fare from being one Church, that they anathematise, and damn each other, to the very pit of hell (m) See Coccius to. 1. l. 8. art. 7.8.9.10. . Again, these sects being confined, some to one, and all which here you claim as parts of the Protestant Church, to a few Provinces of Europe, (and yet those not wholly theirs) none of them, nor all of them together, can be the Catholic Church, for she (saith S. Augustine (n) Ep. 170. add Sever. & cont. Gaud. l. 3. c. 1. must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum totum, that is, diffused through out the whole world, as well where these Sects are, as where they are not. The Catholic Church (saith he (o) Count Lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. hath this certain mark, that she is known to all nations: the Sect of Donatus is unknown to many nations, and therefore that cannot be she. So likewise the sects of Luther, of Caluin, of Zuinglius etc. are unknown to many nations, and therefore no one of them, nor all of them together can be she. By this Argument Optatus proved the Donatists, (and by the same we prove Protestants) not to be the Catholic Church, because she is not only in a corner of Africa, or in a few Provinces of Europe, where they are, but in many other places of the world, where they are not. Which passage of Optatus therefore I know not to what end you allege (p) Pag. 342. , unless it be to prove your Church to be a Conventicle of heretics. The same Argument S. Augustine useth (q) De unit. Eccles. c. 20. : The Catholic Church by the denine, and most certain testimony of holy Scriptures, is designed to be in all nations. And therefore whatsoever is alleged unto us, by them, that say, Hear is Christ, there is Christ, if we be his sheep, we must rather hear the voice of our Shepherd, who saith, Believe them not: for these are not to be found in many places, where she is; and she who is every where, is also whersoever they are. This therefore evidently proveth the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church: for she is not only in England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Swedland, in a part of Germany, Polonia, Bohemia, Hungaria, France, Helvetia, and Ireland, which are all the Provinces you cold name for the extent of your Church, but in the rest of the world, where you have no footing: for her Communion hath place either wholly, or in part, in all the Nations of Europe, in the East, and West Indies, in the Philippines, in japonia, in China, in Persia, in all the islands of the Ocean, and Medeterranean, and in many of the South Sea, in Greece, Egypt, in Aechiopia, Armenia, Assyria, and finally in all the four parts of the world, whersoever the Christian name is acknowledged. And until you can show your Protestant Congregation to have the same extent, you must confess, that she is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not universally spread over all the parts of the Earth, and therefore not the Catholic Church. Whosoever (saith S. Augustine (r) Ibid. c. 4. do so descent from the Church, which is the body of Christ, that their communion is not with the whole whersoever diffused, but with themselves severally, in some part, it is manifest that they are not the Catholic Church. SECT. II. Whether the Protestant Church be free from Error in Doctrine. TO prove that your Church is free from Error in doctrine, you say (s) Pag. 342. : The greatest error you can impute unto Protestants, is that they for their faith immediately depend upon Christ jesus, as the Head of the Catholic Church. In these words you seem tacitly to insinuate, that we depend not immediately upon jesus Christ, as the Head of the Catholic Church: which is an untruth, that needeth no refutation. We impute not that to you, as your greatest Error, nor as any Error at all; we steadfastly believe, that jesus Christ is the only principal immediate Head of the Catholic Church. But we impute to you, as an Error in faith, that you believe not the B. of Rome to be the Lieutenant, and Vicar of Christ, and under him the secondary, and ministerial Head of the Catholic Church on earth. But this is not your only error in faith: for you hold many other old condemned heresies; as with Simon Magus, that only faith justifieth: With Acrius, you deny Purgatory, and prayer for the dead: With jovinian you equal Marriage with Virginity, yea and prefer it, surpassing him therein. With Virgilantius, you deny invocation of Saints, & all religious Veneration of their relics. With Manichaeus, you deny freewill: With the Iconoclasts, you pull down, and break the Images of Christ and his Saints, and deny that honour is to be exhibited unto them: With Berengarius, you deny Transubstantiation. All these (to omit that you reject five of the Sacraments, & race out of the Canon of holy Scripture, divers canonical books) are heresies anciently condemned, and anathematised by the whole Church of Christ. And if S. Augustine say (t) De haeres. fin. , that whosoever holdeth any one heresy, is not a Catholic Christian, and S. Athanasius (u) In Symbolo. that, whosoever holdeth not the Catholic faith entire and inviolate, cannot be saved; what may we think of them, that hold so many certain and undoubted heresies? or what Christian hart can forbear to compassionate their estate? SECT. III. Doctor Mortons' pretended purity of Manners, in his Protestant Church. TO prove that your Protestant Churches are free from Vice, you say (x) Pag. 342. : The greatest Vice you can impute unto Protestants, is, that they impugn the Pope's indulgences, the nourseries of all Vices. Your denying and impugning the Pope's indulgences, we reckon not among your Vices, but among your Errors against faith. Of your Vices. I forbear to speak: your own men both abroad, as Luther, Caluin, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucer, Eberus, Wigandus, and divers others; and at home M. Geffrey, M. Stubs both of them great Preachers, and the Puritans in their Mild defence have done it for me. Read them, and they will inform you, that, under the Papacy, men were religious, and given to the practice of good works; but that the professors of your Gospel relying on their justification by only faith, are become careless of good works, dissolute, proud, envious, malicious, disdainful, covetous, ambitious; that your eyes ought to gush out with tears, to behold the misery of your supposed Church, the great ignorance, the superficial worship of God, the fearful blasphemies, and swearing in houses and streets, the dishonour of Superiors, the pride, cruelty, fornications, adulteries, drunkenness, covetousness, Usuries, and other like abominations; that youth among you becomes daily less tractable, and more bold to commit those vices which in former times men of years knew not; that instead of fasting you have brought in bibbing, and banqueting, and instead of praying swearing. And finally, that you equal the jews in hypocrisy, the Turks in impiety and the Tartars in iniquity. All this, and much more to the same effect, is the free confession of your Brethren, faithfully set down in their own words, in a late Treatise of the Protestant private spirit. (y) Chap. 9 sect. 8. subdivis. 4. And it is so strong an Argument against your pretended reformation, that your learned brother Eberus sticketh not to say (z) Praefat. Comment. Philip. in Ep. ad Cor. , that in regard of the enormous wickedness of your Ministry, and Church, any man may justly doubt, whether you be the true Church. And yet you blush not to say, that the greatest vice we can impute unto Protestants, is, that they impugn the Pope's indulgences, which you falsely call, the nursery of all Vices: for by this it appears, that not the Pope's indulgences, but your new Protestant Gospel is the nursery of all Vices; and that in lieu of a reformation, which you pretend, calling your selves The reformed Churches, you have made a deformation of the Church of Christ. SECT. iv That Protestants by Schism have divided themselves from the Catholic Church. TO prove that we censure your Protestant Church of Schism, injustly, you say (a) Pag. 341. : The greatest schism you can impute to the Churches of Protestants, is, that they willbe divided from the Church of Rome, which proudly and impiously divideth herself from all other Churches of the world. And a little before (b) Pag. 340. , you had taxed Bellarmine, for holding, that if those of the East were but only Schismatics, by denying subjection to the Church of Rome, yet that alone without any suspicion of heresy, might be sufficient to conclude them in the state of damnation. Two things may here be disputed: the one, whether schism alone, without heresy, exclude men from salvation: the other, whether Protestants be Schismatics. Concerning the first, that Schismatics though no way guilty of heresy, for the very fault of schism alone, are incapable of salvation, is a thing so certain, that no man that understandeth even the ordinary principles of Divinity, or is versed in the writings of the ancient Fathers, can be ignorant thereof: for schism being of itself, a division or separation from the Catholic Church, as it is impossible, that he who is out of the Catholic Church be saved; so it is, that a schismatic dying in schism be saved. God (saith S. Irenaeus (c) L. 4. c. 62. shall judge those, that make schisms in the Church, ambitious men, not having the honour of God before their eyes, but rather embracing their own interest, than the unity of the Church; and for little, and light causes dividing the great and glorious body of Christ etc. For in the end they cannot make any reformation so important, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. S. Cyprian (d) L de Vnitate Eccles. : Do they that assemble themselves without the Church, think Christ to be with them in their assembly? Although they should be dragged to death for the confession of the name of Christ, yet this spot is not washed away from them, with their blood; the inexpiable and inexcusable crime of discord is not purged with death itself: he cannot be a Martyr, that is not in the Church. S. chrysostom (e) In Ep. ad Ephes Hom. 11. : Nothing doth so much stir up the wrath of God, as the division of the Church. Although we should do innumerable good works, if we divide the Unity and fullness of the Church, we shall be punished no less severely, than they who tore his (natural) body. S. Augustine (f) Ep. 152. ad popul. factio. Donat. : Whosoever is divided from the Catholic Church, although he think himself to live never so laudably, yet for this only crime, that he is divided from the unity of Christ, the wrath of God abideth on him. And speaking of Emeritus an heretical Bishop (g) Serm super gest. cum Emer. : He cannot have salvation, but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Church, he may have honour, he may have Sacraments, he may have the Gospel, he may have, and preach belief in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost; but salvation he can find no where, but in the Catholic Church. And again (h) Ep. 204. : Being out of the Church, and divided from the heap of Unity, though thou shouldst he burned alive for the name of Christ, yet thou shouldst be punished with eternal death. S. Fulgentius (i) Dofide ad Pet. c. 39 , Believe this, as most certain, and undoubted, that no heretic, nor schismatic, though baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, though he give never so great alms, yea though he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can possibly be saved. It being now certain, that a Schismatic dying in schism, cannot be saved, the question is, whether Protestants be schismatics. And certainly, if S. Augustine (k) Ep. 170. & count. Gauden. l. 3. c. 1. & cont. lit. Peti. l. 1. c. 104. rightly concluded the Donatists to be schismatics, because they had separated themselves from that Church, which was spread over the whole earth, his Argument hath the same force against Protestants: for if (as he hath taught) the Catholic Church is universally spread over the whole earth, and thereby, as by an undoubted mark, is known, and distinguished from all other congregations; it followeth by inevitable consequence, that the Roman Church (and none else but she) being universally spread over the world, as well in Europe, where Protestants are, as in all other parts of the world, where they are not, either she is the Catholic Church, or else that there is no Catholic Church on earth. And therefore with great reason all antiquity hath held the Roman Church, and the Catholic Church to be terms convertible, and that whosoever is divided from her, is a schismatic, and incapable of salvation. The testimonies of the ancient Fathers in this behalf I have copiously alleged in the first Chapter of this Apology, which to repeat here, were actum agere. And this showeth, how falsely you slander the Roman Church, with dividing herself proudly, and impiously from all other Churches of the world. S. Augustine said to the Donatists, (l) L. 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 52. that with sacrilegious fury they had separated themselves from the Chair of S. Peter: and I wish the same might not be truly said of you: That Church, when you began, was, and still is, and shall ever be spread over all the world where Christ is known. You first lived in her, and afterwards divided yourselves from her, as all Heretics have done, she (saith S. Augustine) (m) De Symb. ad Catechum. l. 1. c. 6. remaining still in her root, in her Vine, in her charity. From hence it is, that the same Father having reckoned by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Anastasius, who was then B. of Rome, compareth that Church to a Vine, and the Donatists, to branches cut off from her, as you likewise are. Wherefore as he said to them (n) Psal. count. part. Donat. , so we say to you: Come brethren, if you please, that you may be engrafted into the Vine. It is a grief toys, to see you lie so cut off. Number the Priests from the very seat of Peter etc. That is the Rock, which the proud gates of hell overcome not. And you must remember, that the same S. Augustine is he, that said (o) Tract. 8● in joan. , A branch cut off from the Vine, is fit for nothing but the fire. CHAP. XLIII. Of the Head of the Roman Church, compared to the Body thereof. You compare the B. of Rome, who is Head of the Roman Church with the Body thereof, in many respects (p) Pag. 343. 344. 345. : all which you attribute to us as Articles of our faith, to be believed necessarily, under pain of damnation. SECT. I. Whether it be matter of Faith, that the Pope is above a Council. WE believe, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and Governor of the Universal Church: to which you add (q) Pag. 344. , that according to our faith, there is a necessity of believing, that the Pope is above a Council. In proof of this, you allege (r) Ibid. marg. Bellarmine l. 1. de council. c. 7. who in that very place expressly teacheth the contrary: and you afterwards, contradicting yourself acknowledge so much (s) Pag. 355. lit. e. , setting down these words of his; The matter is still questionable until this day: which also you prove (t) Pag. 116. init. out of Stapleton, saying, It is not yet defined by any public Decree. And in confirmation hereof, you add (u) Pag. 115. fin. that the contrary is mantained by our Doctors of Paris. When therefore it is for your purpose, it is an Article of our faith necessarily to be believed with divine faith, that the Pope is above a Council: and when the contrary is more for your purpose, than it is no Article of our faith, nor yet defined by any public decree, but matter of opinion and questionable until this day. These are your propositions: Reconcile them. SECT. II. Whether it be matter of faith, that this individual person, v. g. Vrban the eight, is true Pope, and true Head of the Church. YOu set down here (x) Pag. 345. . and afterwards again (y) Pag. 351. 353. , as a received Article of our faith, that it is necessary for every man, to believe with divine faith, that this determinate man, for example Vrban the eight which now sitteth in the Chair of S. Peter, is true Bishop, and true Head of the Church. In proof of this you allege Salmeron, and Suarez, but very deceitfully: for although that be the peculiar opinion of Salmeron and Suarez (whose proofs you mention not, because it passeth your skill to answer them) yet they deliver it not, as matter of faith, defined by the Church, or taught by all Catholic Divines, which you could not be ignorant of: for Suarez in that very place which you cite (z) Pag. 24. & 345. , professeth the contrary opinion to be taught by Turrecremata, Albertinus, Caietan, Bannes, Canus, Vega, Corduba, Castro, and other Catholic Divines, maintaining, that we cannot have divine faith of this individual man, that he is true Head of the Church, but moral certainty only. And this they hold sufficient to oblige all men to yield perfect obedience unto him, and to believe his definitions ex Cathedra. And you contradicting yourself, had formerly acknowledged (a) Pag. 2●. this to be the opinion of many of our Scholedoctors. With what conscience then, do you now charge all Catholics, with holding the contrary as necessary to be believed with divine faith, and under pain of damnation, which so many of our learned Scholedoctors deny, and which in them was never censured by the Church, nor even by their adversaries, as any way opposite to faith? But what censure you deserve for doubting of the ordination, or election of God's Priests, not I, but S. Cyprian shall tell you, who saith (b) L. 4. Ep. 9 , that it is no other thing, but to believe that Priests are not appointed in the Church from God, nor for God; that it is not to believe in God, but to be rebellious against Christ and his Gospel. SECT. III. Whether the Church of Rome be at any time a Body headless. It is a Thesis of yours (c) Pag. 34●. that the Church of Rome is a Body headless, so long as there is a vacancy in the See between the death of one Pope, and the election of another: Which to affirm, is as ridiculous, as if you should call the Empire An headless Empire, because there is no Emperor, between the death of one, and the election of an other. And by the same argument, you may prove Bohemia, Polonia, and other kingdoms, and States, whose Princes are elective, to be headless kingdoms, and states. There is not always so precise necessity of a Pope in the Church, but that, as it was governed 300. years without Counsels; so if by reason of schisms, or other difficulties it fall out, that after the death of one Pope, some time pass before the election of another, God may not for that time govern his Church without a Pope, especially all other Bishops, and inferior Pastors remaining in full possession of their authority over their several flocks. Nor is the Church for that time left so wholly destitute of an universal governor on earth, that the elergy of Rome may not in many things supply his place, as you may learn from S. Cyprian, who in sundry occasions advised with the Clergy of Rome, witness his epistles to them (d) L. 3. ep. 5. & 21. l. 5. ep. 4. & 5. , and theirs to him (e) L. 2. ep. 7. l. 5. ep. 13. . But here (f) Pag. 346. you take occasion to calummitate Bellarmine, for saying, that by the Keys, which Christ gave to S. Peter, and in him to his Successors, in understood, the principality of Ecclesiastical power over all the Church; & that when the Pope dieth, this power remaineth not formally in the Church (excepting only so fare forth as it is communicated to the inferior Ministers) but immediately in the hands of Christ. And when a new Pope is chosen the Keys are nether brought by him, nor given to him by the Church, but by Christ; and this not by a new donation, but by the ancient institution: for when he gave them to Peter, he gave them to all his Successors. These are Bellarmine's words, which you cut from the example he addeth, for the explanation of his doctrine, that you may have occasion to exclaim against him, and scoff, saying (g) Ibid. , O depth of delusion! Will you see a juggler? Yes: we see him but too perfectly in Doctor Thomas Morton: for doth not Bellarmine say; It happeneth in this case, as if a King, when he makes a Viceroy of any Country, should declare his pleasure to be, that the Viceroy being dead, they should nominate another, and that he granteth unto him, now, the same power, he gave to his Predecessor? What depth of delusion, or what juggling do you find in this case? And is not the other wholly like to this? And doth not Bellarmine declare it, with this very example? Wherefore your question (h) Ibid. . Whether the keys of S. Peter do indeed fly into heaven, at the death of every Pope, though you make it (forsooth) to show yourself acute, and witty, is (God wots) a silly conceit; to which that renowned Doctor Theodorus Studites hath answered (i) Ep. de imagine. , saying: that when we speak of keeping Peter's Keys at Rome, it is not to be understood, that Christ gave any material Keys to him, but only, that by his mouth he gave him▪ power to bind and lose. And as it is a poor conceit; so it is a cavil, to which yourself must answer in the other example of temporal power: for tell us: Do then indeed the Viceroys keys, when he dieth fly to the King's Court? But you go on ask (k) Pag. 346. : What power then is it, which remaineth formally in the inferior Ministers of the Church, at the death of the Pope? If it be the Keys of Principality, then is every inferior Priest, a Pope: If it be the Keys only of Order, and absolution, then shall it not be lawful for any Bishop to exercise any power of jurisdiction by precept, or punishing by excommunication, during all the time of the Vacancy. So you, either not understanding, or wittingly concealing Bellarmine's doctrine: for doth he acknowledge no Ecclesiastical power, but only of principality over the whole Church, which is proper to the Pope, or else of Order and Absolution, which is common to every Priest? Doth he not, with all Catholic Divines, hold, that every Bishop besides his power to absolve in the inward Court of Conscience, hath also power of external jurisdiction, to govern, and command his Diocesans, and inflict punishment upon them by excommunication, and other Ecclesiastical censures according to the measure of their offences? And doth he not sufficiently express this power, when speaking of the Pope's authority over the Church, he saith, that the Pope being dead, it still remaineth in the Church, so fare forth as it is committed to inferior Ministers, which are the Bishops, and other Pastors under the Pope? And by this it appears, how untruly you add (l) Pag. 347. , that Bellarmine is driven (forsooth by this your subtle Argument) into a most uncouth, and extreme corner, where never any ancient Father before him, set so much as the least print of his . This you prove (m) Ibid. out of Binius, whom you make to say, that in the Inter-regnum, or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus, and his Successor, there was called a general Council at Constantinople, which is an Act proper to the Papal primacy. But as in the rest, so in this you want fidelity: for Binius saith not, that this Council was general, but directly the contrary, to wit, that it consisted of such Bishops only, as were near to Constantinople, and some others, which at that time were resident in the city. Wherefore it was no general, but a particular Council, in which Menas presided, not as Vicar of the See Apostolic (as Binius mistaketh) but only as Patriarch of Constantinople. And much less did any Legates of the Pope preside with him: for albeit the Italian Bishops, which had been Legates to Pope Agapetus, assisted at the Council; yet they assisted not, as his Deputies (for their legation was finished, and their commission expired before that time, by the arrival, and especially by the death, of Agapetus at Constantinople) but for honour's sake, and as Exlegates, and not as Legates. It is not therefore Bellarmine, but you, that are driven into such an uncouth and extreme corner, that you have no way to get out, but by fathering on Binius your own fiction of a general Council, which Binius never dreamt of, and (which is yet worse) by contradicting yourself: for before (n) Pag. 238. lin. 11. you had said that this was not a general Council. These than are your words: The Council under Menas was a general Council: The Council under Menas was not a general Council. Agree them. It resteth therefore, that according to Bellarmine's Tenet, a general Council which hath authority to decide controversies of faith, cannot be called without the Pope's authority; you having not been able to produce any one example, or proof to the contrary, but only your ignorant mistake of a particular Council for a general. SECT. iv Whether the Roman Church have, at any time, a false Head. YOur assertion is affirmative: for proof, you remit us to your former argument already answered, to which you add here (o) Pag. 349. init. , that God never ordained a Head no bigger than of a wren to stand upon the shoulders of a man; and so little (in respect) is one Bishop of one City of Rome, to be set over the Church universally dispersed throughout the whole world. But you consider not, that the Church of Christ being the most perfect of all common wealths, aught to have the most perfect government, which is Monarchical. S. Cyptian (p) De unit. Eccl. , Optatius (q) L. 2. cont. Parmen. , and S. Hierome (r) L. 1. cont. jovin. have taught, that our Saviour made S. Peter Head of the Apostles, to the end, that all being subject to one, occasion of schism among them might be taken away. This passage you alleged out of S. Hierome, in your la●e Sermon preached at Durham before his Majesty (s) Pag. 42. , to prove the necessity of Bishops, against the Scots. A Bishop than is necessary, to appease the contentions, that may happen among your Ministers. But contentions, and strifes may also arise among Bishops: An Archbishop therefore is necessary, to quiet them. But they may likewise arise between Archbishops, as they did between Theophilus, & chrysostom; Flavianus, and Dioscorus; Cyril, and Nestorius: who shall end them? If you say a general Council; who shall summon that Council? Not a temporal Prince, for no one hath power over all nations, from whence the Bishops are to be called: besides, that temporal Princes are often at variance among themselves. And when a general Council is called, what if the Bishops agree not, or decline from the truth, as in the Council of Ariminum, & the second of Ephesus they did? Who shall compose their differences, and judge their causes, unless some one Head of the whole Church be appointed by Christ, whose judgement is infallible, and to whose censure all are bound to submit? Wherefore the Puritans argument propounded by M. Cartwright (t) Second Reply part. 1. pag. 58●. concludeth evidently against you, that, This point of keeping peace in the Church, is one of those, which requireth aswell a Pope over all Archbishops, as one Archbishop over all Bishops, in a Realm. From this unity of the Head, the Church of Christ universally spread over the earth, takes her unity. Even as there are (saith S. Cyprian) (u) De unit. Eccles. many beams of the sun, and one light, many bows of one tree, and yet one strength founded in one root, and many brooks flowing from one fountain, & a unity thereof conserved in the spring: even so, the Church of our Lord casting forth her light, displaieth her beams every where, throughout the world, and yet her light is one: she extends her bows over the whole earth, and spreads her flowing rivers fare and near, and yet there is one Head, one beginning, and one fruitful and plentiful Mother. And lest you might answer, that this one Head of the whole Church mentioned by S. Cyprian, is none other, but Christ, he declareth himself, saying (x) Ibid. : Our Lord to manifest unity hath constituted one chair, & ordained by his authority, that unity should have beginning from one. And explicating who this one is, he saith (y) Ibid. : Upon Peter being one, he buildeth his Church, and to him commendeth his sheep to be fed etc. The primacy is given to Peter, that the Church may be showed to be one. And therefore he calls the Chair of Peter (z) Ep. 55. , The principal Church, from whence Sacerdotal unity proceedeth. S. Augustine (a) L. de pastor c. 13. : Our Lord committed his sheep to Peter, to commend unity in him. There were many Apostles, and to one it is said, feed my sheep. S. Leo (b) Serm. 3. de assump. sua. : Peter being one, is chosen out of the whole world, to be constitated over the vocation of all nations, over all the Apostles, and all the Fathers of the Church, to the end that although there be many Priests, and many Pastors in the people of God, yet Peter may peculiarly govern them all, whom Christ also principally ruleth. And S. Bernard speaking to Eugenius Pope (c) L. 2. de consider. : Thou being one, art Pastor not only of the sheep, but of all Pastors etc. Christ committed all his sheep to one, to commend unity in one flock, and in one shepherd. Where there is unity, there is perfection. If therefore Christ committed his whole flock to Peter being one, if one Head among twelve Apostles were necessary, to take away occasions of Schism among them, their number being but small; how much more necessary was it, that for the same cause, the whole Church (which by reason of the multitude of Bishops, and people, is more liable to schism) should be governed by one Head? Who although he be a weak man, Christ praying for him (d) Luc. 22.32. , hath secured us, that his faith shall not fail; and to the end, he may confirm all his brethren, hath placed him (e) Aug. ep. 166. in the chair of Unity, in which even ill men are enforced to speak good things▪ And though he be but one, yet he is assisted by other Bishops, as his Coadjutors, and they by inferion Pastors, that so the Bishops watching over the inferior Pastors, and the supreme Pastor over the Bishops, the government of the Church, & labour thereof, might be divided among many, and yet chief committed to one, to whom the rest were to have recourse, as the Apostles had to Peter. Among the most Blessed Apostles (saith S. Leo (f) Ep. 84. there was in the likeness of honour, a difference of power: And although the election of them all was alike, yet it was granted to one, that he should be above the rest in authority: from which model, the distinction of Bishops hath proceeded, & with great providence it hath been ordained, that all should not claim all things to themselves, but that in several Provinces, there should be several Bishops, whose sentence should hold the first rank among their brethren: and again, that others constituted in the greater cities should have a more ample charge; and that by them, the government of the universal Church might flow to the seat of Peter, and that none might ever descent from their Head. This was the doctrine of that renowned Father; and the same hath been the belief of all Orthodox Christians. And you that oppose it by telling us a tale of a wren's head placed upon the shoulders of a man, show yourself not to understand the things of God (g) Math. 16.13. ▪ but to measure them by your shallow capacity, not considering that according to his promise, the supreme Pastor to whom he hath committed the charge of his flock, is governed by the holy Ghost in his consultations of faith; and that as without his assistance, no multitude of Prelates is able to govern the whole Church; so with his help, one may perform it, as experience teacheth. But you object (h) Pag 350. , 1. That we cannot have certitude of any B. of Rome▪ because his ordination dependeth upon the intention of the Ordainer, than which what can be more uncertain? This you had objected before, and have received your answer (i) Chap. 5. sect. 7. . And S. Cyprian (k) L. 4. ep. 9 hath told you, that to raise such doubts is to doubt of the providence of God, and to rebel against his ordination. 2. You object (l) Pag. 350. , john the twelfth wanting years, and other conditions necessary for that dignity, took possession of the Roman Church, by intrusion, and that therefore in his time the Church had no true visible Head (such as we require) because of him it could not be said, This is the B. of Rome This objection you borrowed from Baronius (m) Anno 955. , who though he acknowledge, that the elect●on of john was void, because no true form was observed in it, yet you pass over what he addeth, as not being for your purpose, namely, that the Church afterwards consented to his election, whereby the defects that interuened in his former election, were supplied, and he received, and reverenced, as true Pope by the whole Church. And whereas you say, that this Pope was for his life monstrous, it hath been proved (n) Abou● Chap. 12. sect. 2. , that the ill lives of Popes, or other Bishops, are not Arguments, to disprove their authority. God is able to teach by Balaams' Ass, and the Evangelist tells you (o) Io●●. 11.49. that notwithstanding Caiphas was a wicked man, yet because he was high Priest he prophesied, or rather God by him. And our Blessed Saviour foreseeing, that Cavillers would arise, hath by S. Augustine (p) Ep. 165. long since answered this your Argument, to a wrangling Donatist, and in him to you, saying: If any traitor in those days had by surreption crept into that rank of Bishops which is deduced from S. Peter himself, even to Anastasius (or Vrbanus) who at this present sitteth in that chair, it could work no prejudice to the Church, and to innocent Christians, for whom our Lord provideth, saying of wicked Prelates: Do ye what they say, but what they do, do it not; for they say and do not &c. And speaking to Petilianus another Donatist, after he had reprehended him for separating himself from the Roman Church with sacrilegious fury, he addeth (q) Cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 51. : Why dost thou call the Apostolic See the chair of pestilence? If in respect of the men, whom thou thinkest to speak the Law, and not to fulfil is, did our Lord jesus Christ for the Pharisees (of whom he saith, they say and do not) any way wrong the chair in which they sat? Nay, did he not commend that chair of Moses, and reprehend them, preserving entire the honour of the Chair? If you would think upon these things, you would not for the men whom you defame, blaspheme the Apostolic Chair, with which you do not communicate. So S. Augustine to Petilianus; and so we to you. SECT. V Whether the Roman Church, at any time, be divided into many Heads. HOw ill advised you are to object either the multitude, or the long continuance of Schisms, which have been in the Roman Church, you have heard (r) See above Chap. 7. prope sin. & Chap. 12. sect. 7. . But because in time of Schism when there are two or three that pretend right to the chair of S. Peter, the faithful cannot certainly know, which of them is true Pope, you ask, (s) Pag. 352. . What resolution our Church can have in such a case? adding moreover (t) Pag. 353. , that our article of believing this only singular Roman Pope, without which faith none can be saved, damneth two of the three parts of our Roman Church at that time. Your question is a doubt springing from ignorance, and your addition an untruth. To your question S. Antoninus (u) Part. 3. ●is. 21. c. 2. & seqq. hath answered; who treating of the schism, which happened in time of urban the sixth (against whom the French Cardinals, ●earing his severity, and flying to Anagnia, created a new Pope, calling him Clement the seaventh) prescribeth this rule, that in time of Schism, when two or more at the same time, hold themselves to be true Popes, it is not necessary for salvation, to believe any one of them determinately to be the true Pope, but disiunctively him, that hath been Canonically assumpted: And which of them determinately that is, faithful people are not bound to know, but may follow the judgement of their Prelates, and Superiors. To which Gerson (x) De modo hab. se temp. Schism. addeth, that in this case, it is temerarious, iniutious, and scandalous to hold as excommunicated, or out of the state of salvation, those, that adhere to either part, or that carry themselves noutrally: and that it is lawful to communicate with either party, and to obey either of those Popes, as occasion shall serve, while the right of neither is certainly known. And this he confirmeth by the answer which S. Ambrose gave to S. Augustine concerning the lawfulness of fasting, or not fasting on Saturdays, according to the diversity of times, places, and persons. I conclude therefore, that your so often repeating as an article of our faith, that for salvation it is necessary to believe that this determinat man is true Pope, and true Head of the Church, if you speak of believing it with divine faith, you confess the contrary to be held by many of our learned Divines; and that their opinion hath never been censured by the Church. But if you speak of believing it at least with moral certainty, it is granted by all Catholic Divines, when there is but one determinat person, whom the whole Church receiveth and objecteth, as her undoubted Head, and as the Vicar of Christ upon earth. But yet neither that is necessary in time of Schism, when of two or three, it is doubtful, which is the true Pope: for than it is sufficient to believe him to be true Pope, which is Canonically chosen, without determining any of them in particular, as S. Antoninus, and Gerson have taught, instructing you, how to carry yourself in such a case. But I fear, you have no desire to learn. SECT. VI Whether the Roman Church be doubtfully headed. TO prove that the Roman Church is doubtfully headed, you allege (y) Pag. 354.355.356. , that after 1600. years, it is not yet determined, whether the supreme judge in our Church, be the Roman Pope, or a Council: collecting from thence, that the Roman Church should not take upon her to determine Controversies of faith against, Protestants, before she have satisfied Protestants in this one, whether Pope, or Council be indeed the supreme judge. So you, as you are wont: for you are not ignorant that this division is inadequate, since beside the Pope alone without a Council, and a Council alone without the Pope, there is a third member, which is the Pope together with a Council, whose judgement in matters of faith all Catholics hold to be infallible. Nor did any ever defend, that a general Council confirmed by the Pope can err, either in definitions of faith, or manners. This is the sense and meaning of Catholic Doctors, when they say. The Church cannot err: for by the Church, they understand not the Pope alone without a Council, nor a Council alone without the Pope, but both of them together, as they make one whole Church, consisting of the Pope as Head, and of the Council as the representative body thereof. This is that supreme judge, which condemned the Arians in the Council of Nice; the Macedonians in the first of Constantinople; the Nestorians in that of Ephesus; and the Eutychians at Chalcedon. And the same hath condemned you in the Council of Trent, and in others formerly, in which some of your Protestant Tenets have been censured as heretical. To the sentence of this judge all Christians are bound to submit, our Blessed Saviour having commanded (z) Math. 1●▪ 17. , that whosoever heareth not the Church (that is to say, the Prelates of the Church, for so the Fathers expound) be esteemed as a Heathen, and a Publican. But you cunningly divert from this, which is certain and out of dispute, to another question, whether the Pope be above a Council, or a Council above the Pope: And although you had said above (a) Pag. 115. fin. , that to hold the Pope to be above a Council is a flat heresy long since condemned by our Counsels of Constance and Basil, because then that was best for your purpose; yet here (b) Pag. 355. fin. 356. because the contrary fitteth you better, you say, It is no matter of faith, but a thing disputable on both sides among us: & you make a pitiful complaint, that so principal a case as this, after 1600. years, should not be resolved by the Church. And why is all this your solicitude? marry to the end, you may take occasion to traduce Stapleton, whom you will have (c) Pag. 356. to be our foreman and to speak for us all, saying, that, although this case have not been decided by any absolute Decree, yet it is defined by the tacit and secret consent of the Doctors of the Church, scarce any one Divine holding any other opinion herein, then that which (before that of late this controversy was moved) was anciently in force; namely, that the Pope is above a Council, as the Head is above the Body. As if he should say, Sirs, if the question be, whether john an Oak, or john a Style be heir to that land, because the witnesses conceal their meaning, without question they by a tacit consent are for the Complainant, that john an Oak must carry the land. O Quacksalver! So you; who whiles you strive to play upon Stapleton, make yourself ridiculous: for you cite those words out of Stapleton Doctr. pr●●. l. 13. c. 15. who in that work hath no more but twelve books in all. Wherefore the words are either coined by you, or if they be Stapletons, he is not only miscited, but egregiously abused by you: for doth he not say in express words, that among Catholic Divines scarcely any one is of another opinion, then that the Pope is above a Council, as the Head is about the Body? What else is this to say, but that Catholic Divines in their books published to the view of the world, have expressed themselves, and unanimously declared, that the Pope is above a Council? And this their accord expressed in their writings, Stapleton with great reason calls, A tacit definition, that is to say, an expression and accord equivalent to a definition: even as he who should tell a man, that he speaks often untruly, (as you in your Grand Imposture do) should tacitly, or virtually tell him, that he were not a silent witness, nor a dumb judge against you; so nether are the Divines alleged by Stapleton, silent witnesses, or dumb judges in the question proposed. I conclude therefore that Doctor Stapleton is not the Quacksalver, but Doctor Morton; & your Argument so poor, that john an Oak, or john a Style might easily have framed a better. SECT. VII. Of the Council of Constance, defining a Council to be above the Pope. TO prove that a Council is above the Pope in matters of direction of faith and manners, you object (d) Pag. 356.357. the fourth Canon of the Council of Constance, which Council (say you) was expressly confirmed by Pope Martin, to be held inviolabia in matters of faith. True. But your dealing is not true: for as Turrecremata, Campegius, Sanders, (e) Apud Bell. l. 1. de Pont. c. 19 Caietan (f) Opusc. de autho. Papae & Conc. and Canus (g) L. 5. c. 6. §. Ad octau. have observed, the Council when that decree was made, was not a general, but a particular Council: and the decree itself was not universal for all times, but only for that time of schism, when it was uncertain, which of three that actually pretended right to the See of S. Peter, was true Pope; or indeed whether any of the three were true Pope or no. And were it granted, that in a case of uncertainty, as this was, whether there were any true Pope in the Church, a Council is superior to the doubtful Popes, and hath authority to depose them, and provide a certain and undoubted Head for the Church, it would not follow, that when an undoubted Head is chosen, the Council is superior to him: for he hath not his authority from the Council, but from Christ. Again, whereas no decree of any Council can be of force, if it be not confirmed by the See Apostolic (h) See above Chap. 17. sect. 6. , this was not only not confirmed, but rejected, and (as you know Bellarmine (i) L. 1. de Concil. c. 7. & Binius (k) In not. ad hoc Concil. have noted) absolutely condemned by the Counsels of Florence, and Lateran. And lastly, it was invalid, because the Bishops that adhered to two of the three, which held themselues to be Popes, consented not to it (l) Bellar. ibid. . The decrees of faith which Martin Pope confirmed, were only those the Council made against the heresies of john Wiclef, john Hus, & Hierome of prague (Saints of your Protestant Calendar (m) See P●xe jan. 1. May 2. june 1. , as appeareth out of his Bull of confirmation annexed to the Council, in which this decree of the Counsels superiority to the Pope, is not mentioned, much less confirmed. But you object (n) Pag. 357. sin. ; when the Council of Constance faith, The Council hath its authority immediately from Christ, the meaning is▪ (as you are taught) that the Pope's authority is not of divine, but of humane institution. This is your comment, false in itself (o) See aboven Chap. 19 sect. 9 , and directly contrary to the meaning of the Council of Constance, which setteth down this your proposition (p) Sess. 1●. , as the ninth article of john Hus, and condemneth it as heretical, together with other articles, in which Protestants agree with him. And in like manner it defineth (q) Sess. 8. against the articles 37. and 41. of Wiklef, that the Pope is immediate Vicar of Christ, and that for salvation it is necessary to believe his authority over all Churches, and that the Roman Church is the chief of all others: In which condemnation whether Protestant's holding the same errors, be not involved, I leave to your judgement. Finally, the same Council (as you read in the last session) was dissolved by authority and command of the Pope (the Council itself so requiring) and the condemnation of all the errors of Wiclef, and Hus, ratified, and confirmed by a special Bull of the Pope, with command that all suspected of those heresies, should be demanded whether they believe that S. Peter was the Vicar of Christ having power to bind and lose upon earth; and whether they hold, that the Pope canonically chosen (his proper Name expressed) is the Successor of S. Peter, & hath supreme power over the Church of God. These are the doctrines of that Council, which show, that your objecting it against the authority of the Pope, and Church of Rome over all other Bishops and Churches, is a Grand Imposture. SECT. VIII. The same matter prosecuted out of the Council of Basil. THere was (say you) (r) Pag 358. a Council gathered at Basil by the authority of Pope Martin the fifth. What? A general Council called by authority of the Pope? Then it appears, that the Pope is supreme Head, and governor of the universal Church: for as a King cannot by his authority call a Parliament of those, that are not his subjects; so neither could the Pope by his authority have called a general Council, had not his authority extended itself over the universal Church. So unadvisedly are you caught in your own snares. You add (s) Ibid. out of Binius, that this Council was after confirmed by Eugenius. How confirmed? Were the Acts, or decrees of that Council confirmed by Eugenius? So would you persuade your reader. But Binius speaketh not of the confirmation of any Act, or Decree of the Council, but only of ratifying the calling, and beginning of it, under the presidence of julianus Caesarinus his Legate, according to the Order of his predecessor: which is also observed, and proved by Canus (t) L. 5. de loc. cap. postrem. . It was therefore begun, and for a time continued by lawful authority, but afterwards became schismatical, and was justly condemned by the general Council of Lateran (u) Sub Leon. 10. sess. 11. as a Conventicle schismatical, sedition, and of no authority. 1. Because (as Turrecremata a learned writer of that time, advertiseth (x) Sum. de Eccl. l. 2. c. 10●. , contrary to the custom of all general Counsels, they refused to acknowledge the authority of those, whom the Pope had sent to preside in the Council. 2. For that they presumed to pronounce a sentence of deposition against Eugenius Pope, and that in a most temerarious manner, because there was then no Legate of his in the Council; all the chief Bishops being departed, & a certain Cardinal of Arles, by his own authority, had usurped the place of Precedent: and because there wanted voices of Bishops, to make up number, they took into the Council, a great multitude of Priests; so that now against all order and form of Counsels, it was not a Council of Bishops, but of Priests. 3. (as Turrecremata witnesseth (y) Ibid. , the decrees of that Council (even such as they were) were not unanimously agreed upon, both because many Prelates, and Doctors, as well of Canon, as of civil Law, made resistance unto them; and also because understanding, that Ambassadors sent by the Kings of England, and Castille, were on their way, and near at hand, they hastened fraudulently to define such things, as they knew those Legates would not assent unto. 4. Because (as S. Antoninus reporteth (z) Part. 3. tit. 22. c. 10. §. 4. , julianus the Cardinal, whom Eugnius had appointed Precedent, leaving that schismatical Conventicle, returned to the Pope, who by Apostolical authority dissolved their assembly. But they stopping their ears, began to summon Eugenius, being solicited thereunto, by the Duke of Milan, his professed enemy. On the other side, Sigismond the Emperor, and the Venetians dissuaded them from any further proceeding: Which notwithstanding, they pronounced sentence of deposition against Eugenius, and erected to themselves a new Idol Amadaeus' Duke of Savoy, calling him Felix the fifth, to whom obedience was yielded in his own territory. Thus S. Antoninus. Whereby it appears▪ that Felix, whom the Council created, being acknowledged no where but in his own Dukedom, the whole Church adhered still to Eugenius, believing, that the Council had no authority to depose him: Yea Felix himself (a) See Binius in Not. ad hoc Council. pag. 406. acknowledging the same, resigned his usurped title, by persuasion of the Emperor, and even by his own judgement, condemned all the Acts of that Council (by which he had been chosen) as of a schismatical Assembly. And hereby is discovered the falsehood, of what you allege (b) Pag. 359. out of a Synodical Epistle of that Council, demanding, whether the Pope will condemn for schismatics, all the Cardinals, Bishops, and the Emperor himself, with Kings & Princes, yea and the whole Church, which did approve that Council? This (I say) is a shameful untruth: for all the chief Prelates seeing that Council grew to open Schism, had forsaken it: there was remaining one only Cardinal (c) See Bin. to. 4. pag. 121. , and he an enemy to the Pope; the mayor part of them that remained, were not Bishops, but Priests, and they disagreeing among themselves, as appeareth out of another Synodical Epistle of theirs (d) Apud Been to. 4. pag. 146. ; in which also they confess the paucity of their number, partly excusing it by reasons, and partly laying the fault on Eugenius, that he had drawn away so many Prelates from them. How then is it true, that all the Cardinals, Bishops, the Emperor, with Kings and Princes, and the whole Church were present there, and approved this Council? How is it true, since it is certain that three years before the dissolution of this Conventicle, was assembled that famous general Council of Florence, in which this Basilean Synagogue was condemned, and the Union between the Greek and Latin Church established, Pope E●genius himself assisting in it, as Precedent, the Emperor of the Grecians being present in person, the Emperor of the Latins by his Legates, together with all the most famous Prelates of the Greek and Latin Church, above 1400. in number. This showeth which of these two assemblies was the lawful Council, which the schismatical: yea, and God himself interposing his verdict, declared the same: for those Schismakikes obstinately refusing to break up their assembly, so often annulled by the Pope, he according to his promise made to S. Peter (e) Math. 16.19. , and in him to his Successors, confirming the sentence of Eugenius from heaven, son● among them a most horrible plague, of which many of them dying, the rest were enforced to break up, and departed, as Aeneas Siluius recordeth (f) In histor. Conc. Basil. , who having been present at that Council, and seeing their ●emerations obstinacy against the Roman See, forsook it, and detesting it, writ earnestly against it. All this being true, as it is, with what fidelity do you say (g) Pag. 350. , that in this case, the Pope is the schismatic, and not the Council? But I wonder not that you take part with schismatics: Belike you are of opinion, that some obstinate Puritans in Parliament standing out against his Majesty, he and not they, are the rebels: for the case is alike, saving only that this is a temporal cause, and that a spiritual. But you demand (h) Pag. 360. with Nilus, and Erasmus, to what end general Counsels should be called, with so much cost, trouble, and labour, if the Pope have infallibility of judgement? I answer; to the same end, that S. Peter the first Pope of Rome, notwithstanding he had infallibility of judgement, called a Council at Antioch (i) Act. 15.6.7. . If you desire more reasons you have them in Bellarmine (k) L. 4. de Pont. c. 7. , who hath answered this Argument: but you were wise enough, to take no notice thereof. SECT. IX. Doctor Mortons' instances of France, and England, to prove the no-necessity of Union, with the Church of Rome. THere hath been published by some of your Novellists, a pamphlet, entitled, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum, & fugiendarum, stuffed with so many lies, that the Author was ashamed to have his name known. It is prohibited (l) Indic. libro. prohib. , and therefore what you report out of it, not to be regarded. But your addition (m) Pag. 361. , that the Council of Trent is not admitted within the Kingdom of France, and that therefore the French are yet at liberty to believe as much thereof as they list, is a famous untruth: for although that Kingdom have not admitted generally all the decrees made by that Council for the reformation of Ecclesiastical discipline; yet who knoweth not, that as the Catholics of the world have, so hath that most Christian kingdom with them admitted, and embraced all the decrees of faith, made in the Council of Trent, and that the most Christian King, with all his Catholic subjects, believeth them no less steadfastly, than the decrees of faith made in the four first general Counsels, which you admit. Not unlike to this, is your addition (n) Pag. 361. fin. 361. out of B. Gardiner's Oration of true obedience, that, in the time of King Henry the eight, all sorts of people (in England) were agreed upon this point, with most steadfast consent, learned, and unlearned, both men and women, that no manner of persons bred, or brought up in England, had aught to do with Rome: for albeit some persons infected with Lutheranisme, & some flatterers for their own ends, soothed King Henry in his opposition to the See of Rome; yet who knoweth not, that the face of the kingdom was then generally Catholic, as for the space of almost 1000 years before it had been? And who can be ignorant, that in defence of the authority of the See of Rome, B. Fisher, & Sir Thomas More, writ most learned books, which are yet, and will ever be most highly esteemed throughout the Christian world; and that what they writ with their pens, they sealed with their blood? And who knoweth not, that Cardinal Pole (a man of so great worth, that he wanted but two voices for the Popedom) not only writ most learnedly in the same kind, but suffered (and his friends for his sake) great vexations, and persecutions at the hands of King Henry for the same cause? And that many persons of worth suffered imprisonment, and death for the same cause? among which, were all the Monks of London, with their Prior? It is therefore a famous untruth to say, It was then the faith of the Church of England, that, no person bred, or brought up in England, had aught to do with Rome. Moreover you know this Oration of B. Gardiner to be prohibited by the Church (o) In indic. lib. prohib. , and that he ashamed of it, retracted it; which yet you are not ashamed to object. CHAP. XLIV. Whether Luther, and his followers, had any just cause, to separate themselves from the Roman Church. WE are come to the last Chapter of your Grand Imposture, in which to free yourself from the note of Schism & heresy, you brand the Roman Church with both, & labour to prove that Luther had just cause to separate himself from her Communion; and that you continuing in the same separation, are more justifiable than Luther was in his departure from her, and may more justly plead soul's salvation, than any of them that remain in Union with her. Your Chapter you divide into four parts, and these parts into Theses; which I shall examine the more briefly, because many of your proofs are repetitions of your former Arguments already answered. SECT. I. Whether any Protestants have held, that the Catholic Church before Luther's fall, was wholly extinguished. YOur first Thesis is (p) Pag. 364. : Many Papists in their adversnesse to Protestant, whom they seek to traduce, do impute unto them this faithless Paradox, as to say, that the Catholic Church is sometimes extinguished: A false doctrine (say you) which Protestant's never taught. If Protestants never taught this faithless doctrine, why did Luther when he began to erect your new Church, say (q) Praef. in 1. tom. & cont. Reg. Angl. fo. 497. , He had none to assist him, but was left alone, and alone stood in the battle forsaken of all? Why did Caluin say (s) Ep. 141. , It is absurd, that since we have been enforced to divide ourselves from all the world, we should now in our very beginnings disagree among our selves? Why did he say, (t) Respons. ad Sadolet. , It is public, and notorious to all, learned and unlearned, that when the Principality of the B. of Rome was erected, the kingdom of Christ was prostrated, his glory extinguished, Religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and hope of salvation utterly overthrown? Why did Milius say (x) August. Confess. explic. art. 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. , If there had been right believers before Luther, there had been no need of a Lutheran reformation? Why Morgensterne (y) Tract. de Eccles. p. 141. ; It is ridiculous (to think) that in the time before Luther, any had the purity of Doctrine, and that Luther should receive it from them, and not they from Luther: It being manifest to the whole Christian world, that before Luthert time, all Churches were overwhelmed with Cimmerian darkness, and that Luther was divinely raised up to discover the same, and to restore the light of true doctrine? And in regard thereof Luther boasted, saying (z) Ep. ad Argentin. anno 1525. : Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari. Why did Camierus say (a) Ep. jesuit. part. altera Geneu. 1601. , That error did not only possess a part of the Church, as in time of the Arians, but that the whole body of the Church by Apostasy was fallen from Christ? Why did Simon de Voyon a Genevian Minister in his Catalogue of Doctors (b) Praefat. ad Lect. say, That in the year 605. falsehood prevailed, and then was the whole world overwhelmed in the dregs of Antichristian filthiness, abominable traditions, and superstitions of the Pope? And of our English Protestants, why did jewel say (c) Apol. part. 4. c. 4. , The truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther, and Hulderick Zuinglius first came unto the knowledge, and preaching of the Gospel? Why Perkins (d) Expos. of the Creed. pag. 307. , That during the space of 900. years, the Popish heresy spread itself over the whole world, and for many hundred years an universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth? I conclude therefore, that when you deny, that the Church of Christ was extinguished before Luther's time, you outface, and contradict your best learned brethren, domestic, & foreign. Nor is it a sufficient answer, to tell us (e) Pag. 406. , of a sentence of Caluin, in which he acknowledgeth the Church not to be perished in Africa, Egypt, Asia, and among the Grecians: for you have heard the testimonies not of Caluin only, but of many others. If Caluin deny that, which together with them he affirmed, he contradicteth himself, And since both he, and you hold the Church to be invisible, I desire to know, how you came to find out, and see in Africa, and Greece, a Church that is invisible, and indeed that is not in being? for in those nations, there is no Church but of Roman Catholics, all the rest which in them bear the name of Christians, being absolute heretics (f) See above Chap. 41. sect. 4. . But you say (g) Pag. 369. , To charge Protestants with holding a decay, & error from faith in the whole Catholic Church, unto Bellarmine seemed in effect to be a lewd slander. You understand not Bellarmine, or else wittingly misinterpret his meaning. He rightly observeth (h) L. 3. de Eccles. milie. c. 11. that Protestants hold two Churches; the one visible, the other invisible: whereof you speaking, say (i) Pag 10. fin. 11. init. that by some you are slandered with making two Churches. But this to be no slander Bellarmine proveth out of the Centurists, whose doctrine it is. And the same I prove against you, out of other Protestants: We say (quoth Whitaker (k) Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 14. fol. 125. there are two societies of men in the world, that is, two Churches: To the one the predestinate belong, to the other, the Rebrobate. The one of these he affirmeth to be wholly invisible; the other, visible (l) Ibid. q. 2. c. 1. & q. 1. c. 3.7.8. & q. 4. c. 1.3. . The same is stiffly mantained by Fulke (m) In cap. 3. Math, sect. 3. & in c. 22. sect. 3. . When Caluin and other Protestants say, The Church cannot perish, they speak of the invisible Church, which Bellarmine and all Catholics hold to be a Platonical idea, and a mere Chimaera, no where existent but in your deluded fancies. The true Church of Christ all Catholics with the holy Council of Nice hold to be One: and that Bellarmine proveth to be visible. And you (saith he) hold that to have perished, and your invisible Church only to have remained, which in his doctrine, and in verity, is to say, that the true Church of Christ on earth wholly perished, nothing remaining, but a Chimaera of a supposed invisible Congregation, which hath no real existence, but only fantastic in your imaginations. And that you wrong Bellarmine, in producing him as a witness, that an absolute decay of the Catholic Church was never taught by Protestants, you may not deny: for afterwards (n) Pag. 406. you confess, and prove out of his words, that he (as also Bozius) parifieth you with the Donatists, which held the Catholic Church to have wholly perished throughout the world, and to have remained only in a few Professors of their Sect in a corner of Africa: which doctrine differeth not from yours, who hold the Catholike-Church to have been utterly destroyed for many years, and now to have no being, but where your Protestant professors are. Wherefore I ask you, as S. Augustin (o) L. 3. contra Parmen. c. 3. did the Donatists: How can you vaunt to have any Church; if the have ceased for so long time? And again (p) De bapt. l. 3. c. 2. : If the Church were perished so long time, from whence did Donatus (or Luther) appear? From what earth is he sprung up? From what sea is he come forth? From what heaven is he fallen? I conclude therefore, that we may justly exclaim against you, as S. Augustine did against the Donatists (q) In Psal. 101. : God's Church of all nations is no more, she is perished: so say they that are not in her. O impudent Voice! They say the whole Church is perished, and the relics remain only on Donatus (on Luther, or Caluin) his side. O proud, and impious tongue (r) Aug. de agone. Christ. c. 29. ! SECT. II. Whether the Catholic Church, assembled in a general Council, may err in the definitions of Faith. IN your second Thesis (s) Pag. 369. you define, The Church Catholic properly so called (as it is militant) to be multitude of all Christian believers, whensoever, and whersoever dispersed throughout the world. This, you say, cannot err. But your third Thesis is (t) Ibid. that the representative body of this Church, that is to say, all the Prelates of this Church assembled in a general Council may err in their decrees of faith. This thesis destroyeth the former: for if all the Prelates of the Church, which are the lights of the world (u) Math. 5.15. , and whom God (x) Ephes. 4.12.14. hath provided as Pastors and Doctors, unto the edifying of his Church, and given to us, that we be not like little ones wavering, & carried away with every blast of erroneus doctrine, may themselves be carried away, and seduced with false doctrine; they may also preach the same to the people▪ and lead them into error. What means then is left to preserve the whole Church from erring? But you say (y) Pag 366. : That general Counsels may err in their decrees of faith, some of your own Romish School have avouched. These some (if we believe you) are Cusanus, Occam, Turrecremata, Gerson, and Canus. But we cannot believe you: for those works of Cusanus, and Occam are forbidden (z) Ind lib. prohib. : and Cusanus hath retracted his. Turrecremata speaketh not of the Church representative, that is to say of Counsels, which consist only of the Pastors, and Prelates of the Church, but of the whole body of the Church, as it comprehendeth all the faithful, both Pastors and people, which (saith he) cannot err in faith, though some members thereof may. But withal he proveth against you (a) Sum. de Eccle. l. 4. c. 2. , that the verities of faith defined by the Church in general Counsels are to be held infallible, though not expressly contained in the Canon of holy Scripture: and that no definitions of Counsels can be of force, unless they be confirmed by the B. of Rome; & (b) Ibid. l. 3. c. 5.8 30. that all former Counsels have required their doctrines to be confirmed, and authorized by him. Why do you then produce him as a witness for the contrary? Gerson and Canus are both falsified by you: for Gerson in the place you cite, hath no such doctrine, but the contrary, which else where he expresseth (c) To. 1. in Consider. de pa●●. Consid. 1. saying: Constat quod in materijs fidei terminandis, error non cadit in Concilio generali etc. It is manifest, that in deciding controversies of faith a general Council cannot err: And the Doctors yield the reason; because of the special assistence of the holy Ghost and of Christ governing the Church, and not permitting it to err in those things, which it cannot attain by humane industry. Canus saith, that general Counsels lawfully gathered may err in faith, as the second of Ephesus did. This is his second conclusion; which you lay hold of, concealing that in his third conclusion, which he presently addeth, he saith, That a general Council confirmed by the Pope cannot err; and condemneth your doctrine as absolutely heretical. Is it not then extreme perfidiousness, to Father on him the contrary, and to make Catholic Doctors Patrons of your Errors? But to declare, what is necessary, that a general Council may not err, you add (d) Pag. ●66. fin. 367. : The difference between the Roman Church, and the Church of the Protestants, is no more, but this, that the Romanists say, that all general Counsels may err, except they be confirmed, and authorized by the Pope: but Protestants say, that all general Counsels may err, except they be directed by the spirit of God's word. This indeed you say, and yet leave the question unansweared: for we likewise say, that every Council, which is not directed by the spirit of God's word, may err. The question is, how it may be known, when a Council defineth according to God's word, and when not: for God's word may be misinterpreted: Whereof Tertullian speaking truly said (e) L. de praescrip. : An adulterate gloss doth as much outrage to the truth, as a false pen. And S. Hilary (f) L. 2 de Tri●. init. : There have been many, who have interpreted the heavenly words otherway●● then the truth did require, according to the sense of their own will, not for the establishing of truth: for heresy, is not in the writing, but in the understanding: the fault is not in the word, but in the sense. And doth not S. Hierome likewise say (g) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. , The Gospel is not in the words, but in the sense? And doth not S. Augustine cry out (i) In joan. tract. 13. , Heresies and perverse doctrine which entangle souls, & cast them headlong into hell have their birth nowhere, but from good Scriptures ill undeestood? And again (k) De Gen. ad lit. l. 7. c. 9 : Heretics were not heretics, but that misunderstanding the Scripture, they defend obstinately their own false opinions against the truth thereof. And in another place (l) Ep. 2●●. : All heretics which receive the Scriptures, think they follow them when they follow their own Errors. Of the same subject Lyrinensis discourseth largely and learnedly (m) Chap. 1●. 30.37. , showing that, the Devil alleged Scriptures against Christ, & that all Heretics allege them against the Church in defence of their errors: which made S. Hierome say (n) In Ep. ad Gal. c. 1. , that there is great danger in speaking in the Church, for fear lest by a wrong interpretation, the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man, or (which is worse) the Gospel of the Devil. And speaking of the Luciferians (o) Adverse. Lucifer. versus fin. who boasted of the Scriptures, as Protestants do: Let them not statter themselves to much, because they seem to have Scripture for what they affirm: for even the Devil hath alleged Scriptures, which consist not in reading, but in understanding. Wherefore it is not sufficient to allege Scriptures: We allege them, and you allege them: but we disagree concerning the true sense, and meaning of them: from whom shall we learn it? If Luther may, as your foreman, speak for you all, you, and none but you, and that by your private spirit, must deliver the true sense of them. We (saith Luther) (p) L. de ser●● arbit. receive nothing but the Scriptures, and them so also, that we ourselves only, have certain authority to expound them. As we understand them, so was the meaning of the Holy Ghost: what others bring, be they never so great, never so many, precedeth from the spirit of Satan, and from a mad and alimated mind. So Luther. And as he challenged to himself this privilege of delivering the true sense of Scripture, so his disciples have challenged the same to themselves. This spirit it is, which hath hatched so many viperous sects, no less disagreeing among themselves, than all of them straying from the truth. And yet you all boast of Scripture, and all proclaim, that you follow the word of God. And no marvel: for the Devil (saith Lyrinensis) (q) Cap. 37. 3●. knoweth right well, that when wicked errors are to be broached, the readiest way to deceive, is to allege stiffly the authority of divine Scripture. What then shall Catholic men, & Children of our Mother the Church do? Let them interpret the divine Canon according to the tradition of the universal Church. The truth of Scripture (saith S. Augustine (r) Cont. Crescon. l. 1. c. 33. is held by us, when we do that, which pleaseth the universal Church, whom the authority of the same Scriptures recommendeth. And again (s) Ibid. c. 31. : Whosoever feareth to be deceived through the obscurity of this question, let him consult with that Church, which the holy Scripture hath designed, without any ambiguity. This Church it is, of which God pronounced by the mouth of Isay (t) Isa. 54.17. , Thou shalt judge every tongue, that resisteth thee in judgement. Of this, Christ hath promised (u) Math. 16.18. , that the gates of hell (which are Errors) shall not prevail against her. Of this he hath said (x) Math. 18.17. that whosoever hears her not, is to be held as a Heathen, & a Publican. In this he hath placed (y) Ad Ephes. 4.11 17. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists. Pastors, and Doctors etc. that we may not be little Children, wavering, and carried away with every blast of doctrine. This Church, these Pastors, these Doctors, all Christians must hear, and embrace their exposition of Scripture, as the true meaning of the holy Ghost, Christ himself having said (z) Luc. 10.6. . that who heareth them, heareth him; and S. john (a) ●. joan. 4.6. by this mark distinguisheth Orthodox people from Heretics: that the Orthodox hear and obey the Pastors and Doctors of God's Church, which heretics refuse to do. We are (saith he) of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: He that is not of God, heareth us not. In this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of Error. And if at all times the Pastors of God's Church are to be heard, then surely most of all, when they are assembled in a general Council, Christ professing himself to be then in the midst of them (b) Math. 18.20. . By their authority the saith is maintained, and heresy condemned. When Firmilianus and Cyprian, with many other Bishops defended the Error of Rebaptisation by testimonies of Scripture (but, as Lyrinensis noteth (c) Cap. 10. , glossed after a new, and naughty fashion) by what authority was that error condemned, but by the custom and tradition of the Church, the prohibition of Pope Stephen chief cooperating thereto? for (as S. Augustine truly saith (d) L. 5. de Bapt. c. 23. the Apostles had delivered nothing in writing concerning that point. And when the Arians in the Council of Nice alleged, and misinterpreted Scriptures in proof of their heresy, by what means were they confuted and condemned, but by the tradition of the Church delivered by the Venerable Bishops assembled in that Council (e) Se● above Chap. 16. & chief by the authority of the B. of Rome, by whom that Council was called and confirmed (f) Ibid. , and without whose confirmation no Canon of any Council can be of force (g) S●e above Chap. 17. se●t. 6. ? And from hence it hath proceeded, that as all the general Counsels which the B. of Rome hath confirmed, are held by the whole Church to be of infallible authority, no one Father or Doctor ever doubting thereof; so contrarily the Council of Ariminum, the second of Ephesus, and all others, which he hath reproved, have been ever reputed spurious assemblies, and of no authority. And with great reason: for his authority in defining controversies of faith, Christ himself declared to be infallible (h) See above Chap. ●●. sect. 1. & 2. , when he prayed for him, that his faith might not fail, & commanded him to confirm his brethren: and likewise, when he promised that heresies, which are the gates of hell, shall not provaile against the Church built upon him. I conclude therefore that you mistake the state of the question. We agree with you, that a Council which is not directed by the spirit of God's word, may err: but the difference between us is, who is to be the judge, whether a Council proceed according to the direction of God's word, or no. Luther, and you his disciples casting of the yoke of obedience to your lawful Pastors, and refusing to hear them, will have no other judges, but yourselves; to the end, that if a general Council condemn your doctrine, as that of Trent hath done, you may reject it, upon pretence, that it hath not been directed by the spirit of God's word; which is an excuse common to all Heretics: for what heretic will not (and may not, with as fair colour as you) plead, that the Counsels which condemned him, were not directed by the shirit of God's word? Upon this pretence the Arians, that of Ephesus: the Eutychians, that of Chalcedon: the Monothelites, the sixth Council: the Image-breakers, the seaventh. Upon the same pretence you reject the Council of Trent, and make profession to reject all Counsels whatsoever, that shall not allow you to be the only judges of the sense of God's word, and grant unto every one of you, that infallible authority, to expound it, which you deny to a whole general Council. When Counsels have defined, (saith Luther (i) Art. 11●. then will we be judges, whether they be to be accepted, or not. And the same is the doctrine of Caluin (k) L. 4. instit. c. 9 tot. . We contrarily insisting in the steps of all Orthodox antiquity (whose testimonies are plentifully alleged by Coccius (l) To. 1. l. 7. art. 21. acknowledge, that the Pastors, which are the representative body of the Church, assembled together with the B. of Rome, as their Head, is an infallible judge of the true sense of God's word, and that what they define in matters of faith, is of vn●o●●●●●d authority, & to be reverenced as the gospels of Christ: for so antiquity reverenced the general Counsels which have been held before their time (m) See Coce. 〈…〉. : and so we reverence the rest, that have been held since their time, all of them being assembled, and confirmed by the same authority of the See Apostolic, and directed by the same Spirit of truth, that the first Counsels were. And who seethe not, that you denying this authority, take away all the use of Counsels in the Church, making controve; sies of saith indeterminable, and arguing Christ of lack of wisdom, and providence, in not leaving any certain means to end dissensions, and preserve Unity in his Church. SECT. III. Whecher Protestant's hold the Church of Christ to be invisible. YOur fourth Thesis is (n) Pag. 167.368.369.370. : Protestants hold not any greater invisibility, or rather obscurity of the Church Catholic, then that, which the Romanists are forced to confess. This Thesis is manifestly false: for you have heard your grand Master Caluin, & other your brethren (o) Here above sect. 1. confessing, that before Luther's time, the Church was wholly destroyed, even as man's life is, when his throat is cut: that it is ridiculous to think, there were any true believers when Luther began: that not a part, but the whole body of the Church was fallen away by Apostasy. And you cannot be ignorant that other Protestants have testified (p) Brereley Prot. Apol. tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 11. sub. dict. 3. that she was not only obscured as in the time of the Arians, but invisible, and could not be showed. jewel (q) Ibid. : that the truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of. Perkins (r) Ibid. : that a● universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that your Church was not then Visible to the world. Milius (s) Ibid. : that if there had been any right believers before Luther, there had been no need of a Lutheran reformation. Francus (t) Brerel. Ibid. tract. 2. c. 1. sect. 4. : that for 1400. years the Church of Christ was not where external, and visible. Napper (u) Ibid. : that for 1260. years, Gods true Church was most certainly latent, and invisible. These are the confessions of your brethren, convincing you to speak untruly, when you say, Protestants hold not any greater invisibility, or rather obscurity of the Church Catholic, then that, which the Romanists are forced to confess: for our Tenets, which we have learned from the holy Scripture, are; that the Church of Christ is a magnificent throne, as resplendent as the sun (x) Psal. 88.38. ; A lofty City placed upon a mountain (y) Math. 5.14. , which (saith S. Augustine) (z) Cont. Parm. l. 3. c. 5. cannot be hid, but shallbe known to all the coasts of the earth: To a mountain prepared in the top of mountains elevated above the little hills; unto which all nations shall flow (a) Isa. 2.2. ; to a Tabernacle seated in the sun (b) Psal. 28.6. ; of which S. Augustine speaking, saith (c) In ●um Psal. : He placed his tabernacle in the sun, that is to say, his Church, in manifestation, or open view, not in a corner, not such as is hidden, as if it were covered etc. In the sun he placed his tabernacle: what dost thou mean, O Heretic, to fly into darkness? To a light that is not hidden under a bushel, but set upon a candelstick: Which if Protestants see not. How (saith S. Augustine) (d) Tract. 2. in 1. Ep. joan. can I call them other then blind, that see not so great a mountain, and shut their eyes against the Lamp set upon the candelstick? But what marvel: for (saith he) (e) L. 2● co●●. Parm. c. 3. it is the condition of all heretics, not to see the thing which in the world is most clear, constituted in the light of all nations; out of the unity whereof, whatsoever they do, can no more warrant them from the wrath of God, than the spider's web from the extremity of cold. Finally we believe with S. Augustine (f) Cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 104. , that the Catholic Church hath this certain mark, that she cannot be hidden. This is the doctrine and belief of all Catholics: Do you herein accord with us? Do you hold the Catholic Church to be always visible, and always as conspicuous as a lamp● upon a Candelstick, as a city upon a mountain, as a tabernacle in the sun? Why then do you say, that she was so many years latent, and invisible, that she could not be shewad; that she was unknown, and unheard of; that she was not where external, and visible; that she was wholly destroyed? With what modesty then can you say, that Protestants hold not any greater invisibility, or rather obscurity of the Church Catholic, then that, which the Romanists are forced to confess? But in proof of this Thesis, and in opposition to the holy Scripture, and S. Augustine, you say to us (g) Pag. 367. fin. , you regard not, that the Church of Christ, as it is sometime in lustre glorious as the sun, so again, it is (according to the judgement of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose) sometimes as the moon, which hath her increases, and decreases. Yes, we regard it well: and you ought to have regarded, that although S. Augustine compare the Church to the moon, in this respect, that her external lustre is sometimes diminished by persecutions, and her glory obscured by the ill lives of some of her children, yet he frequently compareth her to the sun, and believeth with the Prophet (h) Isa. 60.29. , that her sun shall never set, and her moon shall not be diminished: and (i) Ep. 48. that, when by scandals her light is most obscured, etiam tunc in suis fortissimis eminent even than she is eminent in her most steedfast Champions, and in them remaineth resplendent, and glorious, displaying beams of light over the whole earth. So fare is S. Augustine from your absurd paradox of the invisibility & total decay of the Church. And in what sense S. Ambrose compareth her to the moon, he declareth, saying (k) L. 4. Hexam. c. 2. : The Church hath her times of persecution, and of peace: she seemeth to decay, as the moon, but decayeth not. She may be shadowed, she cannot perish: because she is diminished by the fall of some in persecutions, to the end she may be filled with the confessions of Martyrs, and that being illustrated with trophies of the blood shed for Christ, she may diffuse greater light of her devotion, and faith throughout the whole world. If Costerus, Castro, Lindanus, and Stapleton affirm, that the Arian heresy in a short time infected almost all the Churches of the world; so have Lutheranism, Caluinianisme, Zuing lianisme, with other new Sects sprung from them in these later times, infected many provinces of Europe. But therefore is the Catholic Church in those Provinces invisible? How then do you see Catholics to persecute them, to imprison them? And even so, & much more, when the Arian heresy was in the greatest ruff, the Catholic Church was every where still eminently visible, as that very passage of Liberius proveth, which here you produce for the contrary: for Constantius the Arian Emperor having by threats drawn many Bishops, especially of the East, to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius, and (as Theodoret out of his Apology reporteth) (l) L. 2. histor. c. 15. the rest that refused to subscribe, either concealing themselves for fear, or being sent into banishment, he called Liberius unto him, and urged him not to communicate with Athanasius, saying, he was condemned by the whole world, and defended by none, but by him. Liberius answered (m) Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 16. : Esto, quod solus sim etc. Be it, that I am alone; the cause of the faith is not therefore the worse: for there was a time, when there were but three Children to resist the King's commandment. These three Children were brought by Nabuchodosor out of jury, into Babylon. As then there were none in Babylon, to defend God's cause, but only those three; so (saith Liberius, and out of him Salmeron here objected by you) be it, that I am now left here alone, to descend the cause of Athanasius, the cause of the faith is not therefore the worse. This you bring to prove, that the Church was then, or may sometimes be brought to so low an ebb, that there be but three, yea only one Orthodox man remaining. But it is an ignorant mistake: for albeit there were then in Babylon three only Children to resist Nabuchodonosor, yet in jury there was remaining a numerous Church of Orthodox people. And so likewise, though there was then no other Bishop present, to withstand Constantius, yet there were in the Church of God at that time, many Catholic Bishops, renowned for their learning, and constancy, and divers of them then actually in banishment, whose restitution to their Churches Liberius in that very Dialogue often demanded of Constantius. And who knoweth not that beside many Catholic Bishops reckoned by S. Athanasius (n) Apud Theod. l. 2. hist. c. 14.15.16. there lived at the same time other most eminent Prelates, and Doctors, as Saint Hilary, Pacianus, Didymus, Titus Bostrensis, S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, Optatus, Eusebius Vercellensis, S. Ephrem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Epiphanius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Ambrose, and many others? And as there were many Catholic Pastors, so were there Catholic people governed by them. Yea who knoweth not that both the Roman, and all the Western Church at that time was full of Orthodox Pastors & people; in so much that after the Roman Matrons by advice of their Husbands (o) Theod. ibid. c. 17. , had presented themselves before Constantius, and obtained Liberius his return from exile, the Bishops of the East sent Legates unto him, and to all the Bishops of Italy, and of the whole Western Church, humbly craving to be admitted into their communion; and to declare themselves free from suspicion of heresy, with which they had been charged, protested, that they did not believe otherwise, than the Fathers of the Nicen Council did; and that they had held formerly, did still hold, and would ever hold till their last breath, the same faith with them. Whereupon Liberius willingly admitted them into the communion of the Western Church, and addressed a letter to fifty nine of them by name and to all the rest in general, expressing the great joy he conceived, to understand, that they had always agreed in faith with him, and with the rest of the Bishops of Italy, and of all the other Western countries: for so are his words. This is the story truly set down. What relief do you find here for your invisible Church, since in the very height of the Arian heresy (which is the greatest wain you can finde in the Catholic Church) she abounded, and shined like a sun most gloriously, with orthodox Pastors and people, both in the East and West? Show us such a Protestant Church before Luther, or else confess the truth, that you had no Church before Luther. But you tell us (p) Pag 369. , with how great a cloud of obscurity the Church shallbe covered in the time of Antichrist, & prove it out of the Rhemists, who make wholly against you: for albeit they grant, that then there shallbe no public seat of government in the Church, nor public exercise of Ecclesiastical functions, nor public intercourse with the See of Rome, (as there is not this day in Cyprus, nor in England) yet there shall not want Orthodox Pastors, and people, remaining in due obedience to the Roman Church, and communicating with her, not only in hart, but practising the same in secret, and making public profession thereof of, if occasion require it. This is the doctrine of the Rhemists, and of all Catholic writers. Wherefore, as Catholics are not in England at this day invisible, nor yet so obscure but that their constaney is known and renowned throughout the Christian world; so likewise shall the faithful be in the days of Antichrist. Nor do Costerus, Ribera, Pererius, Acosta, Viegas, or any of the Fathers which you object (q) Pag. 370. , teach aught to the contrary. The testimony of S. Hilary which you object (r) Pag. 3●8. S. Augustine hath answered long since (s) Ep. 48. : for it was objected to him, by Vincentius the Rogatist, of whose spirit and belief you show yourself to be, urging against us the same testimony he urged against S. Augustine, who not only in that place (as you have heard) teacheth that, if the Church be sometimes obscured, and as it were shadowed with clouds, by the multitude of scandals, that is, persecutions, when sinners bend their bow to wound her in the obscurity of the Moon; yet even then, she is eminent in her most constant professors, but also in his books Of the City of God (t) L. 20. c. 8. , speaking professedly of the state of the Church in the days of Antichrist, he saith, she shall not be so obscured, that either Antichrist shall not find her, or when he hath found her, be able with his persecutions to overthrew her; but that even then faithful Parents shall with great devotion procure baptism for their children; & that, as many shall fall from the Church, so others shall stand constant, and others shall enter a new which before were out of her, and in particular the jews, who towards the end of the world shallbe converted to Christ (u) S. Aug. ibid. c. 29. . And the same is testified by S. Gregory (x) Hom. 12. in Ezechiel. , whom you mis-cite (y) Pag. 370. : for the words you object out of his Morals on job, are not there to be found. SECT. IU. What causes may suffice to departed from the Communion of a particular Church. YOur fifth Thesis is (z) Pag. 370. : All particular Churches are not to be forsaken for every unsoundness in either manners, worship, or doctrine. In the first part of this Thesis, we agree with you, but you agree not with yourself: for before you told us (a) Pag. 11.12. , that the Catholic Church is in every part perfect, and consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God. But here you say (b) Pag 371. , that there is scarce to be found any one example of any particular Church consisting only of sanctified professors. It scarce any particular Church can be found consisting only of sanctified professors, how is it true, that the universal Church consisteth only of the sanctified elect of God? for the universal Church consisteth of all the particular Churches in the world. Again here you inveigh against the Separatists, for dividing themselves from you, for only scandal taken at the wicked lives of your professors. May not we then justly except against you, for objecting so often the vices of some few Popes, to make your departure from the Roman Church more justifiable? The second part of your Thesis is false: for no worship, no rite, or ceremony which the Roman Church alloweth, or permitteth to particular Churches, in the administration of the Sacraments, or in any part of their service, is unsound. And therefore as such difference is not a sufficient cause for one particular Church to separate itself from others; so on the contrary, if a particular Church use any Ecclesiastical observation, or ceremony disallowed and condemned by the Church of Rome, the Mother of all Churches, that worship is unsound, and such a Church is schismatical, and to be forsaken: and if it persist obstinately in that schism, becometh heretical. So many of the Asian Churches persisting obstinately in the celebration of Easter according to the jewish custom, after the prohibition of Pius the first Pope of that name, were justly condemned, and cut of from the universal Church by Victor a boly Pope, and Martyr: and his sentence was confirmed by the Council of Nice, & many others; in so much, that the observers of that custom have ever since been judged heretics, and registered as such under the name of Quartadecimani by all Ecclesiastical writers, that have made Catalogues of heresies. The third part of your Thesis, that all particular Churches may err in some points, as the Corinthians did in denying the Resurrection, and the Galatians in teaching a necessary observation of the Law of Moses together with the Gospel of Christ: and yet S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 1.2. Galat. 1.2. calleth them both Churches, and Churches of God, because they were ready to be reform, and being admonished of their error, to abandon it, and obey the truth. But not to be willing to learn, and not to yield to truth sufficiently proposed, is proper to the Synagogues of Satan, and the Churches of the malignant. All this you allow as true doctrine taken out of Bellarmine. What then may we think of your Protestant Congregation? For many of your Tenets have been condemned in ancient Heretics, and held ever since for heresies (d) See above Chap. 42. sect. 2. And yet that you are not ready to be reform, but are most obstinate in your defence of them (which is the essential character of heresy) is most easily proved: for it we speak of Luther, he acknowledged his new Tenets to be contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, and Doctors of God's Church: For (saith he (e) Colloq. mensal. Cap. de Patr. Eceles. In the works of Hierome, there is not a word of true faith in Christ, and sound religion: Tertullian is very superstitious: I have held Origen long since accursed: Of chrysostom I make no account: Basil is of no worth, he is wholly a Monk, I weigh him not a hair: Cyprian is a weak Divine. Again he preferreth his own collected sense of Scripture before the expositions of all the Fathers, saying (g) Tom 2. Witemb. l. count. Reg. Aug. fol. 34. ● b. : The divine Majesty makes for me, so, as I care not, if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand King Henry Churches stand against me; & concludeth saying (h) Tom. 2. Witemb. printed 1554. fol. 290. b. : Be it that the Church, Augustine, and other Doctors, also Peter, Apollo, yea an Angel from heaven teach otherwise; yet my Doctrine is such, as setteth forth God's only glory etc. Peter the chief of the Apostles did live, and teach extra verbum Dei, besides the word of God. And speaking of all the ancient Fathers in general, and preferring his own judgement & doctrine before theirs, he saith (i) Tom. ●. Witemb. 〈◊〉 not 1551. l. de seruo arb. sol. 434. : The Fathers of so many ages have been plainly blind▪ and most ignorant in the Scriptures: they erred all their life time, and unless they repent before their death, they neither were Saints, nor appertained to the Church. And if we come to the Counsels, he regarded them as little as he did the Fathers; and was resolved with a most perverse and obstinate mind to deny, and contradict whatsoever a Council should determine though never so true; and to maintain stiffly the contrary, though never so impious, and damnable: for speaking of communion in both kinds, he saith (k) De formula Missae & Hospin. hist. Sacramen. part. 2. fol. 13. a. : If a Council should in any case decree this, than least of all, would we use both kinds: yea rather in despite of the Council, and that decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, but in no case both. In like manner he teacheth (l) Tom. 2. German. fol. 214. , that if a Council should grant Churchmen liberty to marry, he would think that man more in God's grace, who during his life, should keep three whores, than he, that should marry according to the Counsels decree: and that he would command under pain of damnation, that no man should marry by permission of such a Council, but should either live chaste, or if that were not possible, than not to despair, though he kept a whore. And speaking of the elevation of the Sacrament (m) In parua Confession. : I did know the elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall, as making for sacrifice: yet nevertheless, I did retain it in the Church at Witemberg, to despite the Devil Carolstadius. Finally, notwithstanding he himself acknowledged, and many of your Protestant brethren confess (n) See the next Section. , that he learned the chief points of his doctrine from the Devil, he was not ashamed to say (o) Apud Zuing l. to. 2. ad Luth. confess. fol. 478 a. , If I be deceived, God hath deceived me etc. I am certain (p) Luth. to. 2. Witemb. fol. 333. a. , that I have my opinions from Heaven etc. They shall continue. I would have you know (q) Adverse. falso nominat. Eccles. stat. , that hereafter I will not vouchsafe you so much honour, as to suffer either you, or the Angels of heaven, to judge of my doctrine etc. For seeing I am certain of it, I will in respect of it, judge both of you, and of Angels. And yet for all this vaunting that he had no persuasion of the truth of his doctrine, is a thing manifest; both for that he had great remorse of Conscience (r) To. 2. Ger. jen. fol. 9 b. to. 2. Witemb. anno 1562. l. de abrog. Missa priu. fol. 24.4. b. & tom. 5. Annot. breviss. , his hart beating within him, and reprehending him, that he being a sole man, and of no account, should alone oppose himself against the Church, the Fathers, the Counsels, the customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men, censuring them all to have lived in ignorance, and error, and himself only to be wise; as also because he offered to submit to the Pope (s) To. 1. Witemb. fol. 215. b. M. Cooper Chron. printed 1565. fol. 278. a. , and to suppress his new doctrine, so that he might not be compelled to recant. Whereby it is manifest, that he was resolved to go against his own knowledge, and conscience, either in preaching his new doctrine, knowing it to be false, or else in offering to suppress it, knowing it to be true. If leaving Luther, we come to Caluin, whereas the holy Scriptures instruct us in our belief of the Divinity of Christ, and of the truth of that most sublime and incomprehensible mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the holy Fathers out of them prove the same; Caluin accuseth them of misinterpreting the Scriptures, and by his blasphemous doctrine, destroyeth those divine mysteries, the first Principles and ground of Christian religion. The particulars are set down at large, and very punctually by M. Brereley (t) Caluins' life sect. 3. pag. 136. & seqq. out of Caluins own works, and confirmed by the testimonies of other Protestants. And the thing is so certain, that (as jacobus Andreas, Schlusselburg, Hunnius, and Pelargus testify (u) Ibid. the troops of Arians now raging in Transiluania, Poland, and Hungary, are but Colonies sent from Geneva; all the chiefest of them having been at first Caluinists, and so continue to this day, in other points of their doctrine (x) Gratianus Prosper Instrum. doctri. printed Loschi 1586. , reputing themselves to be the most pure reformed Caluinists, by reason of their denial of the Blessed Trinity, which they reject (y) Osiand. Cent. 16. l. 2. c. 22. pag. 209. fin. , as being the threeheaded Cerberus, the device of Antichrist, and the chief part of Popish Antichristian corruption. From this known foundation of the Arians Doctrine, Adam Neuserus a Caluinist, and chief Pastor at Heydelberg (who revolted from thence to Arianisme) writ from Constantinople to Gerlachius a Protestant preacher, saying (z) Osiand. ibid. pag. 208. : I know none in our time, to have been made an Arian, that was not first a Caluinist, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Paulus Alciatus, Franciscus David, Gentilis, Gribaldus, Silvanus, and others, all of them Caluinists revolted to Arianisme. Wherefore (saith Neuserus) whosoever feareth to fall into Arianisme, let him take heed of Caluinisme. And as Caluin opposed the holy Scripture, and all Christian Antiquity in their belief of the Divinity of Christ, and the blessed Trinity; so did he in the rest of his doctrines to the number of 23. confessing point by point, that the contrary was held by the primitive Church, and Fathers thereof, whom he nameth, noteth of error, and rejecteth in a scornful and contemptible manner, as you may read in his life (a) Sect. 5. a. pag. 146. ad 265. , in which the particulars are faithfully expressed in his own words. And jacobus Gaulterius (b) Tab. Chronog. saecul. 16. a pag. 757. ad 795. hath related more of his errors, to the number of 100 showing, that in many of them, he jumpeth with ancient condemned heretics. These two are the Maister-builders of your Protestant Church, whom you (to honour them) call (c) In your late Serm. at Durham pag. 38. Stellae primae magnitudinis, & Protestants generally have in great esteem, as men raised by God's extraordinary providence to enlighten the world. Their doctrines you follow, and with them reject the ancient Fathers as Papists: for that you acknowledge the Fathers to be against you, in the chief heads of Doctrine wherein you differ from us, is exactly proved by your own confessions expressed in your own words (d) Brereley Prot. Apol. ferè per tot. . I appeal then to any impartial judge, whether you be not justly accused of error, and of obstinacy in the mantainance thereof: for to confess, that you hold against the primitive Fathers, and Church, and yet not to reform yourselves, after so many admonitions given you by the Church, which hath condemned your errors, and learnedly confuted them by her Doctors; what is it, but to confess, that you err and are obstinate in error? especially since many of your Tenets are precisely the same which primitive heretics have held (e) See above Chap. 42. sect. 2. , and in them have been confuted by the primitive Fathers, and anathematised by the primitive Church. If therefore (as you profess) not to be willing to learn, and not to yield to truth sufficiently proposed, be proper to the Synagogues of Satan, and the Churches of the malignant, I leave it to your judgement, whether your Churches may not be justly reckoned in that number. SECT. V Of Luther's Excommunication, and of his Conference with the Devil. YOur seaventh Thesis is (f) Pag. 373. : No unjust excommunication out of a true Church can prejudice the salvation of the excommunicate. So fare we accord with you, and allow what you bring out of Tolet (g) joan. 9.34. , that the blind man, whom the jews cast out of their Synagogue, was happy therein: but whereas you add, that Luther whilst he continued in our Church, was as one borne blind, and when Christ opened his eyes was excommunicate by our high Priest, for acknowledging the divine light, you are to remember S. Augustine's words, (h) Tract. 45. in joan. that, There are many who boast, not only that they see, but will seem to be enlightened by Christ; and those are heretics. Luther speaking of his own life and manners before his revolt from the Catholic Church said of himself (i) To. 2. Witemb. fo. 233. a. , that during that time he was, iwenis & monachus, pietatis studiosus, a young man, a Monk studious of godliness, and lived in his Monastery (k) Voyon Catal. of Doct. printed in English 1598. pa. 180. Luth. upon the Galat. Englished. in c. 1. vers. 14. fo. 350. , punishing his body with watching, fasting, and prayer: that he honoured the Pope (l) Luther ibid. of mere conscience, kept chastity, poverty, & obedience; and whatsoever I did, (saith he) I did it with a sincere hart, of good zeal, and for the glory of God, fearing grievously the last day, and desirous to be saved, from the bottom of my hart. In so much, that Erasmus (m) Ep ad Thom. Card. Ebor. reporteth of him, that for some small time after his revolt, there remained yet in him some relics▪ or sparks of former sanctimony. But afterwards, he was much altered, and so fare transported from the observance of Chastity, that now he professeth to the contrary (n) In Proverb. 31. vers. 1. : Nothing is more sweet, or pleasing upon earth, than the love of a woman if a man can obtain it. And again (o) Tom 7. Wittem. Ep. ed Wolfing. fol 505. a. : He that resolveth to be without a woman, let him lay a side the name of a man making himself a plain Angel, or spirit. And yet more (p) Brer. Luth. life Chap. 3. sect. 6. pag. 71. h. Luth. Colloq. German, cap. de matrim. : As it is not in my power, to be no man, so it is not in my power, it be without a woman etc. It is more necessary, then to eat, drink, purge, make clean the nose etc. In so much that he acknowledgeth (q) Colloq. mensal. fol. 526. a. & 400. a. himself to have been almost mad through the rage of lust, and desire of women; exclaiming out yet further (r) To. 1. Ep. Latin. fol. 334. ad Philip. , and saying: I am burned which the great flame of my untamed flesh etc. Eight days are now past, in which I neither writ, pray, or study, being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh, partly with other trouble. But (saith he (s) Ibid. fol. 345. it sufficeth, that we have known the riches of the glory of God: from him sin cannot draw us, although we should commit fornication, or kill a thousand times in one day. And finally, not long after, with breach of his vow, he married Katherine Bore, a runagate Nun (t) Melancth. Ep. ad joac. Camer. de Luth. coning. inter Theol. Consil. Melancth. part. 1. pag. 37. : for which by the most ancient Imperial Laws, made soon after Constantine the Great (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. fin. & lex extat Cod. l. de Epise. & Cler. , he should have lost his head. These were his beginnings: and by degrees he grew to be so wicked, that Caluin was enforced to confess, Magnis vitijs laborat, that Luther was subject to great vices. And in the end, he grew to be so dissolute, that he was censured by his own followers; who, when they would give themselves to dissolution, were wont to say (x) Morgenstern. tract. de Eccles. printed 1598. pag. 221. , Hodie Lutheranice vivemus: This day we will live Luther-like. Which corruption springing from Luther, as from the root, grew and spread itself so fare, among his followers, that as he himself confesseth (y) Postil. in Euang. Dominic. 1. Aduentus. , they grew daily worse, being more revengeful, covetous, licentious, than they were before in the Papacy. And what testimony hereof other Protestants give, you have partly heard already (z) See above Chap. 42. sect. 3. : and who pleaseth to read more of the same kind, let him peruse a late book entitled, The trial of the Protestant private spirit, where (a) Chap. 9 sect. 8. subdiu. 4. pag. 333. & seqq. he shall find the ingenuous confessions both of English, and foreign Protestants to the same effect. By this it appeareth, that if Luther were blind whilst he was with us, and his eyes opened when he went from us; it was not Christ that opened them, but his familiar friend the Devil, who (witness joannes Manlius, Luther's own scholar, and Physician) (b) Loc commun printed at Basil 1562. Luth. tom 1. Germ. ad Senat. Ciu. haunted him from his youth, and appeared often to him in the night, in form of flying firebrands. And Luther himself speaking of these his visions, and familiar conversation with the Devil saith (c) Colloq. Germ fol. 283. & Calu. ad. mon. vlt. ad West ●ha cit. à Schlussel. l. 2. Theol. Calui. art. 1. : I have a Devil, or two, that wait upon me diligently, & they are not petty Devils, but great ones, yea and Doctors of Divinity among the rest of the Devils. And again (d) Tom. 2. Germ. jen. fol. 77. : Believe me, I know the Devil very well; for now and then, he walks with me in my Chamber: When I am with company be troubles me not: but when he takes me alone, than he teaches me manners. And showing that he was so familiar with him that they did eat together, at the same table (e) In●●●oncio. Dom. Reminiscere fol. 19 apud Cochlaeum. : I am (saith he) throughly acquainted with the Devil; for I have eaten a bushel of salt in his company. Yea he acknowledgeth that he was his bedfellow, and lay with him oftener, and closer to his side, than his Kate the Nun did (f) Colloq. German. fol. 275.281. . And yet more, that the Devil did sometimes dance to & fro in his brains, in such sort, that he could neither write, nor read (g) In lit. ad Elect. Saxoniae. . But that which most of all showeth, who it was that opened his eyes, is the long Conference, or Disputation, which the Devil had with him (h) Luth. to. 6. Ger. jen. l. de Missa ang. fol. 28. & tom. 7. Witerub. anno 2558 l. de Missa ang. & unct. Sacerd. fol. 2●8. , and therein persuaded, and overcame him with his Arguments, to abandon the Mass, invocation of Saints, and some other points of the Catholic faith: which conference is set down at large by Luther himself (b), and acknowledged by many of your best learned, Protestants. For first Caluin cited by Conradus Schlusselberg (i) L 2. Theol. Caluin. art 1. saith: Luther's doctrine concerning the supper, is an opinion suggested by the Devil. Secondly Hospinian (k) Hist. Sacr. par. 2. fol. 131. reciteth our of Luther's works a part of his conference with the Devil, saying: Luther tells many things of this disputation; the sum of which is, that he was taught by the Devil, that Mass was naught, and that being convinced with the Devil's Arguments, he abolished it. And in his first Alphabetical table, prefixed before his book, among other Colloquies, or Conferences, be setteth down this of Luther under the title of, Colloquium Lutheri cum Diabolo, in quo instruitu, de erroribus Missa: The conference of Luther with the Devil, in which he is instructed concerning the errors of the Mass. Thirdly David Paraeus said (l) In praelect. Catechist. l. 5. c. 17. pag. 257. : Luther affirmeth, that he learned from the black spirit the Devil, his reasons to condemn the Mass, Ergo (saith Paraeus) he was the Devil's disciple. 4. Erasmus a man of esteem among Protestants. saith (m) Cont. Ep. Luther. non sob. , that Luther bringeth in the disputation of the Devil in his book, De Missa angulari: affirming moreover from Luther's words, that the Devil did impugn Luther's mind about the Mass. 5. The Caluinian Divines of Zuricke, in their (n) Pag. 25.26.127. Confession, term Luther; The minister of Satan, and say, that he writ his books impulsu spiritus Satanae etc. by the suggestion of Satan, with whom he disputed, and (as it seems) was therein overcome by Satan. I know that you outfacing all these witnesses, and denying the truth of their report, say (o) Apol. Cath. part. 2. c. ●1. and in your direct Answer to Theophilus higgon's pag. 5. : Since that time (to wit of Luther) have risen up spirits of a lying malignancy, that have blurred and bespotted his life with all the reproachful notes of monstrous infamy; as if he had familiarity with the Devil, and was a wine-bibber. But whether you be not guilty of that lying malignancy, which you impute to us. I leave to the censure of any impartial judge, being that Luther in so many places of his works giveth evidence against himself of his great familiarity with the Devil, & setteth down at large the whole Conference he had with him, concerning the Mass; and that so many of your best learned Protestants, who living nearer Luther's time, & that had better means to know the truth than you, are herein witnesses against you. Why do you conceal all these particulars? Why do you not deal ingenuously, giving your Reader notice of them? Nay, why do you profess (o), that you had seriously inquired into Luther's confession hereof, with a purpose, that if any such thing should sensibly appear, then utterly to abhor Luther's name, & suspect all his doctrine? We find, and it is manifest, that your meaning agreeth not with your words: for undertaking to answer for Luther, you answer not, but confess the thing, and instead of answering, object another story, which Delrius reporteth of the Devil appearing to an Abbot, in form of an Angel, and persuading him to say Mass. If this were true, it could be no relief to Luther's cause. But to make it true, you falsify Delrius: for he saith not, that the Devil persuaded an Abbot to say Mass, but that he persuaded a Monk, that was not a Priest to say Mass: which as it was a persuasion fit to proceed from the Devil, so is it a very fit example to justify Luther's instruction and doctrine received from the Devil. It is therefore most certain, that the Devil appeared to Luther, and disputed with him, and that Luther being overcome with his arguments, abandoned the Mass. And his Disciples of Wittemberge, moved by his example, did the like: and, as he did, so also did they set forth a book of their reasons, which (as Brereley hath noted) (p) Luther's life Chap. 1. sect. 2. pag. 20▪ are the very same the Devil proposed to Luther, and which Protestants at this day allege against the Mass. Finally other Protestants are not wanting to testify, who it was, that opened Luther's eyes. Your Tigurine Divines (q) Tract. 3. cont. suprem. Luth. confess. protest, that he was full of Devils, and of such speeches, as are hardly thought to pass from the furious Devil himself. No marvel then if Oecolampadius in his answer to Luther's Confession of faith, pass this verdict on him: He began his former book with the Devil, & now he endeth this with the Devil. No wonder, if Conradus Regius (r) Lib. count. joan. Hess. de coena Dom. testify of him that, God for his great pride did take from him the spirit of truth, as he did from the Prophets mentioned in the third book of Kings, Chap. 22. and in place of that his spirit, gave him an angry, proud, and liing spirit. And (to omit other testimonies) joannes Campanus a famous Zuinglian (s) In Colloq. Lat. Luth. to. 2. fol. 351. passeth this censure on him: Quam certum est Deumesse Deum, tam certus & Diabolicus mendax est Lutherus: As certain as it is, that God is God, so certain it is, that Luther is a liar and belongs to the Devil. And therefore in the end he took him, as one that belonged to him: for having one evening eaten, & drunken very liberally, he was the next morning found dead, in a most horrible manner (t) Cochl. in vita Luth. & alij passim. , so ugly and deformed, that it was not hard to guess at the author of his death; which was such as he himself expected when he said (u) Ep. ad Spalat. to. 2. Epist. Latin. not long before: I daily wait for death, and for the deserved punishment of an heretic. I conclude therefore with Origen (x) Hom. 3. in Exod. ante med. : Orandum nobis est etc. We are to pray, that our Lord vouchsafe to open our mouth, that we may be able to convince them that contradict, and stop that mouth which the Devil opened. SECT. VI Whether the Roman Church, be as subject to errors, as any other Church. YOur Thesis is affirmative (y) Pag. 374. : your Proofs, repetitions of arguments already answered. One only you add here, & repeat afterwards again (z) Pag. 397. & 400. , which is, The Church of Rome hath erred in matter of faith, Ergo she may possibly err. I deny your Antecedent. You prove it: The administration of the Eucharist unto infants upon necessity of salvation, was taught, & continued in the Church of Rome, for the space of 600. years together: but you confess, there is now no such necessity, Ergo, in those former times the Church of Rome erred. It is a known principle in Schools, that he argueth absurdly, who proposeth an argument, that makes as much against himself, as 〈◊〉 his adversary, & to which therefore himself in 〈…〉 is bound to answer▪ Such i● this of yo●●● 〈…〉 of Rome erreth not now in 〈…〉 the Eucharist to 〈…〉 ●●testants herein 〈…〉 no such necess●●● profess, tha● 〈…〉 error in faith fo● 〈…〉 (a) Pag. 276. 178. hold now the 〈…〉leeued the doctri●● 〈…〉 charist to infants upon 〈…〉 ding to your principles) ●●red 〈…〉 you can make, I know not. Sure 〈…〉 denying, that the real administration 〈…〉 infant's, is necessary for their salvation, can g●●● 〈…〉 solution to this difficulty; which yet in the princ●●●● 〈◊〉 Catholic doctrine is easily answered. We have learned two sacred principles from the mouth our Saviour: The former is (b) joan. 3.5. : If one be not borne again water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Go●● If therefore we will enter into the kingdom of God, we mu●● receive the Sacrament of baptism really, or at least i● 〈◊〉 Whosoever is grown to perfect age, when he ca● 〈…〉 ceave it really, it is sufficient for salvation, to 〈…〉 intentionally in desire, by faith, and other good Act●, of which infants are not capable; and therefore the re●●●●eceauing of the Sacrament of baptism is necessary for them to salvation. If thou wilt be a Christian Catholic (saith S. Augustin) (c) De anima & eius orgi. l. 3. c. 9 neither believe, nor say, not teach, that infants dying without baptism can be saved. And the contrary doctrine he reporteth (d) L. de haeres. ad Quodvuls. haer. 88 as an Article of the Pelagian heresy. The other principle is (e) joan. 6.34. : Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. It is therefore necessary to salvation for all, as well infants, as others, to receive the holy Eucharist either really, or at least in vow. And this vow may either be explicit, that is a desire of receiving it, when it cannot really be had; or else 〈◊〉 as in the Sacrament of baptism: for that in bap●● 〈…〉 vow of the holy Eu●● 〈…〉 the first (f) Rescrip. ad Concil. Milevit. Ep. 25. , S. Augu●● 〈…〉 ●●omas of Aquine, as 〈…〉 proved by the great 〈…〉 ●●e two most Eminent 〈…〉 ●●n (i) Repliq. l. 2. troiseme Obseru. Chap. 11. . (g) To. 3. in 3. part. disp. 40. sect. 2. §. Hinc 4. The words of 〈…〉 ●●s purpose: It is in no 〈…〉 him (l) Tom. 6. in c. 10.1. ad Corinth. Ven. (h) Tom. 3. Contr. l. 1. de Euchar c 7. Bade) 〈…〉 partakerof the body & 〈…〉 ●●er of Christ in baptism; 〈…〉 of that bread, & of that 〈…〉 ●●d, and drink of that cup, 〈…〉 ●●d in the unity of the body 〈…〉 pupation and benefit of that 〈…〉 which the Sacrament sig●● 〈…〉 ●●ius, and S. Augustine 〈…〉 ●●essity of baptising in●● 〈…〉 for them, to receive 〈…〉 ●●ceaued before the be 〈…〉 ●●aptisme, which is the 〈◊〉 all the ●●●●●aments, ●●righ●●y followeth against the ●●lagians, tha● Baptism is absolutely necessary for infants, to the end th●t thereby they may receive the Eucharist at least in vow, without which they cannot be saved. In this sense, and in no other, these Fathers, and the Church of Rome with them, have taught a necessity of administing the Eucharist to infants, to wit, so fare forth, as it is contained implicitly, and virtually in Vow, in the Sacrament of baptismer: for that a real administration of the Eucharist unto them was necessary for salvation she never taught; which you, and other Protestants not understanding, impute the contrary doctrine to her, assuming it as an argument, that she hath erred in varying from that doctrine which once she taught. To this Thesis you add an other (l) Pag. 375. , that, The Roman Church is more subject to error, than any other Church Christian: which to be a shameful untruth, appeareth out of the promise of our Saviour made to S. Peter, and his successors, that the gates of hell (which are errors in faith) shall not prevail against the Church built on them; and out of his prayer made for them, that their faith shall not fail: for that this promise of Christ, and this prayer were not made to S Peter, nor for him, as he was a private man; but as he was Head of the Church, and therefore extend to all his successors in the Roman See, to secure them from error in their definitions of faith, hath been the belief of all Orthodox antiquity (m) See above Chap. 12. sect. 1. & 2. . Nor do you produce here any thing to the contrary, which hath not been proved to be imposterous, excepting only that here you charge the new Church of Rome (for so you call it) with believing, the conclusion of the Pope in matters of faith to be infallible, albeit he use no diligence at all for the directing of his judgement; which is (say you) the strong breath of an anabaptistical, and enthusiastical spirit. We are well assured, what spirit guideth your pen. Do you find this doctrine authorized by the Church of Rome? In what Council? By what Pope? In your margin you cite Valentia in the seaventh Chapter of his Analysis: which is to cite at random, and falsely: for that work of Valentia consisteth of eight books: you specify none of them; nor are the words, you object, to be found in the seaventh Chapter of any one of those eight books. I find some such in the third Chapter of his last book; where, as also afterwards again (n) Analy. l. 8. c. 10. , he professedly disputeth, what means the Pope is bound to use in his definitions of faith, and whether the infallibility of his judgement depend upon those means? In which question Valentia teacheth nothing, but what is the most received opinion of Divines, and most agreeable to truth. There seemeth to be some disagreement in this point among the Schoole-Doctors, some saying, that the Pope cannot err, if he proceed maturely, hearing the counsel of Pastors, and Learned men: Others (of which number Valentia is) affirming, that he cannot err, though he define alone, without deliberation, and consultation. But these two opinions differ in words only, not in reality of truth: for when the authors of the former opinion say, that to define, the Pope is bound to proceed maturely, taking the advice of a Council, or of men wise, learned, and skilful in the matter which is to be determined, to the end he may not err; they say not this, to signify, that the infallibility of his definition consisteth in, or proceedeth from the wisdom, and learning of his Counsellors, but only to show, that he is bound to proceed prudently, and maturely. And so likewise, when Valentia, and authors of the second opinion say, that if the Pope should define alone, without a Council of Bishops, or advice of other learned men, he could not err; they say it not to deny, that he is bound to use such means, but to signify, that the infallibility of his definition consisteth not in them, but in his own authority and warrant which he hath from Christ of not erring. And this is the meaning of Valentia, as in that very place he expressly declareth. Nor do I see, what you can find therein, either absurd or untrue. But if you curiously demand: Whether the Pope may err, in case he proceed to define inconsiderately and rashly? Valentia, and all Catholic Doctors will answer, that your Question implieth a Condition impossible: for the Pope in his definitions cannot proceed immaturely. The Philosophers say, Qui dat formam, dat consequentia ad formam: He that gives the form, gives also the dispositions necessary for the form. And he that giveth the end, giveth also such means as are necessary for the attaining of the end. Wherefore Christ having made promise to the See Apostolic, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and that the successors of S Peter shall not fail in confirming their brethren, it belongeth to his divine providence, so to direct, govern, and assist him, that he proceed not to define, without sufficient deliberation, and maturity. If (saith S. Augustine) (o) De vtil. ered. c. 10. the providence of God be not the Governess of humane affairs, no regard is to be bad of religion. But if all this variety of Creatures do, I know not with what interior knowledge, move us to seek God, and to serve God; surely we ought not to be diffident, but that there is some authority constituted by the same God, whereon we relying, as upon a certain step, may ascend unto God. SECT. VII. Whether there be in the Scripture any Prophecy, that the Church of Rome shall fall from the faith. THat Christ hath prophesied of the Church of Rome, that she shall never fall from the faith, hath been already proved (p) Chap 12. sect. 1. & 2. . Your third Thesis to the contrary is; that there is not in all the Scripture any prophecy of the fall of any Church Christian from the faith, Pag. 377. but only of the Church of Rome, from which it may sometime be necessary to departed. Which is in effect to say, that there is in the Scripture a prophecy, that the Church of Rome shall fall from the faith. In proof of this you remit us to the testimony of two jesuits Ribera, and Viegas, that the city of Rome shall in the end of the world be the seat of Antichrist; which is not their doctrine, but a calumnious slander of yours. They hold with the ancient Fathers, that not Rome, but Jerusalem shall be the Seat of Antichrist. The Evangelist (saith Ribera) (r) Ad cap. 11. Apocalyp. n. 20. fin. 21. init. calling Jerusalem a great city, signifieth not obscurely that she shall be great at that time in power, and in number of Citizens, to wit, when Antichrist shall reign in her, being received of the jews, and honoured as the true Messiah. This city both because she killed our Lord, and because than she shallbe the Court of Antichrist, full of all wickedness, and impiety, he calleth Sodom, and Egypt etc. for what sin and impiety will she not be guilty of, Antichrist reigning in her? So Ribera; from whom Viegas dissenteth not. Say now; Can there be a more shameful imposture, then to impute to these learned Authors, your own falsities, & thereon to ground your calunnies against the Church of Rome, as upon truths asserted by them? Such Arguments are indeed fit proofs to justify your departure from her. But were it true, that the City of Rome in the end of the world shall be the Seat of Antichrist, doth that any way justify your present departure from the Roman Church? Look back upon what hath been said, & you shall find, how little those words, Go out of Babylon my people, make for you, and that even according to your Protestant Expositors they are wholly against you. In your fourth Thesis (s) Pag. 378. , which is, That the Church of Rome hath long been, and still is, the most schismatical Church of all other Church's Christian, that carry in them a visible face of a Church, you bring nothing, but what hath been already answered point by point. SECT. VIII. Whether Luther were justly excommunicaeed. TO prove, that he was injustly excommunicated, you say (t) Pag. 381. : Luther's excommunication by Pope Leo, must have been either for manners, or doctrine. I answer: for both; and that most deservedly. If we look into his manners, he was a sacrilegious Apostata, that fled out of his Monastery: he cast off his religious habit, and burning with flames of raging lust, to satisfy his fleshly desires, married a vowed Nun; a crime so heinous, that according to the ancient Imperial laws, he was to be punished with death (u) Sozom. l. 6. c. 3. Cod. L de Episc. & Cler. . His pride was such, that he preferred himself before all the Doctors of God's Church, contemning a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Augustine's, a thousand K. Henry Churches, so fare, as that he scorned to be judged by any man, but would himself be judge of men, and Angels. His railing was most intemperate, base, and scurrile, traducing and reviling even the greatest Princes. One example of K. Henry the eight may suffice, against whom he ragingly acted the part of H●●cules forens, terming him, an envious mad fool; babbling with much spite in his mouth: a damnable rotten worm, a basilisk and progeny of an adder, a lying Sycophant covered with the title of a King, a clownish wit, a doltish head, most wicked, foolish, & impudent Henry: saying yet further, He doth not only lyelike a most vain scurre, but equalleth, if not exceedeth a most wicked knave: thou liest in thy throat, foolish and sacrilegious King. These and many other like speeches against K. Henry, are his; some of them being so base, and beastly, that modesty forbiddeth to english them. If from Princes, we come to other his adversaries, he called them insathanized, supersathanized, and persathanized, and that the Devil was infused, perfused, and transfused into their mouths; in so much that your Tigurines sticked not to say of him, that he was full of Devils, and used such speeches, as could hardly be thought to proceed from the furious Devil himself. He was void of all conscience, being obstinately resolved to condemn whatsoever a Council should determine, though never so Orthodox, and holy; & to allow, and defend whatsoever a Council should condemn, though never so wicked and heretical. To which I add, that to spite Carolstadius, he retained in the Church of Wittenberg, the elevation of the Sacrament, which he thought to be idolatrous. He was inconstant in his doctrine, teaching one day one thing, another the contrary; in so much, that jodocus Coccius (x) To. 1. l. 8. art. 6. pag. 1038. & seqq. hath faithfully taken out of his works, and set down 80. Articles, in which he had contradicted himself, gainsaying what before he had taught, and showing himself to be guided by the spirit of contradiction, and lying: Of which, as also of his contentious and wrangling spirit, his life affordeth you good examples (y) Brereley Luther's life Chap. 3. sect. 2. . Finally to show, that Luther was not very great Saint, his familiar conversation with the Devil is a sufficient evidence. I insist not in the proof of these particulars, having spoken of some of them already, and especially because Brereley, in Luther's life, hath proved them all out of Luther's own works, and by the testimony of other Protestants. Nor can I find, that you with all your study have been able to produce any thing to the contrary, but only these few words (z) Pag. 381. out of Erasmus, Si Luthero faverem, ut viro bono, quod fatentur & hosts; which how truly they are cited, I know not: for I know that Erasmus said (a) In s●o●●i● ad 〈…〉 ton. Christum agnosco, Lutherum non agnosco. But howsoever, Erasmus is a partial witness, of whom it was said, Erasmus laid the eggs, and Luther hatched the Scorpions; and whom Doctor Humphrey, and Doctor Reynolds challenge as a man of your religion, and Fox hath placed in your Calendar of Saints. And finally, if by Luther's enemies, you understand Catholics, you cannot nominate any one, that hath ever esteemed other wise of him, then as of a most wicked, and sacrilegious Apostata. If you could, you would have been ready enough to do it, without any provocation from us. If leaving his wicked life we come to his doctrine, we shall find it answerable to his manners. First he taught, that Governors of Churches, and Pastors have power to teach, but that the sheep must be judges of their doctrine; and that the Bishops, and Counsels ought to give place, and subscribe to the censure, and judgement of the sheep. 2. He taught to the great danger of Christendom, that to war against the Turks, is to resist God visiting our sins by them. 3. He cut of from the Canon of holy Scriptures, the book of Ecclesiastes, saying, there is in it never a perfect sentence; the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews; the Epistles of S. james, and S. jude; the second of S. Peter; the second and third of S. john, with the Apocalypse. 4. He held the heresy of Simon Magus, that man is justified by faith alone; and in proof thereof corrupted the text of S. james. adding to it this word alone: and being admonished thereof, he raged, protesting, that he repent himself, he had not translated worse. 5. He taught, that Goodworkes are not only not necessary to salvation, but hurtful: & that the ten commandments belong not to Christians. 6. That if the wife will not come, or cannot by reason of infirmity, let the maid come. 7. That among Christians, no man ought to be Magistrate, but that each one is equally subject to each other. 8. He maketh the power of administering the Sacraments common to lay men with the Clergy. 9 He taught that Christ in his passion, did not only suffer in his human, but also in his divine nature. 10. Concerning the Blessed Trinity, he had the divine nature to be threefold, as the persons are 11. That God worketh wickedness in the wicked; and that it is not in the power of man, to avoid it: which what is it else, but to make God the Author of sin? 12. He maketh Virginity inferior to marriage. 13. To prevent praying to Saints, and Purgatory, he affirmeth the soul to sleep with the body. 14. He denieth that there is any local hell, before the day of judgement. All these doctrines are proved to be his out of his own works, & out of the Confessions of many other Protestants, exactly and faithfully related in his life, by M. Brereley (b) Chap. 2. per tot. From whence I conclude, that if ever any man was, or may be justly excommunicated for wickedness of life, or for heretical and blasphemous doctrines, Martin Luther, by both these titles, hath been most justly excommunicated, & cast out of the Church. SECT. IX. Of the first occasion of Luther's revolt from the Church: and that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine against Indulgences, falsifieth sundry Authors. POpe Leo the tenth having given out certain Indulgences for the people of Germany, that would contribute any alms to the building of that sumptuous Church, which julius his predecessor had begun in honour of S. Peter, Cardinal Albert B. of Mentz, and the Marquis of Brandeburg (to whom the publishing of the Indulgences, and collecting the alms was committed) for the publishing of the indulgences, made choice of Tetzelius a famous preacher of the Order of S. Dominick: Whereat the Friars of S. Augustine's Order, and especially Staupitius the Vicar general, and Martin Luther being offended, opposed themselves, hoping by favour of Frederick Duke of Saxony, to get the place for themselves. But missing of that, they began to reprehend the abuses committed (as they pretended) in the promulgation of those indulgences. But Luther being of a fiery nature, and of a contention's spirit, rested not here, but published in print 95. propositions about the nature, institution, end, and effect of indulgences; divers of which were censured by Tetzelius as heretical, and Luther thereupon complained of to the Pope, and cited to appear at Rome. But by mediation of friends which he procured, the hearing of his cause being remitted to Cardinal Caietan, who was then the Pope's Legate in Germany, Luther appeared before him, and gave up a protestation of his submission, promising to follow the holy Roman Church in all her say, and do, present, past, and to come. But nevertheless being gotten from the Cardinal, he went forward in his former contentions, and beside a public disputation, which he held with Eckius at Lipsia against indulgences, he diuulged many other scoffing pamplets, & treatises, to call in doubt, and bring in contempt, divers other points of religion: from whence hath followed all the calamity, that in these parts of the world hath ensued since that time, in the Church of God. This was the occasion, these the beginnings of Luther's revolt, proceeding merely from his covetousness, pride, envy, and grudging, that the promulgation of those indulgences was not committed to him, and his Order: for he protested afterwards, at that time he neither intended nor dreamt of any change, but fell into those contentions casually, and against his will, not well knowing then, what Indulgences meant (c) See Brerel. Luther's life. Chap. 1. sect. 1. Now you come in, to act your part (d) Pag. 381. fin. 382. init. and promise to prove by a cloud of witnesses, the falsehood and impiety of the Pope's doctrine concerning indulgences, and the iniquity of his practice, heaping up riches by them. And first you except against the Pope (e) Pag 383. , for condemning this proposition of Luther, It is not in the power of the Church, to make new articles of faith. This hath been alleady answered (f) See above Chap. 4. , and declared what power the Church hath, or hath not herein. 2. To prone, that the doctrine of Indulgences is a new article of faith, you produce many Authors (g) Pag. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 389. , which may be reduced to three classes. The first is of heretics, as Cornelius Agrippa, a Magicians; Paul, a Venetian Friar, condemned a few years since for heresy; Fasciculus rerum expetendarum; Acta Concilij Tridentini; Controversiae memorabiles; all of them being Treatises of Protestants, set forth without names of their authors, and prohibited. To these you add Thuanus (h) Pag. 385. whom you call our noble Historian: but we bequeath him to you, as one whose writings show him to be yours. Nor are you contented to cite him, as a Catholic author, but falsify him. He raileth against Pope Leo, for ordaining, that when a Bishopric or Abbacy in France is vacant, for the avoiding of simony, and other inconueniencet, a person fit for those dignities be presented by the King, & ordained by the Pope. His words in Latin, as you cite them, are, Peccatum in sacris muneribus dispensandis Leo mox graviore cumulavit etc. In which words he makes no mention of indulgences, but only of conferring sacred or Ecclesiastical dignities, and offices. But you, to make them serve, your turn against indulgences, corrupt them, translating in sacris muneribus dispensandis, thus: of ill dispersing indulgences. Leo (say you) to his sin of ill dispersing indulgences, added a fare greater. Is not this a great imposture? And the like you commit again (i) Pag. 389. , when speaking of Luther's separation from the Roman Church, you say: Luther was a passive therein, as appeareth out of the proceed of Pope Leo against him: Else why is it, that your own Thuanus speaking of this separation, said, That some in those days laid the fault upon Pope Leo. This is a greater imposture than the former: for Thuanus speaketh not those words of Luther's separation from the Church of Rome, but against altering the custom formerly observed in the election of Ecclesiastical Prelates in France; which he attributeth to Antonius Pratensis, Chancellor of that kingdom; though out of his own spleen against the Pope, he add, that there were not then wanting some, that laid the fault upon Pope Leo. What connexion hath this with Luther's revolt from the Church of Rome, or with the doctrine of indulgences? You cannot excuse it from a Grand Imposture. To the second class, may be reduced Massonius, Polydore Virgil, and Erasmus, who speak not aggainst the doctrine of Indulgences, but against the abuse of them. And for as much, as in many other things, and particularly, in that very point, they speak temeraiously and overlash, those their works, you know, are forbidden by the Church: Why do you allege them, as of authority against us? The third class is of approved Catholic Authors, of whom you first produce (k) Pag. 384. fin. Roffensis, saying: There was no use of indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian. But you change the state of the question, passing from the use of indulgences (of which Roffensis speaketh) to the doctrine of indulgences; and infer, that because Roffensis found not the use or practise of them, in the beginning of the Church, he denieth the doctrine, and lawfulness of them, which in that very article he effectually proveth out of the power of binding, and losing, given by Christ in the Gospel to S. Peter, and his Successors. 2. He yieldeth the reason, why there was not so much necessity of using them in those beginnings, as afterwards. 3. He showeth, that Catholic Divines prove the use of them, to be most ancient, out of the stations so much frequented in Rome; and that S. Gregory the great granted some in his time. 4. His own opinion is, that it is not certainly known, when they began first to be used in the Church: from whence it must follow by the rule of S. Augustine (l) L 4. de Baptism. c. 24. , that the practice of them is from the Apostolical time. The second author you produce (m) Pag. 135. , is Alphonsus de Castro, who saith: Neque tamen hac occasione sunt contemnendae (indulgentiae) quod earum usus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus: which words you pervert changing videatur, into fit; but most of all, by translating them falsely: for you render them thus; Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned, as being admitted but of late: which is not only a false translation, but a manifest perverting of the sense: for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulness of granting indulgences, but de earum usu, of the use of them, which therefore in your english you cunningly omit, that ou● of him you may prove the doctrine of them to be new. Yea, and concerning the very use of them, he proveth it to be most ancient, by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done, concluding, that you, and all others which contemn a thing practised so many hundreds of years by the Catholic Church, and established by general Counsels, are justly accounted heretics. So fare is Castro from favouring Luther's cause. The third Author is Bellarmine, out of whom you cite these words (n) Pag. 385. : Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum: Which words you english Thus: The ground of indulgences is the spiritual treasury of works, consisting in the satisfactory, and meritorious works of supererogation, done by the faithful. Which treasury to have been anciently wanting, you prove also out of Bellarmine, setting down these words as his: Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Lovanienses. This your Doctors of Louvain, and some Schoolmen (as you know) affirm, was anciently wanting in the Church. So you: and then you tell us (o) Ibid. out of Suarez, who those School men were, namely Mayzo, and Durandus. In this short passage of yours, there are almost as many untruths, and falsifications, as words. For first the Latin words are not Bellarmine's, but your own fathered on him. And so also are the English, (which nevertheless you set down in a different character as his) & not only disagree from the Latin, but contain false doctrine repugnant to all Catholic Divines, and in particular to Bellarmine, who in that very place (p) L. 1. de Indulg. c. 2. proposit. 2. teacheth, that meritorious works, as such, cannot be applied to others, nor belong to the treasure of the Church, but only as satisfactory. 3. You falsify, making Bellarmine to limit the spiritual treasure of the Church to works of supererogation only; which is ignorantly spoken, and not taught by Bellarmine, nor any Catholic Divine. 4. You father on him falsely those last words, Hoc (thesauro) caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Lovanienses: for they are not his, nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Divines of Louvain, nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter. Is it not then great perfidiousness, so to abuse and falsify both him, and them? Nor is your dealing better with Suarez: for (to omit that in the place you cite, he treateth of no such matter) nether he, nor Bellarmine ever say, that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church, but only, that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ, and not of the Saints. Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt, & Theological dispute, rather than affirmatively: for coming to deliver his own opinion, he saith plainly and resolutely (q) 4. Dist. 20. q. 3. : Est in Ecclesia etc. There is in the Church a spiritual treasure of the passion of Christ, and his Saints, who suffered fare greater torments, than their sins deserved: And therefore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one, or more, so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sins, either in part, or in whole, according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure, more or less, which is nothing else, but the sufferings of Christ, and his Saints communicated to us, to satisfy for our sins. Wherefore indulgences avail by way of payment, for so much, as by Christ, & his Saints, the pain, to which we are liable, is paid. But if he had held that the spiritual treasure of the Church consisteth of the satisfactions of Christ only, that would avail you nothing: for he defendeth Indulgences, which you deny: and if he erred in any thing, he errred not with obstinacy, as you do, but submitted all his works to the correction of the holy Catholic Roman Church, as you have read in Bellarmine, but conceal it. I conclude therefore, that the great cloud of witnesses, which you have brought to justify Luther's doctrine against indulgences, is either of Heretics, or of Catholics in works prohibited by the Church, or if not prohibited, abused and falsified by you. SECT. X. The causes given by Doctor Morton, in excuse of Luther's departure from the Roman Church. THe causes you have devised to justify Luther's departure from the Roman Church, are partly impious, partly false, and imposterous. Impious, as your excepting against the Mass (r) Pag. 387. , to which Luther was persuaded by the Devil, calling it Idolatry, as you do. And not unlike to this, is your example of Firmilianus (s) Pag. 388. , who being for the time an obstinate mantainer of Rebaptisation, was excommunicated by Stephen a holy Pope; and notwithstanding that Stephen's sentence was embraced by all the Catholics of the world, and the doctrine of Firmilianus condemned by the holy Council of Nice, and ever since esteemed heretical, not only by Catholics, but also by Protestants; you shame not to justify Firmilianus (t) Ibid. , and all the rest, that followed the same heresy with him, & to condemn Pope Stephen, as a Schismatic, for excommunicating him. Such examples. I confess, you may find to defend Luther's departure from the Roman Church. The rest of the causes, which you allege (u) Pag. 387. , are false, and imposterous: as that the Roman Church mantaineth new articles of faith, and Satanical doctrines; that she blasphemeth the truth, and tyrannically forceth men to subscribe: which as they are false, and slanderous accusations, so you utter them gratis, and without any proof at all, and say nothing to justify Luther, but what a Donatist, an Arian, or any other heretic never so blasphemous will say for himself, & may, with as good ground, as Luther, or you for him. But you allege (x) Pag. 389. Cassander whom you call our Cassander, notwithstanding that heretofore you have had a double admonition (y) See above Chap. 2. , that he was a wicked heretic Prima classis, whose works being condemned and prohibited by the Church are of no more authority with us, than your Grand Imposture. And not unlike to this, is your other example of Stephen Gardiner B. of Winchester, as already hath been showed (z) Ibid. . And as little to your purpose is another example, which here you add (a) Pag. 392. of an Epistle of Robert Grosthead B. of Lincoln, taken out of the history of Matthew Paris, which was set forth corruptedly by English Protestants, and then by the Tigurine Lutherans, who have added many things both in their marginal notes, and in the text in self against the authority of the Roman Church (b) See Bellar. l. de Scriptor▪ . Out of this Epistle of Grosthead to Innocentius the fourth, you object a long passage, in which he acknowledgeth in most effectual words his belief of the supreme authority of the B. of Rome. For in the very first words of his Epistle, he saith: Be it known to your Wisdom, that I obey the Apostolic mandates, with filial affection devoutly, & reverently, and that I make resistance to those things, which are against the Apostolic mandates, zealing the honour of my Father; for to both I am bound ex divino mandato, by the commandment of God: for the Apostolic mandates neither are. nor can be any other, than the doctrines of the Apostles, and of our Lord jesus Christ, Master, and Lord of the Apostles, whose place and person our Lord the Pope chief holdeth in the Hierarchy of the Church. A judicious reader would think it a hard matter, for any man out of these words, and doctrine of Grosthead, to frame an argument against the authority of the Pope and Church of Rome; and yet are you so witty, that you have done it: but by what art? By cutting, and mangling the Bishop's words, as the reader will see, if he please to compare them with the Latin set down in your Margin: and even that Latin mangled, and falsified as it is, you thought best not to english, because it would have given light to a judicious reader, to see your dealing. What you add (c) Pag. 394. , of the Bishops not receiving a Provision sent by the Pope, maketh nothing for you: for by the whole discourse of his Epistle, it appeareth that he judged the Provision, to be procured fraudulently by surreption, & therefore not to be a true mandate of the See Apostolic, and upon that ground he made resistance unto it, which the civil (d) Cod. Si cont. ius L. Etsi. & Canon law (e) De rescript. C. Dilectus. in such cases declare to be lawful. without any impeachment to the authority of the Pope, and Church of Rome. SECT. XI. Whether Protestants had any Professors of their faith before Luther. THere is no way more expedite, or effectual, to convince heretics to be such, & their doctrines to be profane novelties, then to require of them a Catalogue of primitive Fathers, and learned men, which have agreed with them, and dissented from the Roman Church in all those points, in which they descent from her: as contrarily there is no way more effectual, for an Orthodox man to prove himself to be such, then to show, that the Fathers & Doctors of God's Church, in all ages from the beginning, have professed and taught the same doctrine, he professeth and teacheth. To this trial S. Athanasius challenged the Arians: Behold (saith he to them) (f) In decret. Nic. Syn. cont. Euseb. we have proved the succession of our doctrine, delivered from hand to hand; from-Father, to son: you new jews, you children of Caiphas, what predecessors of your names can you show? To the same trial that most religious Emperor Theodosius provoked the heretics of his time: for (as Sozomen recordeth) (g) L. 7. c. 11. having called together the chief of the Novatians, Arians, and Macedonians, he demanded of them, whether they thought, that the ancient Fathers, which governed the Church before those dissensions in matter of Religion fell out, were holy and Apostolical men? whether they did allow of their expositions of holy Scripture, and would accept of them, as of competent judges, for the trial of their cause, and ending of all controversies? Those Heretics highly praised the doctrine, and expositions of the Fathers, but yet could not agree among themselves, to have the books of the Fathers produced, and their own doctrines tried by them. Whereupon Theodosius forbidden them all exercise of their religion, and inflicted other punishments upon them. With him accorded herein the Emperor justinian, publishing by an especial Law (h) L. 5. & 6. , that to confute the lies of impious Heretics, and repress the madness of those, that give assent unto them, it is necessary to manifest unto all, what the most holy Priests of God have taught, and to follow them, How often doth S. Augustine stop the mouths of the Pelagians (i) Cout. jul. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. l. 2. versus fin. l. 5. c. 17. & count. duas Ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 12. , with the testimonies of almost all the famous Bishops, and Doctors both of the East & West, specifying them by their names, sometimes twelve, sometimes fourteen together, & adding to them the rest in general? The same kind of Argument was used by S. Leo the Great (k) Ep. 97. , when having urged against the Nestorians and Eutychians the testimonies of the holy Fathers Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and chrysostom, Theophilus Alexandrinus, Basil the great, and Cyril, he concludeth thus to the Emperor, to whom he writeth: To these testimonies if you vouchsafe to attend, you shall find, that we teach no other thing, than what our holy Fathers have taught throughout the whole world, and that no man dissenteth from them, but impious heretics. Lastly the same manner of arguing from the testimonies of Fathers was used in the sixth general Council, against the Monothelites, in the second of Nice, against the Image-breakers; and in the Council of Florence, against the error of the Grecians, denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son. To this trial learned Catholics have often challenged the Sectaries of this age: & to that end have set forth Catalogues of the most learned Doctors of God's Church, from the very time of Christ, showing them to have been members of the Roman Church, and to have believed and taught the now Roman faith, not only in the general heads, wherein Protestants agree with us, but also in each of the several points, in which they descent from us; & to have held them to be heretical, and confuted them as such, even as we do, alleging their testimonies at this day against Protestants. The truth of this is to be seen in jodocus Coccius a German, who (as it is declared in the Preface to his first Tome) being in his youth a Lutheran, afterwards partly by frequenting the Sermons of Catholic Preachers, partly by hearing disputations in Schools, partly by observing the marvellous concord of Catholics, and the fatal discord of Protestants in matters of faith, partly by considering seriously, and weighing with himself, that the Churches of Protestants were confined to a few Provinces, and not spread over the whole world, as the Church of Christ (l) Isa. 49. was prophesied to be, and that they wanted succession, and continuance, being newly sprung up; and lastly by a diligent perusal of the writings of ancient Fathers, whom be found to agree wholly with us, and descent from Protestants, abandoned them and abjuring their doctrine, east himself into the arms of his Catholic Mother the Roman Church. And aswell for the confusion of heretics, & confirmation of Catholics, as also to yield unto all men, a reason of his faith, he undertook an immense labour (in which he spent 24. years) of reading the works of all the ancient writers of the Greek and Latin Church, and out of them, hath in two large Volumes (which he entitled (Thesaurus Catholicus) demonstrated most exactly, that they were all of the belief of the now Roman Church, & detested the contrary doctrine of Protestants, as heretical; no less than at this day the Roman Church doth. The like hath been performed by the most eminent Cardinals Baronius, and Bellarmine, the one in his Annals; the other in his learned Volumes of Controversies. The like pains hath been taken by Doctor Sanders in his Monarchia visibilis, by jacobus Gaulterius in his Tabula Chronographica, against the French Huguenots, and by Doctor Norrice in his Antidote & Appendix against English Protestants. The like have other learned writers done out of the works of divers ancient Fathers; in particular Theodorus Petretus, out of S. Cyprian. S. Leo, S. Gregory, and S. Bernard; joannes Nopelius, out of S. Ambrose; Cornelius Schultingus, out of S. Hierome; and Hieronymus Torrensis, out of S. Augustine, intituling their works the Confessions of those Fathers, and convincing clearly in them, that they were all Roman Catholics, and in all points of the same belief we profess at this day. This it is which we so often require of Protestants, a Catalogue of learned men, who in all ages since Christ, have agreed with them, and dissented from us in all those Tenets, which they maintain against the faith of the now Roman Church. This the best learned Protestants knew they could not perform, and therefore were enforced to say (as you have heard (m) See here above sect. 3. the Church of Christ was altogether invisible, yea for many ages utterly perished, & extinguished. But you with other late English Protestants ashamed of so faithless a paradox, maintain that the Church of Christ (which you hold to be yours) was never wholly Errors in the Print, to be corrected. In the Text. PAg. 13. line 11. Ermodius read Ennodius. Pag. 14. lin. 37. true, read the true. Pag. 18. lin. 21. then read men. Ibid. lin. 24. which read with. Ibid. lin. 37. also read them also. Pag. 21. l. 28. his read if his. Pag. 24. lin. 15. nouthes read months. Pag. 29. l. 38. Nicolaus Augustus read jacobus Augustus. Pag. 50. l. 31. being read bring. Pag. 65. l. 10. Church read Churches. Pag. 68 l. 19 misplacing read misconstruing. Pag. 75. l. 37.38. to the thing read of the thing. Pag. 78. l. 3. ingeniously read ingenuously. Pag. 80. l. 11. misbelieve read misbelief. Pag. 94. l. 15. this read his. Pag. 98. l. 19 odorned read adorned. Pag. 106. l. 33. a great Non seq. read as great a Non seq. Pag. 108. l. 13. first of read first Bishop of. Pag. 110. l. 23. The third read The first. Pag. 112. l. 35. which read with. Pag. 118. l. 38. pivat read private. Pag. 125. l. 14. Augustine to Zozimus read Aug. to Bonifacius. Pag. 134. l. 38. Samleron read Salmeron. Pag. 141. l. 20. first time to Jerusalem read the first time from Antioch to Jerusalem. Pag. 148. l. 37. him read them. Pag. 153. l. 27. contentions read contentious. Pag. 164. l. 18. no, read nor. Pag. 169. l. 6. but read out. Pag. 169. l. 12. the read her. Pag. 171. l. 10. Christian read Christians. Pag. 178. l. 19 blot out (k) & put a (*) in place of it, and in the margin over against it, read thus (*) Apud Vincent. Lyrin c. 26. Pag. 179. l. 13. whom read when. pag. 184. l. 25. speak read spoke. Pag. 188. in the 7. line, add (k) corresponding to the margin. Pag. 189. l. 36. (saith he) read (saith he Epist. 48.) Pag. 190. l. 2. present laws read present Emperors. Pag. 191. confired read considered. Pag. 202. l. 27. which read with. Pag. 325. you read your. Pag. 334. l. 5. of mediocrity, read of our mediocrity Pag. 338. l. 23. second Epistle read third Epistle. Pag. 349. l. 31. out read your. Pag. 372. l. 30. the Patriarches read their Patriarch. Pag. 373. l. 13. The 150. read That the 150. Pag. 374. l. 26. feud read sent. Pag. 380. l. 28. fovored read fovored. Pag. 389. l. 6. defaining read defaming. Pag. 399. l. 10. nistaken read mistaken: Pag. 407. l. 7. retraction read retractation. Pag. 419. l. 16. Epistle read Epistles. Pag. 425. l. 36. this very point, read this the very point. Pag. 428. l. 10. as the read as of the. Pag. 429. l. 3. had notice read had had notice. Pag. 431. l. 1. Bishop read Bishops: Pag. 436. over against the 18. line, add in the margin Concil. Ephes to. 2. c. 4. in append. Pag. 439. l. 6. which read what. Pag 493. l. 7. deal and. Pag 442. l. 31. above read about. Pag. 444. falsifies read falsities. Pag. 457. l. 21. prebition read prebibition: Pag. 458. l 4. object read abject. Pag. 466. l. 3. authorities read authority. Pag. 470. l. 34. as Socrates read as Euagrius. Pag. 475. l. 2. our read your. Pag. 476. l. 38 lawyer read lawyers. Pag. 480. l. 33. For Leo de Castro, read, And Leo etc. Pag. 493. over against live 32. add in the margin Anselm. l. de ferment. & azim. init. Pag. 499. l. 15. noly read only: Pag. 502. l. 3. Apostolical chair, read Apostolical charge. Pag. 514. l. 29. which some read which though some. Pag. 516. l. 29. Pilie read Pilier. Pag. 519. l. 3. convinced read continued. Ibid. l. 12. do not you read do not they. Pag. 521. l 20. with read without. Pag. 528. l. 17. undertake read undertook. Pag. 538. l. 21. But away read Put away. Ibid. l. 25. his state read his seat. Pag 544. l. 26. sufficient read insufficient. Pag. 567. l. 4. they approved read they gave. Pag. 569. l. 18. are of truth, read, are oracles of truth. Pag. 570. l. 18. anno 1520. read 1620. Pag. 576. l. 17.18. if it were thought schism read if be thought it were schism. Pag. 582. over against the 9 line add in the margin Caluin. ep. 141. Pag. 589. l. 13 after the words by S. Augustine, add (c) and in the line following instead of (c) put (d) and over against it in the margin add Optat. l. 2. cont. Parmen. Pag. 590. l. 10. it not, read is not. Pag. 597. l. 26.27. had right, read had no right. Pag. 602. l. 3. bring read being. Ibid. lin. 31. Gregory the third read Gregory the second. Ibid. l. 34. Gregory sent him, read Gregory the third sent him. Pag. 615. l. 20. acknowledgeth read acknowledged. Pag. 618. l. 28. Record read Records. Pa. 629. l. 18. yeath read death. Pag. 655. l. 11. is easy read is not easy. Pag. 664. l. 17. kingdom read kingdones. Pag. 667. l. 18. and Radius read Andradius. Pag. 668. l. 31. Sinned a Monk read Siud a Monk. Pag. 672. l. 28. with read which. Pag. 702. l. 1. objecteth read obeyeth. Pag. 714. l. 30. be multitude read be the multitude. Pag. 719. l. 23. the Arians, that of Ephesus, read the Arians rejected the Council of Nice; the Macedonians, that of Constantinople; the Nestorians, that of Ephesus. Pag. 727. l. 7. your Thesis that, read your Thesis is, that. Pag. 731. l. 3. it be, read to be. Pag. 738. l. 20. the new Church read the now Church. Pag. 745. l. 12. all her say read all his say. Ibid. l. 16. pamplets read pamphlets. Ibid l. 38. To prone read To prove. Pag. 760. l. 5. haer. 60. read haer. 60. & in Anacephal. In the Margin, to be corrected. PAg. 12. (u) l. 1. ep. 30. corrige l. 10. ep. 30. Pag. 13. (d) c. 36. corrige c. 80. Pag. 22. over against the line 22. add in the margin Bed. l. 5. hist. c. 19 Pag. 46. (*) disp. 9 n. 6. cor. disp. 9 sect. 1. n. 6. Pag. 48. (*) d. 9 n. 11. cor. d. 9 sect. 1. n. 12. Pag. 70. (k) in psal. 106. & l. 5. decurand. etc. cor. in psal. 116. & l. 9 de curand. Pag. 80. (d) ep. 74. cor. ep. 75. Pag. 89. (d) l. 9 ep. 38. cor. l. 9 ep. 39 Pag. 90. (h) tom. 2. c. 10. cor. tom. 2. c. 16. Pag. 96. (g) In cap. 2. Act. cor. In cap, 2. ad Gal. Pag. 104. (z) see above nu. 24. cor. see above cap. 9 n. 3. Pag. 108. (*) Above n: 21. cor. Above cap 7. Pag. 117. (i) & Pag. 120. (x) cor. Epad Micaenlem Imper. cor. Ep. ad Micaenl. Constantinop: Ibid. (t) l. 4. ep. 3 cor. l. 4. ep. 32. Pag. 121. (a) Ad cap. 22. Luc. cor. In psal. 43. Pag. 124. (q) l. 1. Apol. cor. l. 3. Apol. Pag. 129. (r) serm. 10. deverb. Dom. cor. serm. 13. de verbis Dom. Pag. 143. quasi diceret cor. quasi discretione. Pag. 155. (o) l. 1. Apol. cor. l. 3. Apol. Ibid. Pag. 155. (p) Ep. 6. cor. Ep. 65. Pag. 178. (i) count. Gaudent. l. 1. c. 23. cor. l. 1. c. 33. Pag. 187. (g) l. 1. Apol. cor. l. 3. Apol. Pag. 196. (g) cont. Gaudent. l. 3. c. 1. cor. l. 2. c. 2. Pag. 198. (s) Ibid. cor. Ibid. l. 3. Pag. 199. (x) Ep. 6. cor. Ep. 65. Pag. 301. (b) anno 451. n. 34. cor. n. 33. Pag. 314. (a) ep. 42. cor. ep. 24. Pag. 349. (u) l. 7. ep. 65. cor. l. 7. ep. 30. indict. 1. Pag. 376. (e) pag. 347 cor. tom: 2. pag. 470. Pag. 407. (g) Euseb. l. 5. hist. cor. l. 7. hist. Pag. 432. (m) In 1. part. cor. In 1. Petri. Pag. 442. (q) Bin. to. 2. pag. 1075. cor. pag. 1073. Pag. 459. (x) Can. 80. ex Grec. cor. Can. 19 ex 80. Grec. Pag. 459. (y) Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 7. cor. c. 17. Pag. 459. (a) Niceph. l. 13. c. 33 cor. c. 34. Pag. 462. (l) & Pag. 664. (z) Ruffin. l. 1. c. 1. S. Greg. l. 4. ep. 72. cor. Ruffin. l. 1. c. 2. S. Greg. l. 4 ep. 31. Pag. 471. (d) Socrat. l. 4. c. 36 cor. Socr. l. 4. c. 30. & Sozom. l. 6. c. 39 Pag. 471. (f) Ibid c. 2. cor. Ibid. c. 3. init. Pag. 478 (k) Socrat. l. 2. c. 22.23. Epiphan. haer. 66. cor. Socrat. l. 2. cap. 23. Epiph. haer. 68 Pag. 480. (u) Ruffian. l. 1. c. 1. Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. S. Greg. l. 4. ep. 72. cor. Ruffin. l. 1. c. 2. S. Greg. l. 4. ep. 31 ibid. pag. 480. (y) ep. 60.14. cor. cap. 60. 14. Pag. 485. (n) Chap. 5. n. 161.171.172. cor. Chap. 5. pag. 171.172. Pag. 489. (e) l. 4. de consid. cor. l. 4. instit. Pag. 493. over against the line 23. add in the margin, Anselm. init. lib. de ferment. & azimo. Pag. 525. (c) Apol. adversely. Ruffin. l. 1. cor. l. 3. Pag. 532. (f) Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 11. cor. c. 10. Pag. 536. (z) ep. 77. cor. ep. 57 Pag. 540. (m) ep. 16. cor. ep. 18. Pag. 558. (l) c. 13. cor. c. 2. Pag 576. (f) l. 5. hist. c. 34. cor. c. 24. Pag. 570. (z) Spondom. cor. Spondan-Pag. 587. (u) serm. l. 4. cor. storm. l. 4. Pag. 606. (l) Epistola cor. Epistolae. Pag. 613. (p) Niceph. l. 13. n. 18. cor. cap. 18. Pag. ibid. (q) Niceph. l. 13. c. 31. cor. cap. 32. Pag. 622. (p) Socrat. l. 2. c. 18. cor. Euagr. l. 2. c. 4. Pag. 626. (l) Ep. 17. ad Eustoch. cor. ep. 27. Pag. 627. (t) l. 8. c. 3. cor. Sozom. l. 8. c. 3. Pag. 632. (k) Sozom. l. 2. c. 3. cor. c. 23. Pag. 675. (u) pag. 200. cor. Pag. 203. Pag. 682. (z) pag. 797. cor. 712. & 797. Pag. 690. (l) l. 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 25. cor. c. 51. Pag. 714. (o) l. 3. cont. Parmen. c. 3. cor. c. 2. Pag. 717. (s) ibid. c. 31. deal c. 31. FINIS.