SECT. I. The importance of the Subiect.

THOVGH there be many questions in Religion controuerted betweene Pro­testants and vs, yet none more impor­tant, or more necessary to be knowne, then that of the Church. Protestants a­gree with vs so far, as to belieue that there is. & shall be to the end of the world ex­tant on earth One, Holy, Catholike, and Apostolike Church, which is the 1. Tim. 3.15. Pillar and touchstone of truth; which all men that will not be as Heathens, and Publicanes, must heare and Math. 18.17. obey; which is the second Eue framed out of the side of our second Adam Christ, whome whosoeuer will not acknowledge to be his Mother, cannot haue him to be his S. Aug. de Symb. l. 4. c. 10. Father. She is the mysticall body of ourEphes. 5.23. Lord, out of which (sayth S. Augustine)Ep. 50. ad [...]. the holy [Page 2]Ghost imparteth life to no man. She is the VineyardMath. 20.1. & seqq. in which he that laboureth not, shall not receiue the wages of euerla­sting life. She the Arke of Noe S. Hiero. ep. 57 S. Gau­dent tract. 2. de lect. E­uang. in which whosoeuer is not, or out of which whosoeuer departeth, shall perish. She is the wellspring of truth, Lactant. 4 diuin iu­stit. [...]. vlt. Orig. hom 15. in Math. Theod in c. 2.2. ad Thessal. the House of fayth, the Temple of God, in which mens prayers are heard, and their sacrifices accepted; all other congregations being Synagogues of Sathan & denns of Diuels. She is the garden of GodCant. 4.12.13.15. in which whosoeuer groweth not, is not a flower planted by the hand of Christ but a weed to be plucked vp, and cast into hell fire. Finally she is the kingdome of Christ2. Reg 7.12 1 Para­lip. 17.11. Psal 44.7. Luc. 1.33 Co­los [...]. 1.13. in which whosoeuer is not, is none of Christs people Whosoeuer (saythEb. 152. ad popul. fact. Donas. & cont. ep Par­men l. 2. c. 3. S Augustine) is diuided from the Catholike Church, although he thinke himselfe to liu [...] neuer so laudably, for this only crime that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ, the wrath of God abideth on him And speaking of Emeri­tus an hereticallSerm. su­per gestis cum Emerito post med. Bishop; He cannot haue saluation, but in the Catholike Church. Out of the Church he may haue all things but saluation: he may haue honour he may haue Sacraments, he may sing Alleluia he may answere Amen he may haue the Ghospell, he may haue and preach beliefe in the name of the Father, and the Sonne & the holy Ghost: but saluation he can find no where, but in the Catho­like Church.

Wherefore since the saluation of our soules cannot be had out of the Catholike Church, it is most necessary for euery man to inquire and learne, which, and where is that Temple of God, that kingdome of Christ, that store-house of truth, and that second Eue our spirituall Mother, that knowing her, & resorting to her, he may be cherished in her lap, and nou­rished at her brests with the milke of her holsome Do­ctrine.

The beliefe of all Catholikes is, that these foresaid a [...]tri­buts agree to the Roman Church, and to no other congre­gation in the world; and that therfore she alone is the Holy, Catholike and Apostolike Church, in which whosoeuer is, may, & in which whosoeuer is not, cannot be saued. Vpon this our Doctrine you passe a censure suitable to your modesty, Videlicet, that it is False. Imposterous Scandalous, Schismati­call, Hereticall, Blasphemous; euery way Damnable, Pag. 5.182.419. Presum­gtuous, [Page 3] Pag. 336. Impious, Pag 95. Execrable, Pag 127. Damnably hereticall, Pag 91. Pernicious, Antichristian, Pag 99. Sacrilegious, Pag. 336. Sathanicall, Idola­ [...]rous Pag. 387. This is your censure; and to make it good, you write a large volume, which you intitle, The Grand Impo­sture of the (now) Roman Church; but mistake your selfe in the name, for the booke is, & ought to haue been intituled, The Grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, against the Roman Church of this and all former ages, for vpon due examination such he will find it to be, that shall please to passe his Eye ouer the ensuing Apology: and I doubt not, but after the perusall thereof, he will rest conuinced, that those mon­strous Titles wherewith you slaunder our Doctrine, most fitly agree to your owne, deliuered in your Grand Imposture. But before I come to ioyne issue with you concerning the particulers, it will not be amisse, to examine briefly in ge­nerall, whether the ancient Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church (whom you acknowledge to haue liued vpon earth in the true fayth, and now to be most glorious Saints in heauen) were of your beliefe concerning the Roman Church, or of ours: for they being lights of the world Math. 5.15. whom God hath raised in all ages, and placed on the candlesticke of his Church, to enlighten our wayes, and deliuer vnto vs the true sense and meaning of his holy word, that we may not be like children wauering and caried away with euery blast of here­ticalEphef. 4.14. Doctrine, I suppose, that as there is no wiseman, who will not desire to be rancked among them in the next world, and to stand with them at the later day: so there is none, that will not desire to be in this world a member of the same Church, and a professor of the same fayth, which brought them to that happines, especially knowing (as we doe) that there is bur one Church in which, and one fayth by which mē may be saued: for to thinke that so many men so eminently learned, and that vsed so great meanes both of study and prayer, to attaine to the knowledge of truth, and of the right way to heauen, haue all erred, not liuing in the true Church which leades to saluation, but in an erring Sy­nagogue, that leades to euerlasting ruine and damnation, is a conceipt that I thinke no Christian (and I am sure no [Page 4]prudent man) can harbour in his brest; which yet he must doe, that will credit your Doctrine, as the ensuing proofes will declare.

SECT. II. Whether the Roman Church be truly called the Catholike Church, and in what sense?

ALthough the Name of Catholike Church, whether we regard the etimology, or the most proper and vsuall acception of the word Catholike, signify not any particuler Church, but the Vniuersall spread ouer the whole world, yet with-all it is true, that euery particuler Church may in some sense be called Catholike: for as euery particuler Or­thodoxe man hath the denomination of a Catholike man, be­cause he professeth the Catholike fayth, and is a member of the Vniuersall Church: so for the same reason, and in the same sense, both the particuler Church of Rome, and all o­thers orthodoxall, may be called Catholike Churches. In this sense, the Christians of Smyrna writing to the Churches of Pontus,Euseb. l. 4. histor. c. 14. addresse their Epistle, To the Church of God at Phi­lomelium, and to all other the holy & Catholike Churches throughout the world. In the same sense ConstantineIn Apo­log. 2. Atha­ [...]asij. the Emperour calleth the Church of Athanasius, The Catholike Church of A­lexandria, by reason of the Catholike fayth, which it preser­ued entire, whiles many other Churches of Aegypt were infected with Arianisme. And so likewiseCont. ep. Fund. c 4. S. Augustine (with whom agreeEpist. 1. Pacianus, and Cyrill of Hierusa­lem)Cateches. 18. sayth, that if a stranger come into a Citty infected with Heresy, and enquire for the Catholike Church, euen the Heretiks themselues will not direct him to any Church of theirs, but to a Church in which Catholikes meete to serue God.

In this sense, as other particuler Churches, so also the Roman (euen as she is a particuler Church limited to the Dioces of Rome) may haue the name of A Catholike Church. But when we say, No man can be saued, that is not a member of [Page 5]the Roman Church, we speake not of the Roman Church in this sense (for Catholikes of other Dioceses may be sa­ued, aswell as of the Roman) but by the Roman Church we vnderstand the Vniuersall Church, comprehending both that of the Roman Dioces, and all other particuler Churches that professe subiection to her, follow her Doctrine, and imbrace her communion: for all these by adherence to her, and vnion with her, make one mysticall body of Christ, and one holy Catholike, or vniuersall Church, of which she is the Head, and the rest members.

For the better vnderstanding of this, we are to consider seuerall dignities vnited in the person of the Bishop of Rome. He is Bishop, Arch-bishop, Patriarke, and Pope. As he is Bishop, his iurisdiction is confined to the Citty of Rome, and other townes within her territories, of which the Roman Dioces consisteth. As he is Archbishop, he hath subiect vnto him some few others, the chiefest of which, is the Bishop of Ostia. As he is Patriarke, the extent of his au­thority is ouer all the Westerne, or Latin Church. And fi­nally as he is Pope, that is to say the Successor of S. Peter, and the chiefe Vicar or Lieutenant of Christ vpon earth, he is the supreme Pastor & Gouernor of the whole Church of God, which is vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth, wheresoeuer the name of Christ is known; which therfore is absolutely and without limitation called the Catholike Church. In re­gard of this transcendent authority of the Bishop of Rome, he is rightly stiled Bishop of the Vniuersall, or Catholike Church; to whom therefore all the members of the Church aswell Pastors as people, by the institution of Christ, owe subie­ction and obedience. And as he is the head and Father of all Bishops, so the particular Church of the Roman Dioces, is the head and Mother of all Churches. Now, that not only the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces, but also the whole body of the Catholike or vniuersall Church consi­sting of the Roman as head, and the rest as members, is like­wise rightly and in a true and proper sense stiled the Roman Church. I proue out of S. Augustine, sayingDe percato orig. l. 2. c. 17. that against the Pelagians, not only the Councels of Bishops, and the See Aposto­like, [Page 6]but also, vniuersam Romanam Ecclesiam, the whole Roman Church, and the Roman Empire were most iustly incensed: where by the Roman Church he vnderstands the vniuersall, or Catho­like Church spread ouer the world, as by the Roman Em­pire he vnderstands the Empire of the Romans spread ouer the world. And the same I proue by examples. For when we speake of the Iewish people, or the Iewish Church, we vnderstand not the tribe of Iuda only, but all the rest of the tribes, that were ioyned therwith. S. Iohn Baptist was of the tribe of Leui; S. Paul of the tribe of Beniamin; and that holy widow Anna, mentioned by S. Luke Cap. 2.36. of the tribe of Aser: and yet they all are rightly called Iewes, parts of the Iewish people, and members of the Iewish Church, by reason of their adherence to, and communion with the principall tribe, which was that of Iuda. Likewise vnder the name of the Greeke Church, are not comprehended the naturall Greeks only; for the Muscouits and Russians, though they be of a different nation, and haue their seruice in a different tongue, are yet esteemed, and said to be of the Greeke Church, because they imbrace her Doctrine, and commu­nion. And what more vsual to Protestants themselues, then to call Catholikes in what parte of the world soeuer they liue, Romanists? And lastly to cōfirme this manner of speach with secular, aswell as with Ecclesiasticall examples, who knoweth not, that according to the phrase of all writers, by the name of the Roman Empire, is not vnderstood the Citty and territories of Rome only, but also whatsoeuer other Prouinces subiect to the Roman Emperors, though neuer so distant from Rome? And so in like manner, when we say, that out of the Roman Church there is no hope of saluation, by the Roman Church we vnderstand not the particuler Dioces of Rome, but all the Churches of the world, which make one Catholike or vniuersall Church, of which the Roman is head, and the rest members subiect to her. And because the Bishop of Rome is head of all Bishops, the particuler Church of the Roman Dioces is the mother and mistresse of all Churches: In regard whereof she may in a sense not improper, be called the Catholike Church: as in a fleete of [Page 7]Galleys the chief Galley which hath commaund ouer the rest, though it be a particuler Galley, is called the Generall: and in an army of men, though the chiefe commaunder be a particuler man, and as a Captaine haue a particuler com­pany of his owne, yet he is rightly called the Generall. And as none can be a Souldier of that fleete of Galleys, vnlesse he be in the chief Galley, or in some of the rest subordinate to her; nor a souldier of that Army, vnlesse he be of the Ge­neralls particuler company, or of some of the rest subiect to him: so none can be a memb [...]r of the Catholike Church, vnlesse he be of the particuler Church of Rome, or of some other, subiect to her. And from hence it is, that albeit euery Orthodoxe Church may be called a Catholike Church, and euery Orthodoxe man a Catholike man, yet this deno­mination agreeth to the Bishop and Church of Rome cau­sally and originally, and to other men and C [...]urches par­ticipatiuely. In regard whereof S. CyprimL. 4. ep. 8. [...]alleth the Roman Church The roote and Mother of the Cathol [...]ke Church, and the originall of Sacerdotall vnity: from whence also it fol­loweth, that as euery particuler person that is in commu­nion with the Church of Rome, is rightly styled Catholike: so all others, that are not of her communion, are Schisma­tiks, or Heretikes.

SECT. III. That in the language of Antiquity, The Catholike Church, and the Roman Church, were two names signifying one, and the same thing.

IT hath euer beene the constant beliefe of all Orthodoxe Fathers and people, aswell of the primitiue, as of the suc­cessiue ages since Christ, that the Roman Church is the Ca­tholike Church as hath beene declared; and that out of her there is no hope of saluation. The whole scope of your Grand Imposture, is, to impugne this truth: and the whole drift and subiect of this Apology shall be to maintayne & [Page 8]defend the same truth. And that the reader may haue some little taste or prelibatiō of what shal be more largely proued in the ensuing Chapters, I haue thought good to set downe in the frontispice of this worke, the beliefe of some of the most famous and renowned Fathers of Gods Church, not in myne, but in their owne cleare expresse and vnan­swerable words. First therefore Tertullian speaking of Marcion, who had presented a great summe of money to the Church of Rome, saythCont. Marcio. l. 4. c. 4. Marcion gaue his money to the Catholike Church, which reiected both it and him, when he fell into heresy. The same appeareth by that ancient learned Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa S. CyprianL. 4. ep. 2. who ex­presseth to Antonianus, how great ioy he conceaued to vn­derstand, that forsaking the Nouatians, he wholly agreed with the Catholike Church, adhering to Cornelius Pope. And againe:Ibid. You writ (sayth he to Antonianus) that I would send a copie of your letters to Cornelius, to the end he might vnderstand, that you communicate with him, that is to say, with the Catholike Church. And speaking to Cornelius himself,L. 4. ep. 8. and calling the Ro­man Church, The roote and originall of the Catholike Church, he sayth: It seemed good to vs, that letters should be sent to all our Col­leagues at Rome, that they should firmely imbrace your communion, that is to say, the vnity and charity of the Catholike Church. Hereby it appeares, that in S. Cyprians language and beliefe, to com­municate with the Roman Church, and to communicate with the Catholike Church, was one and the selfe same thing. And the same appeareth by those Africans whome Nouatus had se­duced to forsake Cornelius the true P [...]pe, and adhere to Nouatian the Anti-pope: for perceauing that by falling from Cornelius, they were fallen from the Catholike Church, and become Schismatiks, they acknowledged their error, and made their recantation in these words, reported and commended by S. Cyprian:Ep. 46. We acknowledge Corne­lius to be Bishop of the most holy Catholike Church, chosen by Almigh­ty God, and our Lord Iesus Christ. We confesse our error we haue beene seduced: we haue beene circumuented by perfidiousnes & cap­tious loquacity: for although we did seeme to haue communication with a man (Nouatian the Anti-pope) that was a Schismatike, [Page 9]and an heretike, yet our mind was alwayes sincere in the Church: for we are not ignorant that there is one God, and one Lord Christ, whom we haue confessed, and one holy Ghost, and that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholike Church. In these words S. Cy­prian (as you see) together with those his Africans, calleth the Bishop of the Roman Church the Bishop of the Catholike Church, and p [...]ofesseth, that to be diuided from him, is to be diuided from the Catholique Church. The same appeares by Cornelius himselfe, who speaking of Nouatus, that had set vp Nouatian an Anti-pope in opposition to him, sayth:Apud Eu­seb. l. 6. hist. c. 35. Nouatus forsooth would haue vs to think, that he had forgotten there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholike Church; where by the Catholike Church he vnderstands the Roman Church, as the head and Mother of all others. The same appeares by S. AmbroseDe obitu fratris Saty­ri., who reporting, how his holy Brother Saty­rus in his returne out of Africa, being cast by shipwrack on the Island of Sardinia, which he knew to be infected with the Schisme of the Luciferians, and desiring to communi­cate with none but Catholikes, called for the Bishop of that place, and enquired of him, whether he agreed with the Catholike Bi­shops, that is (sayth S. Ambrose) with the Roman Church. And S. Augustine hauing alleaged a sentence of S. Am­brose to confute Iulian the Pelagian heretike, sayth:L. 1. cont. Iulia. Pelag. c. 2. Here is Ambrose of Milan, whom thy Mayster Pelagius so highly com­mended, as to say, that in his bookes chiefly the Roman fayth doth shyne, so, that his very enemy durst not reprehend his fayth, and most pure interpretation of Scripture. Who seeth not that S. Augu­stine here by the Roman fayth, vnderstands the Catholike fayth? And therefore speaking againe of the great constan­cy of the same Saint, of his labours, and dangers for the Ca­tholike fayth he sayth:Cont. Iu­lian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 2. The Roman world doubteth not to magnify them with him; wher againe by the Roman world he vn­derstandeth all the Catholikes of the world. The same was the beliefe of S. Hierome:Apol. aduers. Ruf­fin. l. 1. What fayth (sayth he) doth Ruf­finus call his fayth? That which the Roman Church holds, or that which is cōtayned in Origens books? if he answere that which the Roman Church holds, then are we Catholikes. The same appeares by the Epistle of Theodosius the Emperor to Acatius Bi­shop [Page 10]of Berōe, and other his Collegues, to whom he sayth:In Synod. Ephes. to. 5. c. 10. It becometh your Holinesse to aske these things of God earnestly, and by manifest tokens to shew your selues approued Priests of the Roman Religion.

The same appeares by Palladius,In vita Chrysostomi. who writeth of Theo­dorus Tyanaeus, that he fortified his Bishoprick with a wall of pie­ty, by perseuering till the end of his life in the communion of the faithfull Romans, of whom Paul giueth testimony, saying, your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world.

The same appeares by what Victor of Tunes reporteth of Vitalianus a ScythianIn Ana­stas. namely, that he tooke armes a­gainst Anastasius the Emperor, and would neuer promise peace vnto him, but vpon condition that he should vnite all the Churches of the East to the Roman: which plainely sheweth that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church, as the Head and center of Catholike Communion, and Mother of all Churches.

The same appeares by Iohn Patriarke of Constantino­ple, who abiuring the memory of Acatius, said to Hormis­das Pope:Epist. ad Hormisd. We hope to be in one communion with you declared by the See Apostolike, 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 haue separated themsel­ues from the communion of the Catholike Church, that is to say, that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike. And not vnlike to this is the profession of fayth which Iustinian the Emperor sent to Agapetus Pope. The same appeares byEp. ad A­gapet. apud Bin. to. 2. pag. 417.420. S. Augu­stine, testifying,Ep. 157. that the Heresy of Pelagius and Celestius by meanes of the vigilancy of two Episcopall Councels, hath beene con­demned in the extent of the whole world, by the Reuerend Prelates of the Apostolike See, yea euen by two of them, Pope Innocentius and Pope Zozimus. And that S. Augustine by the See Apostolike vnderstands the Catholike Church, Possidius speaking of the same subiect declareth,In vita Aug. c. 18. calling the sentence pro­nounced by these Popes, Ecclesiae Catholicae iudicium. The iudg­ment of the Catholike Church Innocentius (sayth he) and Zozimus in their seuerall tymes, censuring the Pelagians, and cutting them of from the members of the Church, by their letters addressed to the [Page 11]African Churches of the East and West, commaunded them to be a­nathematized, and auoyded by all Catholikes: and the most religious Emperour Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them, condemned them also by his lawes, orday­ning that they should be ranked among Heretikes.

The same appeares by GelasiusIn decret. de Scriptor. apocryph. an African borne, and (it is thought) a Disciple of S. Augustine, testifying, that the holy Roman Catholike and Apostolike Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by any Synodicall constitutions, but hath obteyned the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell, saying, Thou art Peter &c.

The same appeares by S. Prosper S. Augustines second soule, saying:L. de pro­miss. & prae­dict. Dei part. 4. c. 5 The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentils in the Citty of Rome, where they taught the doctrine of Christ our Lord: they deliuered it to their Successors peaceable and free from diuision: the Christian that communicates with this gene­rall Church, is a Catholike: but if he be separated from it, he is an Heretike and Antichrist.

The same appeares 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 Syno­dicall Epistle to the Catholikes of Africa, in which they exhort them for the auoyding of Pelagianisme to read the books of S. Augustine, of which (say they)Extat in Bibliotheca Patr. edit. Colon. to. 6. part. 1. pag. 152. Hormisdas of blessed memory, a glorious Bishop of the Apostolike See, made men­tion with great commendation of Catholike prayse, 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 Catholike Church holds, and obserues concerning freewill and the grace of God, may be fully knowne out of diuers books of blessed Augustine, & chiefly those which he writ to Prosper & Hi­lary. These their words conuince that not only in the be­liefe of that ancient and holy Pope Hormisdas, but also of all the Catholike Bishops of Africa, the Roman Church and the Catholike Church, the Roman fayth and the Ca­tholike fayth, were Synonima's betokening one and the same thing.

The same appeares by S. Gregory the Great, who set­teth downe the forme of abiuration which all Bishops re­turning from Schisme to the Vnity of the Catholike Church were to make, expressing it in these words:L. 1. epist. 30. I Bishop of N. hauing discerned the trappe of diuision wherein I was caught, am returned by Gods grace with my pure and free will to the Vnity of the See Apostolike: and I vow and promise, that I will neuer returne to Schisme, but alwayes remayne in the Vnity of the Catholike Church, and in the communion of the Bishop of Rome. This profession sheweth, that as now it is, so then it was held to be no lesse then open Schisme to be diuided 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 Councell generall, and being read in the first Action, was approued and praysed by all the Fathers therof.Act. 1. apud Bin. to. 3.881.913. & Can. pag. 199.

The same appeares by the testimony which Venerable Bede giues of Oswin King of Northumberland, who by meanes of a famous disputation held between Colman a Scottish Abbot, and Wilfrid a learned Priest of the Britans for the decision of certaine points of Religion, wherein the Britans and Scots at that tyme disagreed, was conuer­ted to the Roman Church: and thereupon with the aduice of Egbert king of Kent sent Wigandus a Priest to Rome to be ordained Archbishop there, to the end that returning he might ordayne Bishops throughout all Britany: for (sayth Bede) Oswin though brought vp by the Scots, L. 3. hist. Angl. c. 29. had rightly vnderstood, that the Roman Church is the Catholike and Apostolike Church.

These testimonies sufficiently proue, that the most ho­ly and learned Fathers, as also the Orthodox Christians of former ages did belieue that the Roman Church was the Catholike Church, and that to be deuided from the Ro­man Church was to be no Catholike but a Schismatike. And that it may appeare how like you that deny this truth are to the Arian Heretikes, it will not be amisse to shew that they knew Catholike and Roman to be all one: and that because they would not grace Catholikes with the [Page 13]name of Catholikes, they called them Romans, or Roma­nists, as at this day you call vs, shewing your selues to be of the same spirit with the Arians. Victor that famous Afri­can Bishop of Vrica writeth to thisL. 2. de per­secut. Vandal. purpose, that Io­cundus an Arian speaking to king Theodoricus, sayd: Thou maiest make an end of Armogastus with diuers afflictions: for if thou put him to death by the sword, the Romanists will proclayme him a Martyr. And of another Martyr he reportethIbid. that being questioned by the Arians concerning his fayth, he profes­sed himself to be a Catholike, saying. Romanus sum, I am a Roman. Apud Baron, amo 471. In like manner Ermodius reporteth of the Nobili­ty of the Ligures that proposing to Ricimer an Arian Goth a man fit to sollicite a peace, they said: Si Catholicus est, & Romanus, if he be a Catholike, then is he a Romanist. And S. Gre­gory of Tours reporteth of an Arian Prince,De glor. Mars. c. 25. that thinking within himself be sayd: It is the fashion of the Romans (so they call men of our religion) to attribute it to chance and not to the power of God. And againe he reporteth this speach of one Arian to [...]nIbid. c. 361 other: If thou wilt but harken to my Counsell, we will this day make our selues merry, laughing hartily at this Romish Priest. And speaking of the Arians that were in France:Ibid. c. 79. what thinke you (sayd one of them) will these Romanists now say? And what thinke you now Doctor Morton, what will you say? Do not these testimonies conuince, that in the language and be­liefe of antiquity Catholike and Roman did signify the same Church, the same fayth, and the same Orthodoxall people? Or what may we thinke of you that either are so ignorant, as not to know this? Or if you know it, so malicious as to deny it, to call it an insultation of ours, and to censure it as Schismaticall, hereticall, temerarious, impious, sacrilegious, Anti­christian &c.

SECT. IV. That whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church, is out of the state of Saluation.

THis truth is euidently deduced (out of the premises already proued) by this syllogisticall argument.

Whosoeuer is out of the Catholike Church, is out of the state of Saluation.

This maior Proposition you grant, and it hath beene already proued.Hoc cap. sect. 1.

But whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church, is out of the Catho­like Church.

This also hath beneHoc cap. sect. 3. and shall be throughout this whole Apology effectually proued. The consequent then is euident in Barbara.

Ergo, whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church, is out of the state of Saluation.

But yet in further confirmation of this consequent, it will not be amisse to heare the ancient Fathers themselues speake and testify the truth therof in their owne language. For so teacheth that ancient and learned Bishop S. Ire­naeus who liued soone after the Apostles and was Disciple to their Disciples. He prescribing a certaine rule to know and distinguish the Catholike Church from the conuenti­cles of Heretikes, saythL. 3. c. 3. that, All Churches and all the faith­full from all places must necessarily agree with the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull principality, that is by reason of the soueraignety of the See Apostolike, and the neuer-inter­rupted succession of Bishops in that See: which succession (sayth he) is Ibid. a conuincing demonstration, that the same fayth which was preached by the Apostles, is still conserued in that Church; and therefore,L. 4. c. 43. that all such as withdrawe themselues from this principall succession, we ought (sayth he) to hold them as He­retikes of a peruerse iudgement, or as Schismatikes and selfe-liking presumptuous fellowes. And as S. Irenęus alleaged this neuer interrupted succession of twelue Bishops vntill his tyme in the Roman Church, as in the head Church of the world, which therfore he calleth the principall succession; if (I say) he alleaged this against the heretikes of those primitiue tymes, as a conuincing demonstration to proue that they hauing departed from the Roman Church, in which that principall succession was to be found, had therby departed from the Catholike Church, and forsaken true fayth deliuered by the Apostles: far greater reason had Tertullian,De praes­crip. Euse­bius, [Page 15] L. 5. hist. c. 6. S. Epiphanius,Haeres. 27. S. Ierome,Dial. cont. Lucifer. Optatus, S. AugustineLib. 2. cont. Parm. and other Fathers of after ages to all eage the same succession of longer Continuance against the Here­tikes of their tymes to conuince them to be such. AndEp. 165. & Psal con­tra part, Do­nati. [...]f diuers of these Fathers as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, S. Epiphanius, Optatus, and S. Augustine haue reckoned vp by name all the Bishops of the Roman Church against the Heretikes of their tymes; we may now iustly reckon a [...]ar greater number of them cōtinued vntill these our dayes [...]gainst Protestants, to proue them to be out of the true Church, in which only this neuer interrupted succession is to be found, and wish them, (as S. AugustinePsal. con­tra part. Do­nati. did the Donatists) not to lye cut of from this succession, that being [...]he Rock against which the proud gates of hell preuaile [...]ot. So teacheth S. Cyprian saying:L. 1. ep. 8. There is one God, and [...]ne Christ. & one chayre built vpon Peter, out of which whosoeuer ga­thereth, scattereth, that is, maketh a Schisme in the Church, [...]s the Nouatians did, against whom he writeth. And why did he reioyceL. 4. ep. [...]. to heare 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 Catholike Church? And writing to Cornelius himselfe he calles the Chayre of S. PeterL. 4. ep. 8. the roote and Mother of the Catholike Church, andL. 1. ep. 3. the principall chayre from whence sacerdotall Vni­ty is deriued: from whence he inferreth, that whosoeuer depar­teth from that L. de v­nit. Ecclesiae. See, holds not the fayth, nor is in the Church.

So teacheth ancient PacianusEp. 2.: for Nouatian (as S. Cyprian affirmeth) hauing made himselfe an adulterous and contrary Head to Cornelius the lawfull Pope, and thereby separated himself from the Roman Church, Pacia­nus for that very cause pronounceth him to haue dyed out of the state of saluation. Although (sayth be) Nouatian hath bene 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 wherof whosoeuer will be a Martyr, must be a portion.

So teacheth Optatus that learned Bishop of Mileuis in Africa, when writing against Parmenianus the Donatist, heL. 2. cont. part. Parmen. sayth; Thou canst not deny out that thou knowest the Epis­copall [Page 16]chayre to haue bene first set vp in Rome for Peter, in which seat was placed the Head of all the Apostles, Peter; from whence he hath bene also called Cephas, to the end that in this only chayre Vni­ty might be preserued to all, least the other Apostles might attribute to themselues each one his particular Chayre, and that he should be a Schismatike and a sinner, that would against the only chayre set vp another. And againe shewing the Donatists to be Schisma­tikes, and out of the state of saluation, because they oppo­sed the Roman Church, heIbid. sayth: From whence is it, that you attempt to vsurpe to your selues the Keyes of the kingdome, you that fight against the chayre of Peter by your bold and sacrilegious pre­sumption? Thus writ Optatus 1200. yeares since: and by his argument we may now proue Protestants to be Schisma­tikes, no lesse then he did the Donatists.

So teacheth S. Ambrose,De obitu Satyri. professing, that to communi­cate with Catholike Bishops, and to communicate with the Roman Church is all one. And writing to Siricius Pope, and ac­knowledging all those to be Heretikes whom the Ro­man Church condemneth as such, he sayth:L. 10. ep. 81. Whom your Holines hath condemned, knowe that we also hold them condemned, according to your iudgment.

So teacheth S. Hierome, who writing against Lucifer the Schismaticall Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia, and the Luciferians his followers, that boasted themselues to be the true Church sayth to Lucifer:Epist. 8. I could dry vp all the riuers of thy arguments with the only sun-shine of the Church: but because we haue now reasoned longe, I will in few words declare plainly vnto thee my iudgment, which is, that we are to remayne in that Church, which being founded by the Apostles, dureth vntill this day. And else where declaring what Church he meaneth, he adui­seth Demetrias that if she will auoyd the snares of Hereti­kes, she hold fast the fayth of Innocentius Pope, sonne and successor in the Apostolicall chayre to Anastasius, who had broken the pestilent head, and stopped the hissing mouthes of that Hydra, which attem­pted to pollute and corrupt the simplicity of the Roman fayth commen­ded by the voyce of the Apostle. And againe: writing to D [...]ma­sus Pope he sayth:Ep. 57. I am ioyned in communion with your Bles­sednes, that is to say, with Peters Chayre: I know the Church is built [Page 17]vpon that Rocke, whosoeuer is not in the Arke shall perish at the com­ming of the floud; he that eates the lambe out of this house, is pro­phane: whosoeuer gathers not with you, scatters, that is to say, who­soeuer is not of Christ, is of Antichrist.

So teacheth S. Basill. In very deed (sayth he in a letter to theEp. 69. per Sabin. Diac. Pope) that which was giuen by our Lord to thy piety, is wor­thy of that most excellent voyce, which proclaymed thee blessed, to wit, that thou maiest discerne betwixt that which is counterfeyt, & that which is lawfull and pure, and that without any diminution thou maist preach the fayth of our Ancestors. It is then certaine in S. Basils beliefe, that the assurance which Christ gaue to S. Peter that the gates of hell (which are errors and Heresies) should neuer preuaile against the Roman Church, was not made to S. Peter in his owne person only, nor only for his tyme, but in him to all his Successors; and to them in him is granted that admirable priuiledge of preaching the fayth of Christ pure, and without any diminution.

So teacheth S. Maximus, aliàs In ep. ad Orientales apud S. Tho. in Opuse. 1. prope fin. Maximianus. All the bounds of the earth that haue receaued our Lord sincerely, and all Catholikes throughout the whole earth that confesse the true fayth, looke vpon the Church of the Romans as vpon a Sunne, and shall re­ceaue from her the light of the Catholike and Apostolike fayth: and not without cause: for Peter is the first that is read to haue made a perfect confession of the fayth, our Lord reuealing it vnto him, Math. 16. When he said: Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God: whereupon our Lord said vnto him, I haue prayed for thee Peter, that thy fayth fayle not. AndIbid. againe: We professe the Vniuersall Church to be framed and founded vpon the rock of Peters confession according to the sentence of our Sauiour, in which Church it is neces­sary to remayne for the saluation of our Soules, and to yield obedience to her, keeping her fayth and confession.

So teacheth S. Augustine: who among the Arguments which held him in the Catholike Church, reckoneth the succession of Bishops in the Roman See euen from S. Pe­ter vntill his tyme: I am kept (saythL. 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 Sauiour after his resurrectien committed his sheepe to be fed, euen to the present Bishop. And exhorting the Donatists, which [Page 18]bragged that they also had Bishops, heEpist. 165. sayth: If the order & Succession of Bishops be to be obserued, how much more assuredly & safely indeed do we begin our accompt from S. Peter himselfe, vnto whom as he represents the whole Church, our Lord said. Math. 16. vpon this Rock I will build my Church? for Linus succeeded to Peter, Cletus to Linus: and hauing reckoned vp all the Popes vnto Anastasius, who then sate in S. Peters chayre, he cōcludeth against the Donatists: In this order of succession there is not any one Donatist to be found: to which we may adde, 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 Catholike Church: and therefore he grieued to see the Donatists lye cut off from her, as branches from the vine. Be yee ingraffed on the Vine (sayth he to thePsal. con­tra part. Do­nati. Donatists: It is a griefe to vs to see you so lye cut of: number the Priests euen from the See of Peter, and consi­der in that ranke of Fathers, who succeeded whom: That is the Rocke which the proud gates of hell ouercome not. And as in these words S. Augustine sheweth the miserable estate of those then that are diuided from the Roman Church, so on the con­trary he declareth the happinesse, and security of all, that are in cōmunion which her, when speaking of Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage, who had bene condemned by a numerous Councell of Donatist Bishops in Africa, he sayth:Ep. 162. Cecilianus might haue contemned the conspiring multi­tude of his enemies, because he knew himself to be vnited by commu­nicatory letters both to the Church of Rome in which the Soueraygn­ty of the See Apostolike hath alwayes florished, and to other Coun­treys, from whence the Ghospell came first into Africa.

So teacheth Possidius Bishop of Calama, a familiar friend to S. Augustine, whose life he writ; and therein re­portethCap. 18. that when Innocentius and Zozimus had condemned the Pelagians, the most religious Emperor Honorius hearing of this sentence of the Catholike Church pronounced against them obeyed it, & condemning also by his lawes, ordayned that they should be ranked among heretikes. By which it appeares, that the Roman [Page 19]Church was then held to be the Catholike Church; & her iudgment in matters of fayth to be infallible, and that the Emperors by their lawes seconded her iudgment, com­demning as Heretikes those whom she had condemned.

So teacheth S. Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria, explica­ting those words of ourMath. 16. Sauiour; Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre­uaile against it. According to this promise of our Lord (saythApud S. Thom. in Ca­ten. ad cap. 16. Math. he) [...]he Apostolical Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure & free from all seduction & circumuention, aboue all Prelats & bishops, & aboue all Primats of Churches and people, most perfect in the fayth and authority of Peter. And whereas other Churches haue bene stay­ned with the errors of some, she alone remayns established firmely & vnconquerably, silencing and stopping the mouthes of all Heretikes: & we vpon necessity of saluation neither deceiued nor drunke with the wyne of pryde, togeather which her confesse, and preach the forme of truth, and of holy Apostolicall tradition. AndApud S. Thom. Opusc. 1. againe: Let vs re­mayne as members in our head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishops of Rome, from which it is our part to inquire, what we ought to be­lieue, and what to hold. And lastly; It is (sayth the AngelicallIbid. Doctor) proued necessary for saluation, to yeild obedience to the Bishop of Rome: for Cyril sayth in his booke of Treasures: Therefore Brethren if we will imitate Christ, let vs as his sheep heare his voyce, remayning in the Church of Peter, and let vs not be puffed vp with the wynd of pride least peraduenture the crooked serpent for our con­tention cast vs out, as long since he cast Eue out of Paradyse.

So teacheth S. Peter, for his golden eloquence surna­med Chrysologus, exhorting Eutyches the Arch-heretike, to leaue his heresy, and learne the true fayth from the Church ofEpist. ad Eutych. Rome. We exhort thee Reuerend Brother to lend an obe­dient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the City of Rome, for as much as the Blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate, ex­hibits the true fayth to those that seeke it.

So teachethL. de pro­miss. & pro­dict. Dei part. 4. c. 5. S. Prosper: The Apostles Peter and Paul founded the Church of the Gentiles in the Citty of Rome, where they taught the Doctrine of Christ our Lord, and deliuered it to their Suc­cessors A Christian communicating with this generall Church is a Catholike: but if he be separated from it, he is an heretike, and Anti­christ.

So teacheth ArnobiusIn psal. 106. explicating the necessity of remayning in the Roman Church in these few, but effe­ctuall words: He that goeth out from the Church of Peter, peri­sheth for thirst. Whereupon Erasmus sayth,Praefat. instruct. Comment. in Psalterium. Arnobius seemes to yeild this honor to the Roman Church, that whosoeuer is out of her, is out of the Catholike Church.

So teacheth Iohn an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople, In ep. ad Orientales. who making profession of his fayth to Hormisdas In ep ad Hormisd. Pope, acknowledged, that in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable: and that they who consent not fully with the See Apostolike, are out of the communion of the Catholike Church.

So likewise teacheth S. Fulgentius Bishop of Ruspa and a famous Doctor of the African Church, who togeather which other Bishops his Collegues made this answer to Pe­ter a Deacon that had bene sent out of theL. de in­carnat. & grat c. 11. East: The Ro­man Church enlightned with the words of the two great lights Peter & Paul, as with radiant beames, and honoured with their bodies, and which is also the top of the world, without hesitation belieues so to iustice, and doubtes not to Confesse so to saluation. So he, teaching that no Christian ought to make doubt of the fayth of the Roman Church. Againe a Disciple of his that writ and dedicated his life to Felicianus his Successor, reporteth that when Fulgentius going to theVita S. Fulgent. c 11. Extat in Bi­blioth. Pat. Edit. Colon. tom. 6. wildernes of Thebais, to fast, arriued at Syracusa, Eulalius Bishop of that City, dis­suaded him with these words: Thou doest well in aspiring to greater perfection: but thou knowest that without fayth it is impos­sible to please God, and that a perfidious dissention hath separated those Countreyes into which thou art trauelling, from the commu­nion of blessed Peter: wherfore, Sonne, returne home, least by seeking a more perfect life, thou runne hazard of loosing the true fayth. By which it is euident that the Roman Church was then held to be the Catholike Church; and that all such as dissented from her Doctrine, were out of the true fayth, and incapa­ble of Saluation. So teacheth S. Leo, the first Pope of that name, for his admirable learning, wisdome, and sanctity surnamed The Great, who writing to the Bishops of Vien­ne, sayth;Epist. 89. Christ from the See of Peter, as from a certaine [Page 21]Head, powreth his gifts vpon the whole body of his Church, to the end that whosoeuer should be so bold, as to depart from the solidity of that See, might know himself to be no way partaker of the diuine mysteries. AndIbid. that, whosoeuer goeth about to diminish the power of the Bishop of Rome, endeauoreth with most impious pre­sumption to vi [...]late 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 refractary and disobedient to the Successors of Peter, and in them to Peter himselfe, heIbid. addeth: To whom whosoeuer thinketh the primacy to be denied, can no way diminish their authority, but puffed vp with the spirit of pride, plungeth himselfe headlong into hell. AndEpist. 75. that he who dare oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, as vpon a rock is either Antichrist, or a Diuel. All these sayings of so learned a Doctor, and so great a Saint, I wish the Protestant reader duly to con­sider.

So teacheth the holy Councell of ChalcedonAct. 3. affir­ming Peter the Apostle to be the rock and head of the Catholike Church, and foundation of the true Fayth. From whence it fol­loweth, that whosoeuer buildeth not vpon the foundation of Peters See, is not in the Catholike Church, nor in the true fayth, without which no man can be saued.

So teacheth S. Gregory the Great, who writing to Boni­facius,L. 3. ep. 41. sayth: I admonish you that whiles you haue tyme of lyfe remayning, your soule be not found diuided from the Church of bles­sed Peter, to whome the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were com­mitted▪ and the power of binding and losing giuen, lest his fauour be contemned here, he there exclude you from the entrance into lyfe.

So teacheth S. I sidore, a learned Doctor and Archbishop of Seuill,Ep. vltima ad Eugenium Episcop. To­letanum. saying; that albeit the Episcopall dignity and power descend from S. Peter to all Catholike Bishops, yet especially and by a fingular priuiledge it remayneth for euer to the Bishop of Rome, as to a Head higher then the rest of the members: whosoeuer therfore (sayth he) yelds not obedience reuerently to him is separated from the head, and makes himself guilty of the schisme of the Acephalists, that is of certain heretikes, who acknowledged no one particular Head. And he addes, that the Church belieues this as the [Page 22]Creed of S. Athanasius, and as an article of fayth: and that whosoeuer belieues it not cannot be saued. So teacheth S. Maximus Martyr the greatest Diuine of his age, & that writ learnedly against the Monothelites, pestilent Heretikes, that held but one will and operation in Christ, and were anathematized in the sixth generall Councell. He among other Elogies of the Roman Church hathEpist. ad Marinum Diac. this: All the bounds of the earth, and whosoeuer in any place of the world, do con­fesse Christ our Lord with a pure hart, and Orthodox fayth, looke v­pon the most holy Roman Church and her confession and fayth atten­tiuely, as vpon a Sunne of euerlasting light, receauing from her the shining light of spirituall, and holy Doctrines &c. For from the first comming of the Word Incarnate all the Churches of Christians throughout the world haue had from her their beginning, their only and surest foundation, against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile, according to the promise of our Sauiour himself, that she shold haue the Keyes of Orthodoxall fayth and Confession, and open to them that religiously come to the same Roman Church, seeking true reall and only piety; and contrariwise shut and stop euery here­ticall mouth that speaks iniquity against heauen.

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 Ecclesiasticall rites. Among other his works which Bede reckoneth, he writ an excellent booke against the error of the Britans, who at that tyme differed from the Roman Church in the celebration of Easter. And of the same subiect he writ an epistle to Geruntius, in which he sheweth, the Britans by reason of that their separation from the Roman Church, to be in error.Epist. ad Gerunt. If (sayth he) the keyes of the heauenly kingdome were by Christ giuen to Peter, of whom the Poet sayth: He is the Porter of heauen, that opens the gate to the stars, who is he that despising the principall statutes of that Church, and condemning the Doctrine which she commands to be ob­serued, can enter into the gate of heauenly paradise? And if Peter by a happy lot, and a peculiar priuiledge, deserued to receyue the power & monarchy of binding both in heauen and earth, who refusing to ob­serue the Roman rite of Easter, can thinke that he is not rather to be [Page 23]straitly tied with in soluble bonds, then any way to be absolued? And the same he further proueth out of the priuiledge of not er­ring, granted to the Roman Church, when Christ promi­sed to build his Church vpon Peter as vpon an impregna­ble rock.

So teacheth Venerable Bede,Homil. in die Apost. Petri & Pau­li. saying: Therfore the blessed Peter confessing Christ with true fayth, and following him with true loue, receaued specially the keyes of the kingdome of hea­uen, and the soueraignty of iudiciall power, that all the faythfull throughout the world might vnderstand, that whosoeuer do any way separate themselues from the Vnity of his fayth and society, can nei­ther be losed from the bonds of their sins, nor come within the gate of the heauenly kingdome. And speaking of a conference held betwene Colmannus an Abbot, and Wilfridus a learned Priest concerning the celebration of Easter, Colmannus defending the Iewish rite, and Wilfridus the custome of the Roman Church, Wilfridus said:Beda in histor. gent. Ang. l. 3. c. 25. If you disdaine to follow the decrees of the See Apostolike, yea and of the vniuersall Church, they being confirmed by the holy Scriptures, without all doubt you sinne: for be it, that your Columba was a holy man, and of Christ, & likewise your Fathers; yet is their smal number in a corner of a re­mote Iland to be preferred before the vniuersall Church of Christ? And hauing in proofe of the Authority of the Roman Church alleaged the words of Christ, promising to build his Church vpon Peter, and to giue him the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen, 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 Sauiour were principally spoken to Peter, and whether the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to him? And they answe­ring Yes; the kingIbid. 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, least peraduenture if I coming to the gates of the kingdome of heauen, there be none to open vnto me, he being offended with me, that is knowne to keep the keyes.

So teacheth Aponius in his learned Commentary vpon the CanticlesIn Cant. lib. 2. saying: It is manifest to all the earth, where the [Page 24]pasture of holsome doctrine was reuealed to Peter: to wit, when Christ asking he answered; Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God &c. These pastures the Iew sees not, nor the Gentill nor yet any heretike whatsoeuer: 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 maintayning the Catholike fayth against heretikes, who with diuers Regulars his Collegues writing to Paschalis Pope, among other titles calls him, The Ep, ad Paschalem Papam. chief Priest of Priests, Pastor of the sheep of Christ, Porter of the kingdome of heauen, and Rock of the fayth, vpon whom the Catholike Church is built. And the Roman Church, heIbid. calles? The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth, against whom the gates of hell, which are the nouthes of heretikes, haue neuer preuailed, nor shall euer preuaile; the fountaine of Orthodoxall truth, the quiet hauen of the Vniuersall Church against all hereticall stormes; the chosen Citty of refuge for saluation. And els where speaking of the Heretikes of his tyme, heEp. ad Naucrat. sayth: I protest here before God and man, they are diuided from the body of Christ, and the supreme See, in which Christ hath deposited the keyes of fayth, against which the gates of hell, that is to say the vnbrideled mouths of heretikes haue neuer preuailed nor shall preuaile euen to the end of the world, according to the promise of our Lord, which cannot fayle. AndIn opere de cultu imag. againe: So great is the fayth of the Romans, that there is seene to be the impregnable rock of fayth founded according to the promise of our Lord. These two la­ter testimonies are set downe and highly commended by that learned Patriarke of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius, who addeth to them this verdict of hisIn defens. Concil. Flo­rent. c. 5. sect. 17. owne: If that diuine See belieue not aright, Christ lyes, when he sayth; Heauen and earth shall passe, but my words shall not passe; for in these words he promised his Church to be with her, and that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her.

So teacheth Rabanus, that learned Bishop of Mentz:Apud S. Thom. in Ca­tena ad c. 16. Matth. Therfore Peter specially receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the Soueraignty of iudiciall power, that all the faythfull through­out the world might vnderstand, that whosoeuer in any sorte sepa­rate themselues from the vnity of his fayth and society, can neither be [Page 25]absolued from the bonds of their sins, nor enter into the gate of the kingdome of heauen. And the same power of the Roman Church to shut the gates of heauen against all those, that diuide themselues from her communion, he expresseth a­gaine in a Poeme which he writ in prayse of the holy Crosse, to Gregory the fourth of that name.

The same teacheth PetrusBaron. anno 105 [...]. Damiani a Bishop of excel­lent learning and of a most holy and austere lyfe, that liued six hundred yeares 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, wherwith diuers clergy men of that Citty being infected, to the end they might auoyd the correction and censure of the Roman Church, pretended, that the Church of Ambrose was free, and not subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome: for the cōfutation of which error Petrus Damiani made a learned oration, in which he prooued effectually the supreme au­thority granted by Christ to the Roman Church aboue all Churches, and that whosoeuer denies her authority, is an heretike. And this his Oration tooke so good effect, that those licentious Clergymen abandoning their heresy, sub­mitted themselues to the Roman Church, with promise neuer to depart againe from her Communion.

So teacheth S. Bernard, whoIn ep. ad Innocent. 2. writing against Schis­matikes giueth this rule to distinguish between them and Catholiks: Those that are of God, are vnited 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 Arch-bishop of CanterburyDe Eu­charist. conc. Boreng. Lanfrancus, that liued almost six hundred yeares since, deliuering his owne and their Verdicts in these words, worthy to be noted: The Blessed Doctors, if not in the same words, yet in the same sense haue vnanimously taught in ma­ny places, that euery man which dissenteth from the Roman and vni­uersall Church in Doctrine of fayth, is an heretike.

If therfore the Blessed Doctors, those (I say) whom Protestants with vs acknowledge to haue liued and died [Page 26]in the true sayth, and to haue bene members of the Catho­like Church, and lights of the world, haue all agreed in this; and these be their expresse Tenents, faithfully deliuered in their owne words, that whosoeuer is out of the Roman Church, is to beheld as an Heretike of peruerse iudgment, or as a Schisma­tike, and self-liking presumptuous man: That he which standeth out against the See of Rome, neither is in the Church, nor holds the true fayth: That vpon necessity of saluation we ought to remayne as mem­bers in our Head the Apostolicall throne of the Bishop of Rome: That if we imitate Christ, we are (as his sheepe) to heare his voyce, remay­ning in the Church of Peter: That he who opposeth the Chayre of Pe­ter, is a Schismatike, and a sinner: That he agrees not with the Ca­tholike Church: That he is a prophane person: That he gathereth not, but scattereth: That he is not of Christ, but of Antichrist: That he shall perish at the comming of the floud: That he perisheth for thirst: That a perfidious dissension hath separated him from the Communion of S. Peter: That he is an Heretike, and Antichrist: That he can no way be partaker of the diuine mysteries: That he is either Antichrist, or a Diuell: That in the next world he shall haue the entrance of lyfe shut vnto him: That he is guilty of the heresy of the Acephalists: That he gainsayth S. Peter, the Porter of Heauen: That he cannot be ad­mitted into the gate of heauenly paradise: That he is an Heretike, speaking iniquity against Heauen: That he cannot be loosed from the bonds of his sinnes: That he either belongs to Antichrist or is Anti­christ himself. These be the very Tenents 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 taxe this their and our doctrine as false, pernicious, impious, Schismati­call, Hereticall, scandalous, damnable, blasphemous, sacrilegious, An­tichristian &c. Or with what title you goe about to defend your owne departure from the Roman Church, and to persuade others, that being out of her, they are in state of saluation? If you answer, that you haue departed from the (now) Roman Church, because she hath departed from the true fayth, which the Roman Church anciently pro­fessed, that's an excuse common to all heretikes, and can no more iustify you, then it could the Pelagians, the Donatists, [Page 27]or other ancient Heretikes, who would neuer haue depar­ted from the Roman Church, but vpon pretence that she had fallen from the true fayth. And moreouer it is absolu­tely false: for as the Fathers censure, & condemne all that are out of the Roman Church, as incapable of saluation, so shall you heare themChap. 12. sect. 1. & 2. constantly affirme, and prooue, that it is as impossible for the Roman Church to fall from that fayth, which she once receiued from the blessed Apo­stles Peter and Paul, as it is for the word of Christ to fayle, or for Christ himself to be a lyer.

In profe of this truth, I might yet further insist by other most forcible arguments: but partly not to detayne the reader, and partly because diuers of them shall be touched in the current of this Apology, I will immediatly passe to the examination of your Grand imposture, first in generall, & then in particular.

SECT. I. Your first Argument.

YOVR first is,Pag. 9. that because the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed by the accordance of S. Augustine and other our Diuines comprehendeth both the triumphant and the militant Church, the word (Roman) which cānot be a declaration of the Catholike Church, as she is trium­phant but only as she is militant, can no way be a declaration of the [Page 41]Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed. So you, for­getting your selfe: for heere you hold that the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed comprehendeth both the triumphant Church, and the militant: but els where contradicting yourPag. 365. selfe, you define the Church properly Catholike set downe in the Symbolor Creed of the Apostles to be the Church militant▪ videlicet, the multitude of Christian be­lieuers, whensoeuer, and wheresoeuer dispersed throughout the world; and, the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod, to be the representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol properly called Catholike. From whence it followeth against your selfe, that the word (Roman) may be a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed, which by your owne definition, is the multitude of all Chri­stian belieuers dispersed throughout the world; for this definition can no way agree to the Church triumphant (where the cleare vision of the diuine essence excludeth fayth) but to the militant only, consisting of all Christian belieuers. And because true Christian beliefe is to be found, only in the Roman Church, it followeth, that the woro (Roman) is a true declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed.

2. Be it, that the Catholike 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 Catholike Church to be the Roman Church, we speake 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 rayle at vs, for holding the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church, out of which there is no hope of saluation, you sufficiently declare, that you know vs to speake of the Catholike Church, as she is militant only: for she only is in hope of saluation; the triumphant already enioyeth it. I conclude therfore, that your argument is grounded on a wilfull mistake of the question; which as you cannot defend without contradicting your selfe, so neither without wronging S. Augustine: for when he [Page 42]sayth, that the Catholike Church comprehendeth both the militant and the triumphant, he speaketh of her, taken in her whole latitude: but that the may, and euen in the Apostles Creed be taken for the militant only, he expresly declareth in his explication of the same Creed, where tea­ching the Catechumenists which is the Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed, heDe Symb. ad Catechum. l. 1. c. 6. sayth: We belieue the Catho­like Church: She is the holy Church, one Church, the true Church, the Catholike Church, fighting against all heresies: she may be opposed, but she cānot be ouerthrowne. All heresies are gone eut from her, as vnprofi­table branches cut of from the Vine: but she remaynes in her roote, in her Vine, in her charity; & the gates of hell shall neuer ouercome her. In these words S. Augustine teacheth the catechumenists to belieue, that the Catholike Church mentioned in the A­postles Creed, is the Church militant built vpon S. Peters Chayre as vpon a rock, against which the gates of hell can not preuaile. And the same he declareth, when speaking to the Donatists, he denounceth vnto them, that because they were out of the Roman Church, they were out of the Ca­tholike Church and out of the state of Saluation. Be yee in­grafted (saythPsal cont. part. Donati.) he) on the Vine: It grieueth vs to see you lye so cut of. Number the Priests, euen from the See of Peter, and consider in that ranke of Fathers who succeeded ech other. That is the rock, which the proud gates of hell ouercome not. That Church ther­fore in which there is a neuer interrupted succession of Bi­shops from S. Peter, is (in S. Augustines beliefe) the Catho­like Church. Do not you then abuse S. Augustine produ­cing his authority to proue that the catholike church men­tioned in the Creed, cannot be the Church militant, since he so expresly teacheth the contrary? yea, and not only that she is the militant Church, but in particular that she is the Roman Church, built vpon S. Peter and his successors; and that whosoeuer is diuided from her, is an vnprofitable branch cut of from the Vine, which is Christ our Lord, and therfore no lesse deuoyd of spirituall life, then the dead branch is of naturall.

SECT. II. Your second argument.

YOur second argumentPag. 10.1 [...].12. is grounded on a false prin­ciple, with is, that the Catholike Church in her essentiall state is inuisible. We know, that the essentiall forme of the Church which is, Fayth, is inuisible to corporall eyes. But the Church (as youPag. 36 [...] confesse) is the multitude of all Christian belieuers whensoeuer and whersoeuer dispersed throughout the world, and that the congregation of Christians assembled in a generall Synod is the re­presentatiue body therof. Wherfore as it were ridiculous to af­firme that a multitude of men ioyned in one Common­wealth, or the representatiue body therof assembled in Parliament, is essentially inuisible, because their soules are inuisible, or that Christ liuing on earth was inuisible, be­cause his Diuinity was inuisible: so it is no lesse ridiculous to affirme that the Church in her essence is inuisible, because fayth is inuisible: for fayth is not the Church, but the essentiall forme of the Church, as the soule of man is not man, but the essentiall forme of man. Man consisteth essentially of body aswell as of soule: and by reason of his body he is vi­sible; for according to the axiome of Philosophers, Actiones & passiones sunt suppositorum. And so likewise the Church consisteth essentially of the persons that belieue, as of mat­ter, and of fayth, as of forme; and by reason of her matter is visible, as man is by his body, and Christ by his humanity. Now wheras to proue, that the Church in her essentiall state is inuisible, you alleage the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed,Pag 11. affirming, that the obiect of euery article of that Symbol (from beliefe in God vnto beliefe of life euerlasting) is vnto vs inuisible, and so far as it is belieued, is without compasse of sense, you speake vn­truly and ignorantly: for was not the natiuity of Christ vi­sible to corporall eyes? did he not visibly suffer in his body, when he was whipped, crowned with thornes, and buf­feted? Was he not visibly crucified? Did he not visibly dye? Was he not visibly buried? Did he not visibly ascend into [Page 44]heauen, the Astpoles beholding Act. 1.9.10.11. him? And is he not to come agayne visibly to iudge the quick & the dead? The exam­ple which you alleage of S. Thomas, is against your selfe: for not only the Diuinity of Christ is the obiect of fayth which S. Thomas belieued, but also his humanity: and he that belieueth not his humanity, aswell as his Diuinity, is an heretike. To what end, I pray you, when the Apostles thought, that Christ after his resurrection appearing to them, was not a man, but a Spirit, did he shew them his hands and Luc. 24.39.40. syde, and bid them feele, and see, that so they might belieue him not to be a Spirit; because (said he) a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to haue? And to what end did he Ioan. 20.27. bid Thomas put his finger and hand into his wounds, but that by feeling them he might belieue the bodie he touched to be the same that he had seene suffer on the Crosse? Nor do you bring any thing of mo­ment to disproue this: for the definition of fayth, which the Apostle giues, saying,Heb. 11.1. Fayth is an argument of things not ap­pearing, is sufficiently verified in these obiectes. It sufficeth that fayth be either of things wholly inuisible, or els of things visible, apprehended vnder inuifible conditions, & proprieties, as those are, vnder which we apprehend Christ when we belieue him to be both man and God; and those, vnder which we apprehend the Scripture, when we say, it is the word of God; or the Church, when we belieue her to be the spouse of Christ, the house of fayth, the temple of God, the mansion of the holy Ghost, the gate of heauen, the treasuresse of spirituall graces. And who knoweth not, that the Sacrament of baptisme, whether we confider the matter, which is water, or the forme, which are words, is the obiect of sense? and the very essentiall definition of a Sacrament, is to be, A visible signe of iuuisible Magist in 4. d 1. S. Tho. 3. part q. 60. a 2. & 3. corp. grace: and yet to belieue one Baptisme in remission of sinnes, is an article of the Creed expressed in the Councell of Gonstantinople.

And this discouereth the weaknesse of your argument taken from the predestinat, to approue the inuisibility of the Church: for though predestination be inuisible, as fayth is, yet neither the predestinat, nor the faithfull are inuisible; and therfore if I should grant for argument sake, that the [Page 45]Church consisteth of the predestinate only, it would not follow that she is inuisible.

But to proue her inuisibility, youPag. 11. say: Diuine Scripture in positine doctrine doth manifest thus much, in that speach of Christ to S. Peter, Mat 16.19. Vpon this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it; where the word, Church (by the iudgment of S. Augustine, and the accordance of your owne Doctors) doth signify, Only the number of predestinat. But let vs see how you make good this your charge. Our Doctors which you name, are Caietan, Ferus, Stella, and Salmeron. But Stella in that place neither explicates those words of Christ, nor makes any mention of them, nor of S. Peter, nor of the Church; but speakes of particular men, prouing out of other words of Christ recorded by S. LukeLuc. 6.47.48.49. that they which haue fayth without good works, build their house vpon loose earth, which therfore wanting founda­tion, by winds and stormes of tentations is easily ouer­thowne; wheras they that haue both fayth & good works, build vpon a firme Rock, which is Christ: and from thence he inferreth, that your Lutheran Brethren teaching that fayth cannot be without good workes, build not on Christ the Rock, but vpon sand. This is Stellas discourse, which to be imposterously alleaged by you, to proue, that the Church consisteth only of predestinat, or that she is inui­sible, no man can deny.

And no lesse imposterous is your obiection out of Sal­meron, who speaketh in the same sense that Stella doth; & is so far from teaching that the Church is inuisible, that in the very same disputation which youIn 1. Ti­moth. 3. disp. 22. q. Porro. to. 15. obiect, he proueth that the house of God, which is his Church, is visible and conspicuous in her Head or gouernor, the Bishop of Rome; in her members, the faithfull; in the word of God, which she is commanded to heare; in the profession of her fayth, which she is commanded to make openly; and in her Sacraments, wherwith she is sanctified; all these being ob­iects of sense. AndTom. 7. tract. 6.12.38. [...]e furthermore she weth that the church in holy writ is compared to a field that hath wheat and cockle; to a floare that hath corne and chaffe; to a net that contaynes good and bad fishes; to a vine that hath some branches bearing fruit, and some [Page 46]that beare none; to a body of which some members are liuing, and some dead; to a fold in which there are both sheep, & kids; to a great house in which there are not only vessels of gold and siluer, but also of wood and earth; and to the Arke of Noe, in which there were liuing creatures, both cleane and vncleane. And from these parables, as also out of other testimonies of holy Scripture, he inferreth against your Confession of Augusta, as also against the Pe­lagians, the Donatists, and all other sectaries, that the Ca­tholike Church in this life consisteth both of good & bad, of predestinate & reprobate. I know not therfore, with what conscience you produce him as a patron of your Do­ctrine, so contrary to his owne. Caietan and Ferus I haue not seene: but I feare, you deale with them as you do with Stella and Salmeron. Besides, Ferus is a prohibited author.

Your second obiection is proposed in thesePag. 11. sin. 12. words: The same may be said of the Church, as it is called the flock of Christ, Ioh. 10. My sheep heare my voyce: where by Sheep, are only meant, the sanctified Elect of God, as the testimonies of your owne Iesuites, the iudgment of S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostome do confirme. This then is your argument. Suarez, Tolet, and Bellarmine (for those are the Iesuites you name) S. Chrysostome & S. Au­gustine, by sheep in the words of Christ obiected, vnder­stand only the sanctified Elect of God. Ergo, the Church consi­steth only of predestinat. An absurd consequence, and falsly fathered on these authors, who teach that the name of sheep in holy writ, is taken sometimes for the elect, and some­tymes for the reprobate. In this text of S. Iohn which you obiect, it is taken for the elect; for Christ speakes of those sheep, to whom he will giue euerlasting life, and which therfore no man shall pluck out of his Ioan. 10.28. hand, as Suarez rightlyL. 3. de au­xil. grat. c. 16. [...].18. obser­ueth: but other sheep there are, which the infernall wolfe shall deuour: such was Iudas; and such are all reprobate Christians. And if it were true, that by sheep in Scripture were vnderstood the elect only, yet your consequence is false, and the Doctrine contained in it, hereticall: and such it is held to be, by those very authors, which you alleage to patronize it. Suarez shewethDe tripl. virt. Theol. part. 1. disp. 9. [...]. 6. & seqq. that the Church is a fold, contayning both sheep, and kids, that is, both predestinate, [Page 47]and reprobate, as Christ himselfe hathMath. 25.33. declared. And treating there of the sense of this very place of S. Iohn, he prooueth, that some wolues are in the Church, and some sheep out of the Church: this (I say) he proueth out of the words of S. Augustine (whom you alleage for the contra­ry) saying:Tract. 45. in Ioan. According to prescience and predestination, how many sheep are without, and how many wolues within? how many liue wantonly now, that will become Christians? how many blaspheme Christ, who shall belieue in Christ &c. And how many prayse God within, who will blaspheme him? are chast, and will become wantons? stand now, and will fall? And he concludeth, that these later notwithstanding they be actually in the Church, are re­probat, and the former though they be actually out of the Church, are predestinate.

All this and much more to the same effect is alleaged by BellarmineL. 3. de Eocles. c. 7. & 9. out of Scriptures, and Fathers. And the same is deliuered by Tolet in that very place which you cite for theAd c. 10. Ioan. Auno­tat. 16. contrary: for he sayth, that as some who did not as yet belieue were sheep, and elect, so contrarily, some, that did actually belieue and were sheep, were notwithstanding re­probats, as Iudas. And lastly S. Chrysostome is so far from holding with you, that the Church containes only the sanctified Elect of God, that he writethIn Psal. 39. thus: The whole Church consi­steth not of perfect men, but hath also those that giue themselues to idlenesse and slouth, that lead easy and dissolute liues, and willingly serue their pleasures. And that in the net of the Apostles (which is the Church) are contayned good and badHom. 45. in cap. 12. Math. fishes. Which Doctrine he like wise deliuereth in other places of his workes.

I conclude therfore that you haue wronged Suarez, To­let, Bellarmine, S. Augustine, and Chrysostome, fathering your false Doctrine on them.

But you proceed,Pag. 12. saying: A third Scripture we find, Rom. 1.9. where the Apostle sayth. He that hath not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his, which sheweth that none is truly a Chri­stian, but as he is regenerated by the spirit of Christ. But we find this Scripture to make nothing at all for you, for you, for who euer is regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptisme, receiueth [Page 48]some gifts of the holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Christ. And as he is truly a man, that is borne of Adam by naturall pro­pagation, so is he truly a Christian, that is borne of Christ in Baptisme by spirituall regeneration; for as therby he re­ceaueth fayth, so he is inrolled in the number of Chri­stians, and made a member of the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church. True it is, that all members of the Church are not alike: those that with fayth haue sancti­fiing grace (which is the life of our soules) are liuing mem­bers: they that haue fayth without grace, are according to diuers opinions tearmed diuersly: some say, they are dead members: some, that (because they are dead) they are not members properly, but improperly or equiuocally, and ther­fore rather to be called partes of the Church, then members. Others say, that they are neither members, nor partes, but as superfluous or corrupt humors in the body of man.

These opinions though they differ in words, yet they agree in this, that fayth being the essentiall forme of the Church, all the faythfull (be they Saints, or sinners, pre­destinat or reprobat) are contained in the precincts ther­of, euen as all, whether members, parts, or humors of man are contained in the body of man. And as for this diffe­rent manner of speach, Turrecremata, Canus, and others cited by them, and here alleaged by you out of Bellarmine (for out of him you tooke them) call sinners, partes of the Church, and not members, but only equiuocally, because (as Sua­rez rightlyDe trip. virtute Theol. p. 1. d. 9. n. 12. obserueth) by members, they vnderstand on­ly such partes as liue; wheras the name of partes may also agree to those that liue not. Wherfore they differ only in the names, vnderstanding by partes the very same, that the holy Councell of Trent and other Diuines do by members. And doubtlesse this manner of speach vsed by the Coun­cell, is more proper, because sinners hauing fayth, & hope, are not voyd of all motion of spirituall life: for as fayth is the beginning of iustification, so it vniteth the belieuer in some sort vnto Christ. Nor doth Costerus (whom here you obiect) differ from this opinion: for that he denyes not sinners to be dead partes, or members of the Church, [Page 49]he declareth,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 luke-warme, wretched, miserable, poore, blind, and naked, he affirmeth that notwithstanding this, they were both still ac­knowledged to be Bishops, and heads of their Churches. And a litle after, where he saythSolut. ad▪ obiect. Haer [...]t. that sinners are in the Church, as humors in the body, he sayth withall, that they are as wythered bowes on the tree. Wherfore vnlesse you will haue the Head to be no member of the body, and the wythered bowes no partes of the tree, you must consesse, that your obiecting of Costerus to proue, that sinners and reprobates are no partes of the Church, is a grand Imposture.

And here by the way I must aduertise you of a sleight which you often vse, and it is; that when in the explication of any point of Doctrine, you finde diuersity of opinions among Catholike Diuines, some speaking more probably, or properly, and others lesse; you conceale the former, and set downe the latter (as here you do) calling it, the accor­dance of our owne Doctors, and from thence frame arguments against vs, as from a ground, which we are not to deny. But who seeth not this manner of arguing, to be fraudu­dulent? For by denying that opinion, or manner of speech, as any Catholike may do, such arguments need no solutions, but of themselues fall to the ground. For ex­ample, I may refuse to allow the opiniō of those Diuines, which say, sinners are not members, but partes of the Church. I may also reiect Costerus his manner of speach tearming them superfluous humors; and therby it will appeare that your obiecting these authors to proue that sinners are not members of the Church, is an argument of no force, especially since they differ not from other Diuines (which hould wicked men and reprobats, to be members of the Church) really, but only in manner of speach, as hath bene shewed,

To the testimonies of Scripture you addePag. 1 [...]. some Fa­thers, who so expresly condēne your doctrine, that no man but your selfe could be so inconsiderate, as to make them [Page 50]patrons of it. S. Ambrose teacheth, and proueth out of S. Paul1. Tim. 2.20. that, as in a great house there are some vessels of siluer and gold, and some of wood and earth: so in the Church there are some good and perfect, signified by the siluer and gold; and some bad and reprobate, signified by the vessels of wood and earth. And of this truth (saith he) I thinke no man to doubt. The same Doctrine he like wise expresseth in other his workes.

S. Augustine (whom in the second place you obiect) condemneth your Doctrine in these words.Tract. 6. in Ioan. We confesse▪ that in the Catholike Church there are both good and bad: the good are corne; the bad, chaffe. The Church hath in her strong men, and weake; she hath iust and iniust. Serm. 107. de temp. In the Church there are many reprobates mingled with the good; and both of them are gathered as into a net, and swimme together in this world without difference, vntill they come to the shore, where the euill shall be seuered from De Ciuit. Deil. 18 c. 49. the good.

With S. Augustine accordeth S. Bernard, prouing out of the same parable of the Net contayning good and bad fishes; that in the Church militant there are iust men and sinners, elect and Serm de conuers. ad cleri [...]os c. 17. & eoist 11. reprobate.

S. Gregory sayth,Hom. 11. in Euangel. That the holy Church on earth is rightly compared to ten Virgins, of which some are wise, and some foolish; because in her, the good are mingled with the wicked, the elect with the reprobate.

These testimonies conuince, that wheras you here con­fessePag. 13. your Doctrine in this poynt to be one of the Te­nents, for which Iohn Husse was burned in the Councell of Constance; you by making the Fathers guilty of the same Tenet, do what you can, to cast them into the same fier with him, that so they may be burnt for heresy, as he was. The accusations you being against them, to proue, them guilty of Iohn Husse his heresy, are: First because, S. Ambroses words (say you) are, Pag. 12. All that are in the Church fight for Christ, intimating that the wicked fight against Christ. Why do you wrest S. Ambroses words to a false sense? his words are, Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia, Deo militant: which signi­fy nothing els, but that all which are in the Church are Gods soldiars, and fight vnder his colours. But all that fight [Page 51]vnder Gods colours, fight not as good soldiars: many suffer themselues to be ouercome, and lose that crowne which no man shall gaine, but he that ouercometh. These are the reprobats, of whom it is true, that albeit for the present many of them be in gods campe, which is his Church, yet before their death they shall runne away, as Iudas did, and be damned with him.

Out of S. Augustins worke de Genesi ad literam c. 2. you obiect these words:Pag. 12. The Catholike Church is so called, be­cause it is in euery part perfect. But S. Augustine in that place hath no such words. And you are very forgetfull: for a litle before you toldPag. 9. vs, out of S. Augustine, that, to hold the Catholike Church here vpon earth to consist of them that are per­fect, was the heresy of the Pelagians. And yet now speaking of the same Church, you set downe, as S. Augustins words, that the Catholike Church is so called, because it is in euery part perfect: which is to make S. Augustine say, and vnsay, as you doe; but the truth is, that these later words are not his, but yours: and so the contradiction must rest vpon you, not vpon him.

In like manner you sayPag. 12. that the Church of Christ consisteth only of the predestinate and sanctified elect of God. But els where, you tell vs,Pag 340. that the Aegyptians, Aethiopians, Armenians, Russians, and others among whom there are some guilty of some fundament all heresies, are partes of the Catholike Church, and in state of saluation. And againe both in this Grand Im­posturePag. 330., and in your Treatise of the kingdome of Israel in the Tract of the ChurchSect. 4. pag. 8., your Tenet is, that those who professe Iesus Christ to be the Sauiour of the world, although they do indirectly by wickednesse of life or heresy in doctrine, deny their owne profession, yet are they to be accounted Christians, true members of the Church consist only of the predestinate, and sanctified elect of God, how can it be verified that heretikes are true members of the Catholike Church; since it is the constant Doctrine of S. Augustine, and all the fathers, that heretikes are wholy out of the Church, and neither sanctified nor predestinate, but [Page 52]miscreant reprobates, and out of the state of saluation. Your doctrine therfore is, that the Church consisteth of the san­ctified and predestinate only; and yet withall, that it consisteth al­so of Arians and other heretikes, who are damnable reproba­tes. Reconcile these two. Againe you Protestants esteeme your selues to be all true members of the Church: & yet among you there are some drunkards, adulterers, vsurers, and theeues. If therfore you be all in the number of the san­ctified, and elect of God, some of you be strange Saints.

But to returne to your obiections out of S. Augustine, the other two testimonies which youPag. 12. lit. 0. bring, are no­thing to your purpose: for he only sayth, that the predesti­nate cannot be seduded, nor diuided from the Church, which is true: for before the end of their life, they shall become members of Gods Church, and perseuere in her vntill death. But how proues this, that none but predestinate are in the Church? Nor doth it import, that he giues to the predestinate the name of Church: for that name sometimes doth not signify the vniuersall Church, but a particular company of the faythfull; as when we say: The Church of the Corinthians, or of the Ephesians: and when S. PaulRom. 16.3. sayth, Salute Prisca and Aquila, and their domesticall Church. And1. Cor. 16.19. againe: Aquila and Prisca with their domesticall Church salute you. In the same sense the name of Church is taken by Cle­mens Alexandrinus, S. Gregory, and S. Bernard, whom heere youPag. 12. obiect: for they all giue that name to the iust and predestinate, by reason they are the principall partes of the Church.

SECT. III. Your third Argument.

YOvPag. 16. say: Though all agree in this (as your selues confesse) that without the Catholike Church there is no sal­uation, yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian professors, namely Excommunicates, and Catechumenists to be actually sa­ued, albeit no members of your Roman Church. So you, in­ferring, that the Roman Church is not the Catholike [Page 53]Church. Syr, you know, that Bellarmine (whom here you cite) expreslyL. 3 de Ec­cles. milit. c. 6. declareth, that when we say, none can be saued out of the Church, we speake only of such as neither are in the Church really, nor intentionally by desire, but that if they be in the Catholike Church, either really, or at least by desire (as Catechumenists, and some Excommunicats are) they may be saued. Which Doctrine both he, & other Catholike Diuines approue. And it is so certaine, that you know not how to disproue it, but byPag. 16. that as for being saued only by desire or vow of being in the Church, is but a wild and extrauagant peece of learning, in the iudgment of your owne Ie­suit Suarez. Pardon me, Syr. This is not Suarez his censure, but an vntruth of yours: for Suarez speaking of excommu­nicats,De trio. virt. d. 9. sect. 1. n. 14. sayth; that those Diuines which hold them not to be in the Church really, but only by desire, differ not from him in the sub­stance of their Doctrine, but only in manner of speech. Now, he de­fends, that both excommunicats & Catechumenists are in the Church actually and really: which also Valentia hol­deth ofTom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. §. 14. & 15. excommunicats: on whom therfore youPag. 15. marg lit. d. saying, that the Church Catholike is compared by S. Peter to the Arke of Noah: from whence you inferre, that as in the tyme of the deluge, all which were with­in the arke, were saued, and all without it, were drowned (although they desired neuer so much to be admitted into the arke) so whosoe­uer are essentiall members of the Catholike Church, cannot possibly perish; and contrarily, whosoeuer is not a reall and vitall member therin, cannot but perish. So you reason the matter, misvnder­standing S. Peter: for he compares not the Arke of Noe to the Church, but to the Sacrament of Baptisme, wherin your argument holdeth not: for though in the deluge, none were saued, but only they, which actually were in the arke, yet it is certaine, that in the law of grace, some are sa­ued, which neuer receaued the Sacrament of Baptisme, as diuers Martyrs, that were baptized in their owne bloud: & you acknowledge the same of Valentinian the Emperor, who dyed vnbaptized.

But admitting the arke of Noe to be a type of the Ca­tholike Church (for so it is often taken by the ancient Fa­thers) yet your argument proues nothing: for similitudes hold not in all things. Wherfore I answere, with S. Augu­stineL. 5. de Bapt. c. 28. that albeit none that were in the arke perished in the deluge, and all perished that were out of the arke; yet it falleth out otherwise in the Catholike Church represented by the arke: for ill Catholikes notwithstanding they be in the Church, not only by desire, but corporally and really, perish, because they make bad vse of their baptisme: and contrarily, others that belieue aright, and liue accordingly, though they be not in the Church really, but only in hart and desire (as being yet vnbaptized) are saued. From whence S. Augustine concludeth, that what is said of being in, or without the arke in order to saluation, is to be vnder­stood, of being in, or without the Church, corde, non corpore, that is to say, not corporally and really, but in hart and desire. Which Doctrine, as it is all Catholike Diuines, so it is contrary to yours, and sheweth your simplicity, in calling it, a wild and extrauagant peece of learning. The things in which the Church is like to the arke (witnes S.Aduers. Lucifer. Hierome) are: that as the arke was visible, so is the Church: as in the arke there were Creatures cleane, and vncleane, so in the Church there are good and bad: and as in the arke, there were predestinate, and also Cham, a reprobate; so in the Church, there are both predestinate and reprobate. Wher­fore this comparison which you haue brought, of the arke, destroyes your owne doctrine.

SECT. IV. Your fourth Argument.

YOur fourth Argument to proue the Roman Church not to be the Catholike Church, isPag. 17. because (say you) our Diuines that speake more ingeniously, freely graunt, that the Pontificall dignity, Roman (as it is Roman) is not from Diuine au­thority, because only from the fact of Peter. And they that are more [Page 55]affectionate to the Roman See, although they attribute it to the insti­tution of Christ, yet dare they not say, that this is to be belieued vpon certainty of fayth, but only as a matter probable and coniecturall.

If you should argue thus: An Aethyopian (as he is black) is not a man, Ergo, an Aethyopian is not a man, your argument were a sophisme; and so is that which heere you make a­gainst the Roman Church: for as an Aethyopian though he be not a man reduplicatiue and formaliter, as he is black, yet he is a man, as he is a rationall creature: so like wise, though it be no matter of fayth, that the Roman Church reduplica­tiuè, as Roman, is the Catholike Church, yet it is matter of fayth, that S. Peter by diuine institution was created su­preme Pastor and Gouernor the whole Church, & that the same power descendeth from him to his Successors. And it is also matter of fayth, that S. Peter fixed his See at Rome, and died there, and that the Bishop of Rome suc­cedeth him in his See, and supreme authority of Prince, and Gouernor of the whole Church of Christ: nor was this euer questioned by any but heretikes. That which some Catholike writers dispute, is, whether S. Peter had any command from Christ, to place his See at Rome, and not to remoue it from thence; or whether without any com­mandment from Christ he chose Rome for his See, out of his owne free election, as he might haue chosen Milan, or any other city? That he had such a command from Christ, is affirmed & learnedly proued byDe tripli­ci virt. Theol. d. 10. sect. 3. n. 10. Suarez, L. 2. de Pont. c. 12. Bellarmine, Institut. mor. part.2. l. 4. c. 21. §. Se­cunda sent. Azor, and by the greatest part of Catholike Diuines, with many forcible testimonies of antiquity. According to this opinion (which is the more probable & pious, & lear­nedly proued by Suarez) it followeth, that the Roman Church, euen as Roman, is by Diuine institution the See of S. Peter, and his Successors; and that therfore it is not left free for them to remoue their See from Rome, to any other place.

But (to giue you your greatest aduantage) be it, that S. Peter receaued no such commandment from Christ, but that it was free for him to chose for his See, either Rome, or any other Citty; and that his successors may also freely [Page 56]transferre their See from Rome: Yet this affoards no help to your cause: for though according to this opinion it be no matter of fayth, that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè, as Roman, be the Catholike Church, yet specificatiuè, and ab­solutely it is: for albeit S. Peter might haue placed his See els where, yet it is matter of fayth 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 & Mi­stresse of all Churches, and that whosoeuer is not a mem­ber vnited to this Head, is out of the Catholike Church. This you should haue disproued; but wilfully mistake the state of the question; and because it is not matter of fayth, but of opinion, that the Roman Church reduplicatiuè, as Ro­man, is the Catholike Church; you inferre that specificatiuè and absolutely it is not matter of fayth, but only of opi­nion, that she is the Catholike 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 discerne your sleights.

SECT. V. Your fifth Argument.

YOur fifth argument to proue that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church,Pag. 18.19.20. is, because there was a Catholike Church, which had Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors bles­sed Saints of God, before the Roman Church was founded, yea and before the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed, or the Apostolicall Creed it selfe 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 flocke; and therefore Gouernor of the vniuersall Church: from whence it followeth, that what­soeuer Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, or other faythfull li­ued in the Church of Christ, after S. Peter was made Head thereof, were members of the vniuersall, or Catholike [Page 57]Church subiect to Peter, though for a tyme there were no one particular Church which was head of al Churches, be­cause S. Peter as yet had not made choyce of any particu­lar seate, as afterwards he did at Antioch: and therfore the Church of Antioch whiles he sate there, was the Head and Mother Church, to whom all other Churches were bound to professe vnion and obedience. In regard wherof, that Holy Pope Innocentius the first, greatly commended by S. Augustine,Epist. 18. Alexand. Episc. An­tioch. sayth, that the See of Antioch had not giuen place to the See of Rome, but because what Antioch obtayned only by the way, Rome obtayned absolutely and finally. To which I adde, that if the Successor of S. Peter should now remoue 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 Catholike Church, as the Head and Mother Church of the world. But because by the prouidence 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 (saythL. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus) all Churches, and all the faythfull from euery place are of necessity to agree, by reason of this her more powerfull principality. I conclude therfore, that you ignorantly or wit­tingly mistake the state of the question: for the Roman Churches being, or not being the Catholike Church, as the Head and Mother Church of the world, no way depen­deth on her being founded before or after the article of the Catholike Church was put into the tenor of the Creed, but vpon being the See in which S. Peter Prince of the Apo­stles liued and dyed, and which he left to his Successors: for the Bishop of that See, being S. Peters Successor, succeedeth him in his supreme authority; and that authority maketh the Roman Church the Head of the world, which dignity it hath euer enioyed since S. Peter sate there, and shall en­ioy whiles his Successor continueth there, which shal be to the end of the world. To haue spoken to the purpose, you shold haue proued, 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 [Page 58]which he was Head: which if they had bene, they had no more bene Saints, then you now are.

SECT. VI. Your sixth Argument.

YOur sixth Argument is a mere sophisme. Al Catholike Diuines accord, as in a matter of fayth, that the Catho­like or vniuersall ChurchPag. 20.21.22. mentioned in the Apostles Creed, hath a prerogatiue of continuing in the true fayth vntill the end of the world, according to Christs promise made to S. Peter. Secondly, and that the Roman Church, whiles the Successors of S. Peter continue their seate at Rome, cannot fayle in fayth. But that S. Peter fixed his seat at Rome by the commandement of Christ, there to remaine 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 Diuines, yet it is not expresse matter of Fayth, because no such precept of Christ appeareth in Scripture or tradition: and therfore some Di­uines stick not to grant that the fixing of S. Peters See at Rome, was a thing proceeding merely from his owne 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 shold not then be the See of S. Peter, but Antioch: so neither should the Bi­shop of Rome be the supreme Gouernor of the whole Church, nor the Church of Rome the Catholike Church, as the Head and mistresse of all others (as now she is) but Antioch: Nor should she then haue any priuiledge of not erring in fayth, as now Antioch hath not, since the remo­uall of S. Peters See from thence. But therfore to inferre that the now Roman Church (against which you write this Grand Imposture) being at this present the See of S. Peter, or whiles hereafter she shall remaine the See of S. Peter, may erre in fayth, is to argue à sensu diuiso ad sensum compo­situm, and to infer that such things as perhaps are possible, but neuer shall be, are already in being. If I should argue [Page 59]thus. It may possibly come to passe (though it be impro­bable) that the Metropolitan See of England may be re­moued from Canterbury to Carlile: Ergo the Church of Canterbury is not now the Metropolitan Church of En­gland: were not this a sophisme? And so is yours. Some of our Diuines grant that the See of S. Peter which maketh the Church of Rome the Mother & Mistresse of all Chur­ches, and secureth her from all error in fayth, may be remo­ued from Rome, though there appeare no likelihood ther­of: Ergo (inferre you) in the opinion of some of your Di­uines, the now Roman Church is not the Mistresse and mother Church of the world, but may now fall from the fayth, euen whiles she is the See of S. Peter, no lesse, then she might, if his See were already remoued from thence. Who seeth not this Argument to be sophisticall? And to so­phistry you ioyne fraud: for, to proue that the Successor of S. Peter hath not his See at Rome by diuine ordinance, but only by humane election, youPag. 21. alleage SuarezDe trip. virt. Theol. disp. 10. sect. 3. n. 10. say­ing, that before the ascension of Christ, nothing appeareth of any such ordinance, either in Scripture, or from tradition. Here you breake of, leauing out the rest of Suarez words, and con­cealing his Doctrine: for in the very same place both be­fore and after these his words, which you cull out, he ex­presly affirmeth, that it is more pious, and probable, that Christ after his ascension appearing to S. Peter, commanded him to place his See at Rome; which he ptoueth by the testimonies of many ancient Fathers, and by other Arguments; all which you conceale, and cite him for the contrary opinion. The same abuse you offer to Valentia, Bellarmine, and Azor. For all these prooue, with many testimonies of antiquity, and o­ther forcible Arguments, that it is of Diuine institution, holding it for certaine, and the contrary opinion not to be safe, though not expresly de fide.

SECT. VII. Your seauenth Argument.

THAT the Successor of S. Peter in the Roman See ca­nonically chosen, is Head of the vniuersall Church, [Page 60]all Catholikes beleeue, as vndoubted matter of fayth. But that this indiuiduall person, v. g. Vrban the Eight, is true Pope, and true Head of the Church, though the more probable opinion of Diuines hold it also to be of fayth, yet diuers others defend, that it is only of morall certaynty. You not knowing how to solue the arguments of the first opinion, otherwise then by rayling against it,Pag. 23. fine. & cal­ling it, a Iesuiticall fayth both grosly false & wickedly blasphemous, assume the second, as granted, which I, with the authors of the first opinion, do not grant, but deny. For the Church proposing vnto vs this indiuiduall man. Vrban the eight, as true Pope, it is not only morally, but absolutely, and in­fallibly certayne, that in the person of Vrban the eight, are found all the conditions of true Baptisme, Ordination, Election, and whatsoeuer els requisite for a true Pope, and true head of the Church: for as the Church being assisted by the holy Ghost, cannot erre in proposing other Veri­ties of fayth; so nether in proposing this man to be the true head, and lawfull gouernor of the vniuersall Church wherfore our beleefe that this man is true Pope, is not hu­mane, morall, and fallible; but diuine, and infallible, vnlesse you will question the authority of the holy Ghost, making it humane, and fallible. Yea euen in the other o­pinion, though it be no matter of fayth that this indiuiduall man is true Pope, yet the Authors thereof hold it to be a Theologicall conclusion so certayne, that whosoeuer shall deny it, is worthy of flames.

SECT. VIII. Your eight Argument.

YOVR eight argumentPag. 25. 26. 27. is nothing but a repetition of what you haue sayd in the former sections, without any addition of new proofes, vnlesse to proue your Do­ctrine be to rayle against ours, calling it, new, false, scanda­lous, pernicious, hereticall, blasphemous, and vs periured persons: all which being nothing but an empty froath of iniurious words, deserue no other answere, but contempt.

SECT. I. Our first Argument.

THat the authority of the Bishop of Rome in his defi­nitions of fayth is infallible, we proue out of the words of Christ, spoken to S. PeterLuc. 12.32.: I haue prayed for thee, Peter, that thy fayth faile not, and thou being once conuerted, con­firme thy Brethren. There is no man so voyd of vnderstanding (sayth Leo the 9. speakingEp. ad Mi­chael. Imp [...]r. of this prayer) that can thinke Christs prayer (whose will is his power) to haue bene inefficacious: which the Apostle allso teacheth, sayingHeb. 5.7. ; he was heard for his reuerence. And for this prayer in particular Christ himselfe signifieth so much, saying, I haue prayed for thee: for what would his prayer haue auayled Peter, if he had not obtay­ned for him what he asked? Or how cold his brethren haue any assurance of their confirmation in fayth from Peter, if Peter could haue error; proposing vnto them falshood for [Page 118]truth? Againe, that Christ in these words prayed not in me­diatly for the whole Church, nor for all the Apostles, but for Peter alone, appeareth in this, that he expressed one sin­gular person, saying: Simon, S [...]mon (for in the Greeke it is twice repeated) and added the pronounce of the second per­son; I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth fayle not, and thou being once conuerted, confirme thy brethren. That Christ prayed not for the other Apostles, you grantPag. 53., and take this for a ground to proue, that, he prayed for Peter only, and not for Cle­ment, Vrban, or any other of his Successors in the Roman See. But your argument proueth nothing: for Christ had formerly obtayned the personall perseuerance of Peter and the rest, when he said:Ioan. 17.9. & seqq. for them I do pray &c. Holy Father keep them in my name &c. I pray not, that thou take them out of the world, but that thou preserue them from euill: And therfore this prayer for Peters not fayling in fayth, was not made for him, in the person of a priuat man, and without relation to his office of Supreme Pastor, but as for a publike person, that is, as for the Head of the Apostles, and Gouernor of the whole Church, and consequently for his See, and all his Succes­sors in the same See: for as that supreme dignity of Head, & Gouernor of the vniuersall Church was not to dye with Peter, but to descend by him to his Successors; so the effect of this prayer of Christ, being a prerogatiue obtayned for Peter, by reason of his office, was to descend to Clement, to Vrban, and to whosoeuer hath hitherto, or shall hereafter succeed him in the same office: euen as whatsoeuer prero­gatiue is granted to a Vice-Roy, as Vice-Roy, and as be­longing to his office, is consequently granted to all his Suc­cessors in the same office.

But you obiectPag. 54., that this priuiledge cannot agree to Peters Successors, because, Salas the Iesuit teacheth, that a per­sonall and singular priuiledge is that which is granted to an indiui­duall person with expression of his name: and therfore doth not extend to any other, but dyeth with the person to whom it is granted. You vnderstand not Salas: for he calleth a personall priuiledge, that, which is granted to an indiuiduall person, as he is a piuat person only, for his owne particular good, & not by [Page 119]reason of any publike office, for the good and benefit of the community: for if it be granted to him, as to a publike per­son, by reason of his office, as this was to S. Peter, as to the Head of the Church, and for the common good of the Church, though his name be neuer so much expressed in it, it is not a personall, but a commonSee Bona­cina Com­pend. v. Priui­leg., or as SuarezL. 7. de leg. c. 3. n. 23. from whom Salas learned his Doctrine, de legibus) call's it, A reall priuiledge: which he confirmeth with the example of a pri­uiledge, that being granted to a certaine Bishop in the Ca­non law with expression of his name, is notwithstanding supposed to passe to his Successors.

Now that this prayer of Christ, was not made for Peter as for a priuate, but as for a publike person, that was supreme Head and Gouern or of the Church, and consequently for the common good and benefit of the Church, & that ther­fore by vertue therof the Popes his Successors haue an in­fallible prerogatiue of not erring in their publike defini­tions of fayth to the seducing of others, is the agreeing con­sent of the ancient Fathers in their expositions of this pas­sage of S. Luke.

And 1. three holy Popes in their epistles: Lucius the first, to the Bishops of Spayne and France, Felix the first, to Be­nignus; and Marke to S. Athanasius, out of this prayer of Christ made for S. Peter, gather the infallibility of the Ro­man Church in her definitions of fayth. But because Pro­testants hold for suspected the authority of these epistles, I omit them, and passe to such as by Protestants are granted to be vndoubtedly of those Popes, to whom they are attri­buted.

2. Therfore Agatho a most holy Pope, and whom God graced with Miracles, in his Epistle to the Em­perorExtat Act. 4. A­pud Bin. to. 3. pag. 12. Constantine Pogonat (which was read in the sixt generall Councell, and approuedAct. 8. & 18. as the sug­gestion of the holy Gho [...]t, dictated by the mouth of the holy, and most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, speaking by Agatho) sayth: Our Lord promised, that the fayth of Peter should not faile, and commanded him to strengthen his brethren: which, that the Popes my Apostolicall predecessors haue euer performed, is a thing [Page 120]notorious to all. This testimony sheweth that not only Aga­tho, but all the Fathers of that Councell belieued this pri­uiledge of not erring in sayth, and confirming others to haue bene obtained by Christ not only for S. Peter, but for all his Successors; and that this is a truth suggested by the holy Ghost, and dictated by S. Peter speaking by Agatho.

3. S. Gregory:L. 6. ep. 37. Who is ignorant that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, who in his name receaued the constancy of his mind, being called Peter of a Rock, to whom by the voyce of truth, it is said, Confirme thy Brethren. And els whereL. 4. ep. 3. he proueth, against Iohn Patriarke of Con­stantinople, the authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer the vniuersall Church, by the Commission giuen to S. Peter his predecessor: It is manifest to all such as know the Ghospell, that the charge of the whole Church is committed to the Apostle Peter Prince of all the Apostles: for to him it is said; Feed my sheepe. And so him it is said, I haue prayed for thee Peter, that thy fayth fayle not▪ & thou being once conuerted, confirme thy Brethren. Which testimony conuinceth tha [...] Christ prayed not for S. Peter as for a pri­uate person, bu [...] as for the Head of his Church, and conse­quently for his Successors in him.

4. S. Leo the greatSerm. 2. de Natali Apost. Petri & Pau­li.: The danger of tentation was com­mon to all the Apostles & they all equally needed the protection of Gods help: but our Lord taketh a speciall care of Peter, and prayeth pecu­liarly for his fayth, that the state of all the rest might be more secure, if the mind of the Chiefe were not corquered. The strength then of all is fortified in Peter, God so dispensing the ayde of his grace; that the assurance and strength which Christ gaue to Peter might by him redound to the Apostles. And he addeth, that, as 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 chayre, and as a pious Pastor confir­meth them with his admonitions, and ceaseth not to pray for them &c.

5. Leo the ninthEp. ad Mi­chael. Imper. c. 7.: The false deuises of all heretikes haue bene reproued, confuted, and condemned by the See of the Prince of the Apostles, which it the Roman Church, and the hartes of the Bre­thren strengthned in the fayth of Peter, which hath not fayled hither­to, nor shall euer fayle hereafter. And the same sense of these [Page 121]words of Christ, is deliuered by Nicolas the firstEp. ad Michael. Imp., and Innocentius the thirdIn Cap. Maior. de Bap..

If you answere, that these testimonies are of Popes spea­king in their owne cause; I reply, that they speake in the cause of God, and his Church, and are worthy of all credit, both because they were men most eminent in learning, & sanctity; as also because in this exposition they agree with the Fathers both of the sixth generall Councell, and the rest: for S. Ambrose saythAd ca. 22. Luc.: Behold what our Lord said, and vn­derstand it: Peter is sifted; he fall's into tentations, but after his tenta­tion, is made Gouernor of the Church: and therfore our Sauiour be­fore hand signifieth, why afterwards he chose him to be Pastor of his flock; for he said vnto him, And thou being once conuerted, confirme thy brethren. You see then, that in S. Ambrose his iudgment, Christ prayed for Peter, as for the Pastor of his flock, and that, for Peter to confirme his brethren, is to performe the office of Pastor, and Gouernor of the Church: which office, as it was no lesse necessary afterwards then in S. Peters tyme, so it descended from him to his Successors.

A truth, which Theodorus Studites with other his bre­thren being pressed with the outragious persecutions of [...]eretikes, professe in their epistle to Paschalis Pope, in these words:Apud Baron. anno 817. Heare O Apostolicall Head, made by God Pa­stor of his sheep, porter of the kingdome of Heauen, and Rock of the fayth, vpon whom the Catholike Church is built: for thou art Peter adorning and gouerning the See of Peter. Christ our God said to thee; And thou being once conuerted, confirme thy brethren. Behold now the tyme, behold the place; ayde vs &c. Thou hast power from God, because thou art Prince of all: fright away the hereticall wild beasts &c.

And TheophilactAd cap. 22. Luc. expounding the same words: The plaine sense of them is this: because I hold thee as Prince of my Disci­ples, when thou (after thou hast denied me) shalt weep, and come to repentance, confirme the rest; for this becometh thee, that next to me art the Rock and fortresse of the Church. And we may vnderstand it not to be spoken of the Apostles only, but of all the faythfull that shall be till the end of the world. Which addition of Theophilact sheweth, that this priuiledge giuen to Peter of not failing [Page 122]in fayth, and confirming his brethren, was not personall, but belonging to his office, and descending with it to his Successors: for Peter in his owne person, was not to liue till the end of the world; and therfore not by himselfe, but by his Successors, to confirme the faythfull vntill the end of the world.

The same truth is further proued out of an ancient Trea­tise intituled, A dispute between the Church and the Synagogue, written by a learned Author, aboue 700. yeares since, in which it is saidCap. 19. art. 4.: Christ seemeth to haue defined, that the fayth of the Roman Church shall neuer faile, saying to Peter; I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth faile not: for he foresaw, that Peter whose fayth he promised shold neuer faile, was to be Bishop of the Roman Church, and there to end his lyfe by Martyrdome. And what, I beseech you, are we to thinke him to haue signified to vs, but that, that Church especially whose Bishop Peter (the Head of all Churches after Christ) was to be shold alwayes remaine in the confession of one true fayth. To these I adde the testimony of Georgius Trapezuntius a learned Grecian, who explicating the same words of Christ, saythIn illud Ioan. Si eum volo manere &c.: In them, two great Mysteries are plainly expres­sed: the first, that only the fayth of Peter & his Successors, that is to say, of the Roman Church, shall not fayle. The other, that the fayth of the rest shall sometimes fayle: Wherefore (sayth Christ) thou being once conuerted, confirme thy brethren. He said, Once, to shew that the Apostles being confirmed with the grace of the Holy Ghost none of them should erre; but that their Successors should; for whose confir­mation Peter, that is to say his Successors, are commanded to be con­uerted; which hath byn effectually performed: for the rest of the Chur­ches of the world haue byn often confirmed by the Roman, but She ne­uer by others.

Finally S. Bernard writing to Pope Innocentius, and re­quiring him to condemne the heresies of Abailardus, sub­scribeth to the same exposition, sayingEp. 190.: It is fit that all dan­gers & scandals arising in the kingdome of God, and chiefly those that concerne fayth, should be referred to your Apostleship: for I thinke it iust, that the ruines of fayth shold be repared there, where fayth can­not fayle; for that is the prerogatiue of your See: for to what other was it euer said, I haue prayed for thee Peter, that thy fayth faile not: and [Page 123]therfore what followeth, is required from Peters Successor: And thou being once conuerted, confirme thy brethren. It is tyme therfore (most [...]ouing Father) that you show your zeale, repressing the corruptors of [...]ayth.

Out of these testimonies I inferre against you, that what­soeuer Bellarmine in his Controuersies holdeth to the con­traryL. 4. de Pont. c. 3., these words of Christ, I haue prayed for thee Peter &c. containe no priuiledge of Peter peculiar to his person, but a publike prerogatiue belonging to his office, and des­cending to his Successors, as Bellarmine in a later workeApol. c. 14. §. Neque solum. expresly declareth. And therfore though out of them it cannot be proued, but that his Successors in their priuate Doctrine, or writing may erre, and fall into heresy; yet it followeth, that they neuer shall, nor can erre ex cathedra, that is, iudicially, in their Councels, Consistories, publike decrees or definitions of fayth made for the whole Church: for S. AugustineEpist. 16 [...]. truly sayth; The heauenly Mayster in the chayre of Vnity hath placed the Doctrine of verity, and secured his peo­ple, that for euill Prelates they forsake not the chayre of holsome Do­ctrine, in which chayre euen they that are ill men, are inforced to speake good things. There is then in the Church a chayre of holsome Doctrine, which is not the chaire in which Christ now sitteth in Heauen: for in that there sit no ill men, nor any other but himselfe. Nor is this Chayre, the chayre of euery Bishop; for euery Bishop is not inforced to speake truth: many haue bene heretikes and inuentors of heresies. Wherfore S. Augustine himselfe declareth this chayre of Vnity to be that, in which sitteth one Pastor, in whom all Pastors of the earth are one. I find (sayth he)L. de Pa­stor. c. 13. all good Pa­stors in one: for surely good Pastors are not wanting, but they are in one. They that are diuided, are many: here one is praysed, because vni­ty is commended. This one chayre is none els but that of S. Peter: There is one chayre (sayth S. Cyprian)L. 1. ep. 8. founded vpon the Rock by the voyce of our Lord. and againe:Lib. de V­nit. Eccles. Christ to ma­nifest vnity constituted one chayre, and ordained the originall of this vnity, beginning from one, giuing the primacy to Peter, that so one Church of Christ, and one chayre might be manifested &c. He that keeps not this vnity doth he thinke himselfe to hold the fayth? In the [Page 124]Episcopall chayre, sayth OptatusL. 2. contra Par­men. was set Peter, the Head of all the Apostles, to the end, that in this only chayre vnity might be pre­serued to all.

From this priuiledge obtayned by Christ for S. Peter & his chayre, it proceedeth that the ancient Fathers haue not doubted to belieue and teach the infallibility of the Ro­man Church in matters of fayth, as also from other grounds of Scripture to be declared hereafter.

S. Cyprian speaking against the Nouatians, saythL. 1. Ep. 3.: They presumed to carry letters from Schismatikes, and heretikes, to the chayre of Peter, and the principall Church from whence Sacerdo­tall vnity is deriued; not considering that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom misbe­liefe can haue no accesse.

S. Basil writeth to Damasus PopeEpist. 69. per Sabinum Diac.: Surely that which is giuen by our Lord to your Holynesse, is worthy of that most excellent voyce, which proclamed you Blessed, to wit, that you may discerne bet­weene what is counterfeit, and what is lawfull and pure, and that you may without any diminution preach the fayth of our ancestors.

S. Ambrose writeth to Siricius PopeL. 10. ep. 31.: Whom your Ho­linesse hath condemned know that we also hold them condemned ac­cording to your iudgment.

S. Hierome sayth to RuffinusL. 1. A­pol. aduers. Ruffin.: Know thou, that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle, admitteth no such delusions, and that being fensed by S. Pauls authority, it cannot be altered though an Angell should teach otherwise.

S. Augustine writing against the Pelagians, and hauing professed that the Bishop of Rome hath from the holy Scriptures authority to declare the true fayth and condem­ne heresies, addethEpist. 157.: The Catholike fayth expressed in these words of the Apostolike See, is so ancient, so grounded, so certaine, & cleare, that it is great impiety for a Christian to doubt therof.

S. Fulgentius saythDe incar­nat. & grat. c. 11., that what the Roman Church tea­cheth, the Christian world without hesitation belieues to iustice, and doubts not to confesse to saluation.

S. Peter surnamed Chrysologus exhorteth Eutyches the arch-heretike thusEp. ad Eu­tych. prafixa Act is Concil. Chalced.: We exhort thee reuerend brother, to lend an obedient eare to the letters of the most holy Pope of the Citty of [Page 125]Rome, for as much as the blessed Peter who liues and rules in his owne seate, exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it. I omit other te­stimonies no lesse cleare of S. Cyrill, of Iohn, and Maxi­mianus Patriarkes of Constantinople, of Venerable Bede, S. Maximus Martyr, Theodorus Studites, Rabanus, and o­thers formerly alleagedChap. 1. sect. 4..

From this infallibility of the Roman Church it procee­ded that the ancient Fathers and Councels for the decision of all doubts of fayth had euer recourse to the See of Rome, and that many learned and holy Doctors haue sent their writings to the Popes of their tyme to be examined by them, and approued if their Doctrine were found to be Orthodoxall, or reproued if it were erroneous. So did S. Augustine to Zozimus: the 4. Primates of Africa to Theo­dorus: the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis to Innocen­tius: S. Cyril to Celestine: Theodoret and the Councell of Chalcedon to Leo the great: S. Anselme to Vrbanus: S. Bernard to Innocentius. Other particulars I omit, hauing dwelled long in this point already.

SECT. II. Our second Argument.

AN other place of Scripture wherwith we proue the Roman Churches indefectibility in fayth, are the words of Christ, Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church▪ & the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. By the gates of hell Origen, S. Epiphanius, S. Hierome, S. Cyril, Rabanus, and all other expositors vnderstand, Here­sies, and Arch-heretikes, by whom as by gates men descend into hell. And contrarily by Rock, they vnderstand S. Peter, and his Successors in the Roman See, against which here­sies, and whatsoeuer persecutions raised by them, haue no more power to preuaile, then the furious waues of raging tempests against a Rock, firmely seated in the middest of the sea. They may beate, and breake themselues against it, but destroy it they cannot. And so experience teacheth: for howbeit the Heathnish persecutors and other enemies of Christ haue tried their forces against it, and all the other [Page 126]Patriarchall Sees haue fallen into heresy, yet against the Roman Church (God protecting it) no persecutions, no errors haue preuailed, nor euer shall preuaile: for she, sayth S. AugustinePsal. cont. part. Donati. is the Rock which the proud gates of hell ouercome not. Neither against the Rockon which Christ builded his Church (sayth OrigenTract. 1. in Math. nor against the Church it selfe the gates of hell shall preuaile. Vpon this Rock (sayth S. HieromeEp. 57. speaking of the Roman See to Damasus) I know the Church to be built: he that gathereth els where, scattereth. Our Lord (sayth S. Epipha­niusIn An­corato. made Peter, the chiefe of the Apostles, a strong Rock, vpon whom the Church of God is built; and the gates of hell which are heresies and Arch-heretikes shall not preuaile against it: for the fayth is euery way fortified in him. S. Chrysostome saythHom. 55. in Math.: Our Sauiour promised to Peter power to forgiue sinnes, & that the Church hauing for her Pastor, and Head, a poore fisherman, shold amongst the assalts of so many raging flouds, remaine immoueable, and more firme­ly fixed and setled, then the strongest Rock.

S. Cyril explicating the same words of our Sauiour saythApud S. Thom. in Ca­tena ad c. 16. Math.: According to this promise of our Lord, the Apostolicall Church of Peter perseuereth in her Bishops pure, and free from all se­duction and circumuention, aboue all Prelates and Bishops, and aboue all Primates of Churches, and people, in the fayth and authority of Peter. And wheras other Churches haue bene stayned with the errors of some, she alone remaines established firmely, and vnconquerably, si­lencing, and stopping the mouthes of all heretikes.

Possessor a famous African Bishop, and banished by the Arians, consulting Hormisdas Pope, about the Doctrine of Faustus Rhegiensis, yeldeth this reasonExtat E­pistola apud Baron. Anno 520.: It is expedient to haue recourse to the head, as often as the health of the members is trea­ted of: for who hath a more solicitous care of his subiects, or from whom is the resolution of fayth when it is questioned, to be required, but from the President of that See, whose first Rector heard from Christ, Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it.

S. Leo the great:Serm. 2. de sua assump. The solidity of that fayth which was pray­sed in the prince of the Apostles, is perpetuall: and as that remaines, which Peter belieued, so remaineth that also, which Christ instituted in Peter. Wherfore the disposition of truth remaineth, and Peter per­seuering [Page 127]in the strength of a Rock, hath not left the gouerment of the Church, which he once vndertooke.

S. Maximianus an ancient Patriarke of Constantinople higly commended by Celestine PopeEp. ad Theodosium., and othersApud Spond. anno 431. n. 22., writeth to the Orientalls: All the bounds of the earth haue sin­cerely acknowledged our Lord; and Catholikes throughout the whole world, professing the true fayth, looke vpon the power of the B. of Rome, as vpon the Sunne: And then speaking of the reward, which our Sauiour gaue to Peter, for that excellent confes­sion of his fayth, he addeth: For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world, chose S. Peter, to whome he gaue the chayre of Doctor, to be principally possessed, by a perpetuall right of priuiledge, to the end, that whosoeuer is desirous to know any diuine and profound thing, may haue recourse to the oracle, and doctrine of this instruction.

Iustinian the Emperor maketh this profession of his fayth to Bonifacius PopeExtat in­ter decreta Bonif. Papae.: The beginning of saluation is to conserue the rule of right fayth, & no way to swarue from the tradi­tion of our fore-Fathers; because the words of our Lord cannot faile, saying. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock &c. And the proofes of deeds haue made good those words, because in the See Apostolike the Catholike Religion is always conserued inuiolable. And the same profession was made by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to Hormisdas PopeIn epist. ad Hormisd., abiuring the memory of all such, as dye out of the Communion of the Roman Church, or a­gree not in all things fully with her.

S. GregoryL. 6. ep. 37.: Who knoweth not, that the holy Church is strengthned by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, who with his name receaued the constancy of his minde, being called Peter, of a Rock to whom by the voyce of truth it is said, I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen?

S. Maximus a famous Martyr, the greatest Diuine of his age, and a stout Champion of the Church against the Mo­nothelitesEpist. ad Marin. Diac. Apud Spond. Anno 657. n. 2.: All the Churches of Christians had their beginning, and surest foundation from the Roman Church, against which the gates of hell shall no way preuaile, according to the promise of our Sa­uiour himselfe, that she should haue the keyes of Orthodoxe fayth and confession, and open to them that come to her religiously seeking true piety, and contrarily shut and stop all hereticall mouthes, that breath out iniquity against heauen.

Theodorus Studites a man very famous for his learning, and constancy in defending the Catholike fayth, writing togeather with other his Colleagues to Paschalis PopeEp. ad Pas­hal. & ep. ad Naucrat. calleth him, Porter of the kingdome of Heauen, and Rock of the fayth, vpon whom the Catholike Churches built; And the Roman See, The supreme throne in which Christ hath placed the keyes of fayth, against whom the gates of hell, which are the mouthes of Here­tikes, haue neuer preuailed, nor shall euer preuaile, according to the promise of our Lord which cannot faile.

To these testimonies I adde others of Theodoret and Gelasius alleaged by BellarmineL. 4. de Pont. c. 3., which make vp more then a full Iury, to pronounce you guilty of a so­lemne vntruth, in denyingPag. 55. that, what was here spoken to Peter, doth accordingly belong to the Pope, by the right of Succession: for you haue heard the Fathers teaching the contrary. Their exposition I embrace, and follow, as the true sense of holy Scripture, & detest yours, who haue nothing to say against it, but to outface it, by calling it, An error, & to obiect against it the comment of Abulensis, who (say youPag. 55. teacheth, that by those words, Blessed art thou Simon, there was granted to S. Peter an infallible certainty of his soules eternall blessednes, which is an excellent priuiledge, but no promise of authority made vnto him. If Abulensis comment so, his comment makes nothing to your purpose: for he denies not the Church to be built vpon Peter, nor grants, that the gates of hell (which are heresies) shall preuaile against her. Againe if he say (for I haue not seene him) that Christ by saying, Blessed art thou Simon, granted to S. Peter an infallible assurance of his eternall hap­pines, it followeth not, that the same assurance passeth to his Successors, as the office of Foundation, Head, and Gouer­nor of the Church, doth: for the assurance of eternall happi­nesse, was for his owne peculiat good, and therfore granted to him alone, and not to his Successors. But the office of Head, and Gouernor of the Church, was promised to him for the good of the whole Church, and therfore to passe to his Successors, according to the nature of priuiledges, which is, that when a prerogatiue is granted to a Gouer­nor for the good of the Community of which he is Gouer­nor, [Page 129](as the office of Head and foundation of the Church was to S. Peter) it dieth not with him, but still liueth in his Successors.

Againe, that comment of Abulensis (if it be his) I ap­proue not: for it is disproued out of the words themselues, which being of the present tense, import nothing els but a present blessednes, in hauing so great a fauor bestowed on him, as by the speciall reuelation of Almighty God, to know the Diuinity of Christ, and to be the first that made so illustrious a confession therof, and (as S. BasillOrat. 3. de peccato, & in proem. de iu­dicio Dei. ex­poundeth) to haue his confession rewarded with a promise of buil­ding the Church on him, and of hauing the keyes of the kingdome of heauen committed to him: which (sayth he) was a far greater bles­sednes then the other Apostles obtained. And in the same sense ex­pound S. HieromeAd c. 16. Math. and S. AugustineSerm. 10. de verb. Do. & serm. 31. de verb. Apost..

But wheras out of the comment of Abulensis (be it his, or whose you please) you charge vsPag. 56,, with lack both of con­science, and modesty in violating the sacred writ, vnlesse to make good the iurisdiction of our Popes deriuatiuely from S. Peter, we can shew that all of them by vertue of their succession from him, are so blessed now in their hopes, as to be infallibly persuaded that no temptation of Satan shall preuaile against their persons, but that they shall be bles­sed euerlastingly; you cannot be excused from fraud, & folly: fraud, in changing the state of the question: for our assertion is, that out of these words of Christ, S. Peter, and his Suc­cessors are secured from erring in their publike decrees, and definitions of fayth. But that Popes may not erre in man­ners, to the damnation of their soules, we neither deduce out of this, nor any other place of holy writ: nor is it true, nor asserted by any Catholike, nor necessary for the defence of their iurisdiction, or priuiledge of not erring ex cathedra: for Christ (sayth S. Augustin)Ep. 166. hath placed in the chaire of Vni­ty the doctrine of Verity, and secured his people, that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of holsome Doctrine, in which chayre euen ill men are inforced to speake good things. And els whereEp. 165. hauing reckoned all the Popes from S. Peter to Anasta­sius, who then possessed his chayre, he addeth: If in all this tyme any traytor had come in by surreption, it cold not breed any pre­iudice [Page 130]to the Church, nor to innocent Christians, for whom our Lord making prouision, sayth of euill Prelates; What they say do yee; but what they doe, do it not: for they say, and do not.

And as it is fraud, in you to change the state of the que­stion, so is it folly to inferre, that because Popes may be vi­cious in their liues, they may erre in their publike defini­tions of fayth, or manners, to the seduction of others. S. Au­gustineEp. 137. obserueth it to be an old tricke of Heretikes, because they cannot calumniate the Scripture, in which they find the Church commended, to calumniate those, by whom she is defended & gouerned, to make them odious. And Tertullian long beforeL. de Praes­crip. obserued the same in the heretikes of his tyme, to whom he answered, that what they obiected, were vitia conuersationis, non pradicationis, faults of manners, not of Doctrine: and for this S. Augustine re­prehendeth Petilianus the Donatist, sayingCont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 51.: Why dost thou call the Apostolike See the chayre of pestilence? if for men, whom thou thinkest to professe the law, and not to fulfill it, did our Lord Ie­sus Christ for the Pharisies, of whom he sayth, that they say and do not, do any wrong to the chayre in which they did sit? Did he not com­mend that chayre of Moyses, and reprehend them, preseruing the honor of the chayre? Wherfore you in carping at the vices of some Popes, shew your self to be like to the Donatists, who (sayth S. AugustineIbid. had with wicked fury separated themselues from the Roman Church. And as no vices of Popes could iustify their separation, so neither can it yours.

I denie not, but that histories mention sinnes and scan­dals of some Popes; but yet of few in comparison of the great number of most holy and learned Bishops, that haue possessed that Seat, for whose excellent vertues, and great labors in defending, and propagating the Catholike 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 haue not bene holy like Sem and Iaphet, yet (as S. Gregory admonisheth)L. 25. Mor. c. 22. & l. 3. Pastoral. c. 1. it is not law­full for you to imitate wicked Cham, in laying open their faults. It is no maruell, if among so many good there haue bene some few bad: for among the twelue Apostles there [Page 131]was a Iudas, whose wickednesse, as it was no defamation to the Apostolicall function, so nether are they faults of a few bad Popes, to the dignity of the Roman See. But what if there had bene many? Could their euill life excuse your euill fayth? Shall their falling from God by frailty for a tyme, iustify your departing for euer from Gods Church, by contempt and obstinate rebellion? If the ill liues of Pre­lates be a sufficient cause to forsake the Church, how can you remaine in your Protestant Congregation? For Lu­ther (whom your brother Klebitius in his booke against the Saxonicall Popedome tearmeth, The Pope of Wittemberg) was a Iewd Apostata, and had conuersation with the Diuell: Caluin, a stigmaticall Sodomite; Beza, an especiall paterne of wantonnesse and lust. And if you looke nearer home, Cranmer, and other chief Heads in your English Church, haue not bene very great Saints. Wherfore since you can­not but know, that the ill liues of some Popes, is a Non sequitur, to proue that they may erre in their definitions of fayth, you cannot be so simple, as to alleage it to that end, but only to ease your stomake of some parte of that ve­nime, wherwith it is charged against the authority of the Roman Church. And yet not this without imposture: for of the authors, which you bringe, Massonius is a fabulous Historian, and forbidden by the Church.In indic. lè. prohib. Costerus, as in that very place he confesseth that Popes may be wicked in their liues,Enchir. c. 3. §. Patemur. so he proueth that they cannot propose to the Church any heresy, or error, which is the thing you ought to disproue, but cannot, & therfore diuert from it to rayle at the ill liues of Popes, that haue bene, or may be. Baro­nius and Genebraed speake 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 haue obserued with Baronius, and with him to haue put your reader in mind, of the singular care, and prouidence, wherwith Christ protecteth the Roman Church: for notwithstanding she suffered greater calamities by the tyranny of these Chri­stian Princes, thē she had euer done vnder any heathenish [Page 132]persecutors, yet it cannot be shewed, that any of those Princes euer doubted of the infallibility of the Roman Church, or that any of the aforesaid Popes, albeit they came in by intrusion, euer taught any thing repugnant to fayth.

SECT. III. S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter, and his acknow­ledgment therof.

TO proue that S. Paul belieued not the domination of S. Peter (for so you call itPag. 57. and consequently of the Pope, or the vniuersall power of the Roman Church aboue all others, or yet the absolute continuance therof in the fayth of Christ, you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections, from the eight to the fourteenth, all which make against your selfe.

It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiasti­call iurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors, their dominion. If by dominion you vnderstand a dominiering power, wher­with some temporall Princes gouerne their subiectes, S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiasticall Prelates1. Pet. 5.3., com­manding them not to dominiere in the Clergy. But if by dominion, you vnderstand a Fatherly gouerment and iuris­diction ouer the vniuersall Church and their infallible as­surance in their definitions of fayth; that S. Peter and his successors haue such a power and iurisdiction, hath bene already proued, & will be more confirmed by the answere to your arguments against S. Peters supremacy out of sun­dry passages of S. Paul to the GalathiansPag. 58. & seqq.. The first is, Paul some tyme after the exercise of his Apostleship, would not goe to Hierusalem to Peter, or any of the Apostles, lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them: yet three yeares after that, he taketh a iourney thither of see Peter; doubtlesse for honor sake, as one in order of Apostleship most eminent: but this be did voluntarily, in discretion, & brotherly communion; & not in subiection, as the Context sheweth. So you: but the Context sheweth no such matter, and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary. S. AmbroseIn eum lo­cum.: It was fit, that Paul should desire to see Peter, to whom our Sa­uiour [Page 133]had committed the charge of the Churches. S. HieromeEp. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August.: Peter was of so great authority, that Paul writeth in his epistle, Then after three yeares I came to Hierusalem to see Peter. And againeIn c. 1. ad Gal.: He went to see him to the end he might yeild honor vnto him. Theo­doretIn cap. 1. ad Gal.: he went to yeild vnto Peter, as to the Prince of the Apo­stles, that honor which was fitting. And shewing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme iudge to whom all doubts of fayth ought to be referred, he saythIn ep. ad Leon.: Paul the preacher of truth, and the trumpet of the holy Ghost, ranne to the great Peter, for a resolution of such doubts, as rising about the obseruation of the Law, did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch. Oecu­meniusIn cap. 1. ad Gal.: He went to see him, as one greater then himselfe, and stayed with him, to honor him with his presence. S. Chryso­stomeHom. 87. in Ioan.: He went to see him aboue others, because he was the mouth, and Prince of the Apostles, and the Head of the whole compa­ny. and againeIn c. 1. ad Gal.: he went to him, as to one greater then himselfe, and that, not in a vulgar manner, but (as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe, [...]) to behold and admire him, as a perso­nage of great excellency, and maiesty, as men goe to behold, and ad­mire great and famous Cities: for which cause, and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person, and behauiour, notwithstanding his great employments, he stayed 15. dayes with him. If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight, this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter, is so farre from disprouing it, that it strongly proueth it, and his owne ac­knowledgment therof.

Againe: 14. yeares after this time (sayth S. Paul) I went vp to Hierusalem, according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghos­pell which I preach among the Gentils. From this place you arguePag. 5 [...]. that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter: for S. Hierome (whom you alleage out of Salmeron) sayth, it is one thing to conferre, an other thing, to learne: for among them that conferre, there is equality. What equality? of iurisdi­ction, and power? No: (for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour, a Collegiall with his Rector) but of Doctrine, and learning only; as S. Hierome there declareth, adding, that betweene him that teacheth, and him that learneth, he that lear­neth [Page 134]is the lesser; to wit, in knowledge. And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter: he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ, the same Maister that taught S. Peter. Nor did he receaue from S. Peter, or the other Apostles power, or authority to preach: for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ: & in this sense he saythGal. 2.6.: The Apostles added nothing to me. Neuer­thelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mor­tall flesh, nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apo­stles, which had bene instructed by him before his death, lest the Gentils, to whom he preached, being incensed a­gainst him by false Apostles, might haue 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 vaine, and without profit to the hearers, he went to Hie­rusalem, and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apo­stles, to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine, knowing it to haue their approba­tion, and to be the same, that they preached.

But you that borow your argument from SalmeronIn Ep. ad Gal. Disput. [...]2., why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment? If (sayth he) it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ, to con­ferre his Ghospell with the Apostles, and Peter; how much more ne­cessary was it, that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs, to be conferred with the See Apostolike? With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it, as Paul did? or with what Miracle did they proue it? they that could neuer persuade themselues so much, as to come to the See Apostolike, and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre; nor to the Oecumenicall Councell (of Trent) that was gathered for their soules health sake, that was free, and open to them, that did courteously intreat them, and with a safe conduct inuite them to come. So Salmeron; whose words you thought best not to mention, both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority, and also because they refute the fabulous report which youPag. 404. make out of Thuanus your historian, that, diuers Protestants came to the Councell, and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute, but could not be ad­mitted: for Samleron was present at the Councell, as one of [Page 135]the Popes Diuines, who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus. And to Salmerons testi­mony, I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Ge­nerall assembly holden at Glascow Pag. 13. ; and in your Apology of the Church of England, which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come, set downe in your owne words, and refelled by Doctor Harding, in his Confutation of the same ApologyPart. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. & seqq..

How far therfore you are from the Doctrine & exam­ple of S. Paul in this point, not only Salmeron, but Vene­rable Bede and S. AnselmeIn cap. 2. ad Gal. haue declared out of S. Au­gustine, whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose. If the Apostle Paul himselfe (sayth S. Augu­stine)L. 28. con­tra Paust. c. 4. being called from Heauen, after the Ascension of our Lord, had not found the Apostles liuing, that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew, he might shew himselfe to be of the same society, the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him. But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did, that he liued in communion and vnity with them, and did worke Mi­racles as they did (our Lord therby commending him) he deserued so great authority, that his words at this day are heard in the Church, euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him, as he most truly said. With these Fathers accordeth S. HieromeEpist. 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August. defining that, Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell, if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence, and the rest that were with him. So S. Hierome, whose testimony with the rest shew how beg­garly a cause you haue, since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof, are so many verdicts a­gainst you.

A third text of S. Paul2. Cor. 12.11. you set downe thus: I am no­thing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles. But I cannot com­mend your translation: for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles, to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number, as you here, and els where (falsifiing his words make him to say) but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number, and yet not that, in authority and iurisdi­ction, (of which he speaketh not) but in the dignity of an [Page 136]Apostle, in his great labors, in his Miracles, in his reuela­tions, in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the prea­ching of Christ, as the Context before and after sheweth, & S. Ambrose, Theodoret, S. Anselme, S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declareIn eum lo­cum..

But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers.Pag. 60. fin. vpon this text of S. Paul: And first that S. Ambrose saithIn 1. Cor. c. 12., Paul was no lesse in dignity, then Peter. You falsity. S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular, but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth, 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 shew how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peters primacy, he addeth, that, Though Andrew followed our Sauiour, before Peter, yet Andrew receaued not the primacy, but Peter.

2. You obiectPag. 60. fin. S. Maximus, saying: Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred, is vncertaine. Here againe you falsify. For, to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Pe­ter, you peruert the order of his words, placing Peter after Paul, which S. Maximus doth not, but contrarily Paul after Peter. Againe he compares them not in authority, but only in sanctity of life, and merits. Howbeit (sayth he) all the most blessed Apostles obtaine equall grace of sanctity in the sight of God, yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogatiue of fayth in our Sauiour, surpasse the rest &c. But which of the two is to be pre­ferred, is vncertaine, for I thinke them to be equall in merits, because they are equall 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 sayth, 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 therfore els where he sayth;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 gouerment of the whole Church was committed to him: and thatHom. 1. de eisdem. As Christ was a Rock, so be made Peter a Rock, and built his Church vpon him, and gaue him charge of feeding his sheep, and [Page 137]lambes, which out of his mercy he had redeemed. Wherfore, as cer­taine as it is, that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christs Church, and one of the sheepe which he redee­med: so certaine it is, that he held him subiect to S. Peter, as to his Head and Pastor.

3. You obiectPag. 60. fin. out of S. Chrysostome: Paul (that I say no more) was equall to Peter. You still falsify. S. Chryso­stome sayth: Paul was equall to Peter in honor, to wit, of an Apo­stle, for of that he speaketh: you leaue out, in honor, to inferre that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and iurisdi­ction; which cannot be excused from imposture: for one thing it is to be equall with Peter in the honor of Apostle­ship (in which all the Apostles were equall vnto him) and another, to be equall to him in authority, which none of the Apostles were. Among the most blessed Apostles (sayth S. LeoEp. 48; in the likenesse of honor, there was difference of power: and though the election of them all were a like, yet it was granted to one, that be should surpasse the rest: from whence as from a patterne, hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops. The same is declared by S. MaximusSerm. vlt. de Apost. Pet. & Paul., yea, and by S. Chrysostome himselfe, in this very place which you obiect, sayingIn ep. ad Gal. 1.18.: Paul went to Peter, as to one greater, and elder then himselfe: And,Hom. 87. Ioan. 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 Chrysostome to haue belieued that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority; so they conuince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary.

4. You attributePag. 60. fin. to S. HieromeIn Psal. 44. these words: The titles of these two Apostles are equall: they are Chiefes of the Church. But S. Hierome vpon that Psalme hath no such words, nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul, nor any mention at all of them.

5. You obiectPag. 61. init. out of S. Basils epistles (but at ran­dome 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 then another; so of two Pillars, one may be higher then another. By those 7. Pillars men­tioned in the ProuerbesProu. 9.1., some of the Expositors vnder­stand [Page 138]the 7. Sacraments, which yet are not all equall: for Baptisme exceedeth the rest in necessity, and the Eucharist in Excellency. Others vnderstand the Doctors of the Church, whom Daniel compareth to starresDan. 13.3▪ which yet (witnesse S. Paul1. Cor. 15.42. are vnequall in their light. And here­by is shewed the futility of your argument, that S. Paul held Iames and Iohn to be equall in iurisdiction with Peter, because speaking of them three, he cals them all, Pillars.

6. You obiectPag. 61. init. out of Casaubon, that, Eucherius cal­leth Peter and Paul, Two Princes of the Christians. But S. Hie­romeIn Psal. 44. calleth all Bishops, Princes of the Church, and yet all Bishops are not equall in iurisdiction: for Bishops are sub­iect to Archbishops, Archbishops to Patriarkes; Patriarkes to the Pope; and so was Paul, to Peter. But let Eutherius speake for himselfe: Christ (sayth he)In vigil. S. Pet. first committed to Pe­ter his lambes, and then his sheep; because he made him not only a Pastor, but Pastor of Pastors. Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes. & the sheep: he feedeth the yong ones and the Dammes: he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates, and is therfore Pastor of all: for besyde lam­bes, and sheep, there is nothing in the Church. So Eucherius, shew­ing how Casaubon and you abuse him: and that if Paul be a sheep of Christs flock, he is subiect to Peters pastotall au­thority.

A fourth text of Scripture you obiect,Pag. 59. which are those words of S. Paul: They saw, that the Ghospell of the vncircumci­sion was committed to me, as the Ghospell of the circumcision vnto Pe­ter. Your glosse is, that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct, Peter hauing for his Diocesse, the Iewes; and Paul the Gentiles, which was of infinit extent larger. But by the like argument you might inferre that S. Paul by calling Christ, The minister of Circumcision, Rom. 15.8. and himselfe, Doctor of the Gentiles, 1. Tim. 2.7 signified that himselfe had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ, & a Dioces of farre larger extent, then his. Wherfore this clause implyes not any diuision of the au­thority of their ordinary Ministery; nor yet, that the Dio­cesse of Peter was confined to the Iewes, or of Paul to the Gentiles; for both of them preached to Iewes & Gentiles. It cōtaines nothing els, but a speciall testimony of the bles­sing [Page 139]of God vpon S. Peter, to persuade the Iewes, and v­pon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles: and yet not so, but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both.

But you opposePag. 59., that S. Ambrose In Gal. 2 [...] from hence cellecteth two different Primacies, the one of Peter, and the other of Paul. S. Ambroses words are: As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles; so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church; a dignity farre greater, then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils, and that implieth the sub­iection of S. Paul, and all other Prelates of the Church vn­to him.

2. You say:Pag. 59. Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul, that both he and Peter had the same dignity: and, Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue, that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter. I answeare: The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine, and authority to preach, because he had not conuersed with Christ, nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion, as the other Apostles had; and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians, as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them. Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them, that he went to Hierusa­lem, to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne A­postles, and was receaued by them into their society, as being an Apostle no lesse then they were, and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation, and receaued his au­thority to preach from the same mayster, that taught and authorized them. And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say, that S. Paul is equall to the rest, & com­pares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them: for (sayth Oe­cumenius)In cap. 2, ad Gal. though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa, to authorize his owne Doctrine (with the Galathians) yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe, that is to say, as, Head of the Apostles (for so he had called him a little before:) and,Ad c. 1. Act. As one, to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed, and that had power to command them all. And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing, he that said;In c. 2. ad Gal. & hom. 87, in Ioan. Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe; as to [Page 140]the mouth and Prince of the Apostles, and Head of the whole company: that, in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Pe­ter Hom. 35. in c. 14.1. ad Cor.: that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees: L. 2. de Sa­ [...]ord. that he was chiefe of the Apostles, & had the whole world subiect to him: Orat. 5. ad­uers. Iudaeot. that, Christ deliuered to him the gouermēt of the Church throughout the whole world, Hom 80. ad Antioch. & the charge of fee­ding those sheep, which he had redeemed with his bloud L. 2. de Sa­cord..

3. You obiectPag. 61. S. Gregory, saying: Paul was made the Head of Nations, and obtayned the principality of the whole Church. S. Paul (I grant) obtayned the principality of the whole Church, as the rest of the Apostles did, because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church, as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme,Psal. 44.17. Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth. And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue,Hom. 18. in epist. ad Rom when he said; all preaching, the affayres of the world, all mysteries▪ and all dispensations were committed to him. But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant, and without sub­ordination to S. Peter: for (as S. HieromeIn psal. 44. obserueth) The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles, and as their Suc­cessors in their Episcopall authority; which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church, yet not without due subordination: for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope: and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter. And this S. Gregory himselfe (to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary) declareth saying:L. 4. ep. 38. Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church: Paul, Andrew, Iohn, what are they, but Heads of seuerall flocks?

SECT. IV. Other arguments of Doctor Morton answeared.

IN prosecution of the same matter you obiect,Pag. 62.63.64. that Paul named Iames before Peter saying: Iames, Cephas, and Iohn: wherby you will haue, Paul to mate and equall Iames, & Iohn with Peter: for it had bene ill manners in him to name Iames before Peter, if Peter had bene Iames his Superior, as it would be thought ill [Page 141]manners, in a Catalogue of Bishops to reckon the Bishop of Colen be­fore the Pope. You argue from an vncertaine ground: for S. Chrysostome in his commentary, S. Ambrose, and S. Hie­rome both in the text and commentary, read, Peter, Iames and Iohn: and so likewise doth S. Hierom [...] in other his workesContr [...] Heliud & l. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Paulo.. It is therfore credible that S. Paul in naming them, obserued the same order: but if he named them other­wise, it is no argument to proue that he equalled Iames in authority with Peter: first because (as S. ChrysostomeIn cap. 1. ep. ad Gal. noteth) S. Paul (in that very Epistle) professeth himselfe to yeld greater honor to Peter, and shew more loue to him, then to the rest, in saying, that he went vp to Hierusalem, not for any of them, but for his sake alone. 2. because ascending by gradation he placeth Pe­ter aboue himselfe, and next vnto Christ: I am Paules, and I Apolloes, but I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 3. If it be true, that he named Iames before Peter, he did it not to equall them in authority, and much lesse to preferre Iames before Peter, but in regard of the priority of the knowledge which Ia­mes receaued of the great grace giuen to Paul: for when he came the first tyme to Hierusalem to giue the Apostles no­tice of his calling, and of the great fruit of his labors, he found none of them there but Iames. Put now the like case, and it will neither be ill manners, nor any derogation to the Popes authority to name him after the Bishop of Co­len, or of Milan. 4. Because it is certaine, that in all other places of the new Testament, in which there is a Catalo­gue of all the Apostles in generall, 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 Hierusalem, it is no argument to proue him Superior or e­quall in authority to Peter. S. BernardSerm. 3. de 7. misericord. fragm. nameth Paul & Mathew before Peter, and yet in that very place expresly sayth, that the Pastorall 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 Iudas, S. Chrysostome notethHom. 3. in. Act. that albeit Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem, yet he acknowledged the superiority not to belong to himselfe, but to Peter, & that [Page 142]therfore not he but Peter shewed his authority in the ca­riage of that busines. Behold (sayth Chrysostome) the mode­sty of Iames: He had receaued the office of Bishop of Hierusalem, and yet speakes [...]ot a word, but yelds the throne to Peter. And Oecu­ [...]e ni [...]:Ad cap. 1. Act. Iames riseth n [...], out Peter, be being the man, to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed. And Chrysostome further declaring that the Episcopall authority which christ gaue to Peter, was as farre aboue that of Iames, as the Bi­shop of the whole world surpasseth in authority the Bi­shop of one particular See. saythHom. vlt. in Ioan.: If any one demaund how Iames obtained the See of Hierusalem, I answere, he was made by Peter, Maister of the whole world: which difference betweene the authority of Peter and Iames, EuthymiusAd c. 21. Ioan. hath also expressed in the same words. And no lesse S. Bernard, say­ingL. 2. de considerat. c. 9.: The other Apostles obtayned ech of them their peculiar stocks, Iames contented with Hierusalem, yelds the vniuersality to Pe­ter. I conclude therfore that if S. Paul once named Iames before Peter (which is yet doubtfull) it is a non sequitur to collect from thence, that he held Iames superior or equall in authority to Peter. You shew your selfe to be one of those men of whom S. Peter1. Pet. 3.16. sayth, that reading S. Paules epistles, they depraue them, and the rest of the Scriptures, to their owne perdition.

Not vnlike to this, is the argument you makePag. 62. fin. 63. to proue that S. Paul (forsooth) butteth and excopteth against Pe­ters authority, because he saythGal. 1.18., I went to Hierusalem to see Peter, and tarried with him 15. dayes; but other of the Apostles I saw none, saue Iames the brother of our Lord. Your inference is, that Paul going vp to stop the mouths of false Apostles, who obiected that he had not sufficient commission to preach, as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles, if the spi­rit of Popery had reigned in those dayes, his Aduersaries might haue replyed, that Peter being the Vicar of Christ, and the Ordinary and vniuersall Pastor of his Church, was alone sufficient, and All in All to authorize him, because the Gouernor of all others without exception. So you, but falsly and ignorantly: for Paul went not then to Hierusalem to haue his Ghospell approued, but only for honors sake, to see and reuerence Peter his Superior, as [Page 143]the expositors with one accord declare: Their words you haue already heard. His iourney to Hierusalem to vin­dicate his calling, and haue his Ghospell approued by S. Peter and the other Apostles, was 14. yeares after, when he tooke Barnabas & Titus with him, as in the second Chap­ter to the Galathians he declareth. But you are contented to confound the former iourney with this: such mistakes are the engines of Arguments wherewith you But at the Popes authority.

SECT. V. Priuiledges granted to other of the Apostles, and not to S. Peter, obiected by Doctor Morton.

TO the former obiections you adde others, concerning some priuiledges granted to other Apostles, and not to S. Peter; which I will briefly touch. The first isPag. 64.; Peter gaue not sentence in the Apostolicall Synod, but Iames in his presence. This is an vntruth, and such I haue proued it to be.

The secondPag. 64.: Peter leaned not on Christs brest, as Iohn did. True; but Christ made Peter the foundation of his Church, and Pastor of his flock; a far greater dignity, then to leane on his brest, and which implies Iohns subiection to him.

The third isPag. 64.: Peter solicited Iohn to aske a question of score­cy. He did so: but how ill aduised you are, to obiect this a­gainst Peters Primacy, the Fathers will informe you. Cas­siodorusL. de ami­cit. c. Quasi diceret, be­nefac. sint amici.: Surely our Lord preferred Peter before Iohn, and be­stowing the Princedome on Peter did not therfore withdraw his af­fection from the disciple whom he loued. He gaue to Peter the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, that he might open and shut heauen: to Iohn he gaue a facility of opening vnto vs the secrets of his brest. To Peter he gaue the charge and gouerment of his Church: to Iohn the care and custody of his Mother. Peter durst not aske of our Lord, who was to betray him: Iohn at Peters instance asked confidently what the Prince of the Apostles durst not in quire. S. ChrysostomeHom. vlt. in Ioan.: Why doth Iohn mention his leaning on Christs brest? Not without cause; but to shew the confidence of Peter after his deniall: for he that [Page 144]durst not then aske, but did is by another, after the charge of his bre­thren was giuen to him committeth is not to another, but himselfe asketh the Maister; and Iohn is silens. He speakes and shewes his loue to Iohn &c. For when Christ had communicated great matters to Peter, and giuen him charge of the whole world, he being desirous to haue Iohn for his partner, and colleague, said; And this man, what? And as he not daring to aske at the last supper, did it by Iohn; so now doth he the like for Iohn, thinking that he was desirous to aske, but durst not. And againeHom. 66. in Math.: Marke how this same Iohn that lately made such demands, after wholly yelds the primacy to Peter, and pre­fers him in all things before himselfe. S. HieromeL. 1. ad­uers. Iouin.; Among the twelue Apostles one is chosen, that a Head being appointed, occasion of Schisme might be taken away. And declaringIbid. why the dig­nity of Head was not giuen to Iohn, but to Peter, he yel­deth this reason, because Peter was the elder, and lest if Christ had bestowed that dignity on a yong man, whom he loued, he might seeme to minister occasion of enuie to the rest. That famous Empe­ror Leo surnamed The wise, hauing declaredSerm. de S. Petro. that Christ male Peter Prince of pastors, and required of him the care of fee­ding his flock, as a returne of his loue, addeth: Peter knowing that to be a great Princedome, and how great strength it requireth, seing Iohn following whom Iesus greatly loued, said; And this man, what? wilt thou haue me to be placed as Head ouer the disciples, what then dost thou commaund him to doe? Our Lord answered, as it were chec­king Peter: So I will haue him to remayne, till I come: what's that to thee? follow thou me, that is, follow me with this pastorall staffe: and as whiles I was with you, I did keepe you watching ouer you, as a Fa­ther, & as your Head & Mayster: so be thou in my place, & follow me with thy Princedome and power, confirming thy brethren; for I will haue thee to be in my place: from whence it is, that Peter remayneth till this very day following Christ in his Successor. TheophilactAd c. vlt. Ioan.: Our Sauiour speaking to Peter, sayth: I deliuer into thy hands the preaching of my Ghospell and the whole world &c. I lead thee forth, to gouerne the world. And againeIbid.: The gouerment of the sheep is committed to Peter: and not only that; but he asketh, and is made a mediator for him, that was best beloued. So these Fathers. And if it be lawfull to compare sacred things to prophane, we may in this liken Christ, & these two Apostles, to Alexan­der, [Page 145]and his two friends, Craterus and Ephestion. Craterus loued Alexander as a King, looking to his publike affayres, and honor: Ephestion loued his person, diligently procu­ring his health, and priuat well-doing: whereupon Ale­xander was wont to say, that Craterus loued the King; and E­phestion loued Alexander. So we may say, that Iohn loued Christ, more then any other of the Apostles did, as the cause of his virginity, and author of his chast loue: but Pe­ter loued him, as the Prince of Pastors, more then any other euer did. And in reward of this their loue, Christ loued Iohn, as a Virgin, that had dedicated his body and soule to him alone, and commended to him, as to a Virgin, the cu­stody of his Virgin Mother: but he loued Peter in regard of his flock, which was to be fed, and gouerned vpon earth: & in that respect, made him Vniuersall Pastor and Gouernor therof: which was a greater dignity, then to leane on Christs brest, or to be the guardian of his Mother.

The fourth obiection isPag. 64.: Paul reprehended Peter to his face before all. This you had vrged beforePag. 61. as a principall Argument, to disproue S. Peters superiority ouer S. Paul; but as vnfortunatly as the rest: for this reprehension was not of superiority, but of charity, as that of IethroExod. 18.14. to Mo­yses; that of Ioab to king Dauid2. Reg. 19.15. & seqq.; and of S. Bernard to Pope EugeniusL. 4. de considerat.: all which, as they stand well with the superiority of the persons reproued, to their reprouers; so doth this with the superiority of Peter, to Paul: yea the Fa­thers are so farre from arguing from hence any equality of Iurisdiction betweene these two Apostles, that diuers of them assume it, as an Argument, to proue that when there is iust occasion, inferiors may with due charity and humili­ty reprehend their Superiors. Paul (sayth ChrysostomeIn cap. 2. ad Gal. reproues, & Peter heares, to the end that whiles the Mayster reproued holds his peace, the schollers may learne to change their opinion. S. Augustine:Ep. 19. That which was done of S. Paul profitably, by the liberty of charity, Peter tooke in good part, by holy and benigne god­linesse of humility: and therby gaue a more rare and holy example to posterity, if at any tyme they do amisse, not to disdaine reproofe from their inferiors, then Paul did in teaching the meaner to resist the grea­ter [Page 146]with brotherly charity, for the defence of truth. And S. Grego­ryHom. 18. in Ezechiel. noteth, that Peter as he was chief in the Apostellship, so he shewed himselfe to be chief in humility. All which discouereth your ignorance, in sayingPag. 62., that with all like circumstances of opposition, in true tenor of morality, one can hardly reprehend an­other, vnlesse he be his equall. If you had bene as skilfull in Diuinity, as you are diligent in laying hold of any shad­dow of occasion, to carpe at S. Peters authority; you would haue knowne the lesson which S. Thomas and all Diuines with him,2.2. q. 33. art. 4. teach, that there are two kinds of correction; the one of iustice, the other of charity: the first belongeth only to Superiors, in respect of their subiects: the second, to all men: for as charity bindes vs to loue all, so it binds vs in due circumstances to vse fraternall correction to all, euen Su­periors: and so Paul did to Peter. Finally so certaine it is, that all antiquity belieued S. Peter to be Superior in au­thority to S. Paul, that (as S. HieromeApud 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 replyPag. 62. out of our interlineary Glosse, that Paul reprehended Peter, tanquam par, as being his equall. You mi­stake: for that note is not in the interlineary, but in the glosse of Lyra, and (as Gratian hath declared2. q. 7. Cap. Paulus. is to be vnderstood of parity in the Apostleship, and in purity of lyfe, and conuersation, not of Ecclesiasticall power, and iu­risdiction: in which sense, S. AugustineL. 2. de bapt. c. 1. writeth of S. Cy­prian, that he was equall to S. Peter in his Martyrdome, but inferior in power.

But you make a digressionPag. 61. & 210. to tell vs, of a notorious pre­rogatiue, which our Popes challenge to themselues in their bookes of priuiledges authorized by themselues for their owne licenciousnesse, saying: None presumeth to reprehend the Pope, except only in case he depart from the fayth: no, not although otherwise he draw innume­rable multitudes with himselfe into Hell. Of which priuiledge they can giue no other ground, then their falsly pretended plenitude of Pa­pall power: whereupon it is, that their Glosse affirmeth, that in dispo­sing [Page 147]of Prebends, and such acts, there is none that dare say to the Pepe, Syr, why do you so? These are your words, from which you take occasion to rayle lustily against the Pope. And I aske you, Syr why do you so? For you cannot but remember, that in your hatefull libell, set forth many yeares since vnder the title of, A discouery of Romish doctrine in the case of conspiracy & rebellion, you proposed this very obiection, and that a lear­ned Antagonist of yoursF. Per­sons. in his Treatise tending to mitiga­tion, against the seditious writings of Thomas Morton Minister, told youChap. 5. num. 54., that many yeares before that tyme the same obie­ction had bene set forth in print, by Syr Francis Hastings, in his Watchword, and defence therof, and stoutly auouched by Mathew Sutcliffe Minister, his Aduocate and Proctor of that defence: and that the same obiection was confuted at large by the Warn word, and so many lyes, falshoods, and fraudes discouered therin, that the said Mathew Sutcliffe in his Reply intituled, A full and round answere, thought good to let it passe roundly, without any answere at all: & ther­fore your said Antagonist told you (as with reason he might) that he greatly marueyled, with what conscience, or if not conscience, with what forehead at least, you could at that tyme write and print things, that you did know, or might haue knowne, to be merely false, and forged. Is not this (sayth he) a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse, & that neither God, nor truth is sought for by you, but only to maintaine a part or faction, with what slight or falshood soeuer? Hauing giuen you this ad­monition, though he remit you, or rather the reader to the Warnword for a larger satisfaction, yet he also briefly answe­rethIbid. num. 55.56.57.58. shewing, 1. Your grosse ignorance in ascribing that Canon to Pope Boniface, wheras it is gathered by Gratian, out of the sayings of S. Boniface an Englishman, that was Archbishop of Ments in Germany, and a holy Martyr. 2. Your fraud, in setting downe the words of the Canon cor­ruptly, both in Latin, and English, as by leauing out the beginning which sheweth the drift of the Canon; and the end which containeth a reason of all that is said; and cutting of other words in the middest, to couer the pious meaning of S. Boniface. 3. Your falshood in leauing out, and altering [Page 148]some words, and corruptly translating others, with a heape of falsities, as he rightly calleth themIbid. num. 57. marg.. Wherefore if he had iust cause to marueile, with what conscience or forehead you could then repeate an obiection so fully answered before; farre greater cause haue I to maruayle now, that after he hath againe giuen you this second answere, and so fully discouered your fraud, you are not ashamed yet againe to reiterate the same obiection, without taking any notice of those errors, & wilfull falsities, which that answerer laid to your charge. To him, and to the Warnword, I remit the reader.

But because the glosse affirmeth the Pope to haue pleni­tude of power in disposing of Prebends, and that none ought therin to say vnto him, why do you so? You call this, the height of all desperate presumption in the Popes, to make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes. A bold censure. Kings haue fullnesse of power to dispose of the temporall offices of their kingdomes, and none ought to say vnto them, Why do you so? Will you therfore tell them, that this their authority is the height of all desperate presumption to make themselues incon­troulable in their mischiefes? No; why then do you giue it that name, and censure in the Popes? You might haue done well, to aske S. Bernards opinion: He would haue told youEp. 131., that the plenitude of power is by a singular prerogatiue gi­uen to the See Apostolike: That he which resisteth this power, resisteth the ordination of God: that he hath power, if he iudge it profitable, to erect new Bishoprickes, where formerly they were not; and of those that are in being, to put downe some and set vp others, as reason shall dictate vnto him; so that he may lawfully of Bishops, make Arch­bishops; and contrariwise, if it shall seeme necessary: He can summon from the furthest partes of the earth, whatsoeuer Ecclesiasticall per­sons of neuer so high degree, and compell them to appeare before him, and this, not once, or twice, but as often as he shall find it expedient. This is the power which the glosse speaketh of: you call it the Height of all desperate presumption, wherby the Popes make themselues incontroulable in their mischiefes. S. Bernard holds it to be a power giuen him by Christ, and that whosoeuer re­fisteth it (as you doe) resists the ordinance of God. Whether [Page 149]is it fit, that Christian men should belieue S. Bernard, or you? especially since you acknowledg him to be a Saint, which he cold not be, if he had erred in fayth: nor will any wise man thinke, that in this point he was of any other be­liefe, then all the holy Fathers of Gods Church were, whose doctrine he knew, and vnderstood better then you do.

But not contenting your selfe with censuring, & con­demning Popes, you carpe at the holy Martyr S. Boniface, (whom all Germany reuerenceth as their Apostle) for teaching, that albeit the Pope shold 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) vnlesse he also depart from the fayth. 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? Wherfore since you will hold it to be good doctrine, that albeit a temporall Prince, yea or many Princes liuing at the same tyme, shold by their vicious liues, draw thousands with them into hell, none of them may therefore be corrected iuridically; why do you carpe at vs for defending the same of the Pope, who is but one at once?

Your fifth obiection isPag. 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 conuerted many of the Romans to Christ, and planted the Church among them, before S. Paul came theither, or writ his epistle to them. Againe S. Peter writ his epistles to all the faythfull, and in regard therof you intitle them, Generall Epistles, and we, Catholike Epistles, a title, which is not giuen to those of S. Paul.

Your sixth Obiection isPag. 65.: It was not sayd of Peters ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was, God hath giuen vnto thee all them that sayle with thee: and except those (to wit the Mari­ners) remaine in the Ship, you cannot be saued. Among 28. fa­mous priuiledges, which BellarmineLib. 1. de Pont. c. 17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24. sheweth to haue [Page 150]bene granted to S. Peter, and not to S. Paul, nor to any o­ther of the Apostles, you are content to conceale them all without making any mention of them, vnlesse it be of two or three, to carpe at them, as here you doe at his ship, post­posing it to that, in which S. Paul sailed, because in a dan­gerous tempest, God preserued the liues 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 Catholike Church, out of which none can be saued eternally: which they say not of the ship, in which Paul sayled. When Christ saw two ships standing by the lake of Genezareth, going into the one, ship 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 choyce of Peters only to teach the people out of it: for (as S. Hilary sayth)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 vnderstand, but lye like sand barren and vnprofitable: and the pre­aching of Gods word out of the ship of Simon in particu­cular, signifies, that Christ dwelleth in that society, which keepes the fayth and communion of Peter, and makes his See the pastorall chayre, from whence by Peter and his successors, he teacheth the doctrine of his Ghospell. Our Lord (sayth S. Ambrose)Serm. 11. goeth only into that ship of the Church, of which Peter is Mayster, our Lord saying, Vpon this rock I will bu­ild my Church. And then he addeth, that the Church of Pe­ter is the Arke of Nōe, to shew that out of his Church none can be saued. Which Doctrine S. Hierome likewise deli­uereth, comparing the Roman Church to the Arke of Nōe, out of which whosoeuer is, shall perish at the coming of the floud. Moreouer howbeit other ships be tossed, yet (sayth S. Am­brose) Peters ship is not tossed: in her wisdome sayleth, perfidious­nesse is absent, L. 5. in c. 5. Luc. fayth fauoureth: for how cold that ship be tossed, of which he is Gouernor, that is the strength of the Church? And S. BernardL. 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, shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ, which was not to gouerne one nation, but all; for many waters are many people: and therfore wheras [Page 151]each of the others hath his peculiar ship, to thee (he speakes to Eu­genius Pope S. Peters successor) is committed that one mighty great ship made of them all, to wit the vniuersall Church of the whole world. I conclude therfore, that the ship of S. Peter is the pa­storall Chayre, from whence the doctrine of Christ is to be learned by all, and the Arke of Nōe, out of which none can be saued; and that therfore betweene his ship, and that in which S. Paul sayled; as also betweene the priuiledges granted to the one, and to the other, there is as much diffe­rence, as betweene the eternall saluation of all Gods elect, and the corporall lyfe of a few Mariners, and passengers, that sayled with S. Paul.

Your seauenth and principall Obiection isPag. 65.: If S. Pe­ter had written of himselfe, as S. Paul did of himselfe, saying: I haue the care of all the Churches, this one wold haue seemed to you a firmer foundation, then the word, Rock, or any other of those Scriptures, wherby you labour to erect a Monarchy on S. Peter, and (by your con­sequence) vpon the Pope ouer all Churches in the world. Answere. There are two kindes of solicitude, and care: one procee­ding from the obligation of iustice, the other merely out of the zeale of Charity. The supreme care which S. Peter had both of all Churches, and of their Pastours was of obliga­tion of iustice, because he had iurisdiction ouer them all, as being supreme Pastor ouer the whole flock of Christ: and therfore as the Pastor hath obligation of iustice to gouerne his flock, and attend to the good therof, so had S. Peter to attend to the good & gouerment of the vniuersall Church, and whatsoeuer persons therof; 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 therfore that care he had of the vniuersall Church, proceeded from his great zeale of Gods glory, and feruorous charity, which made him trauell so much in the conuersion of soules.

SECT. VI. What estimation S. Paul had of the Roman Church.

YOu say,Pag. 65. S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Roman Church, as we would make the world belieue. How proue you this? because (say you) Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians, (witnesse Eusebius L. 2. c. 24. sayth, that Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Corinth, and that of Rome. This then is your argument: Dionysius Bish. of Corinth sayth; Peter and Paul founded the Churches of Corinth, and Rome: Ergo S. Paul had not by farre so great estimation of the Church of Rome, as we would make the world belieue. A witlesse consequence: It is true, that we account it a great honor, and happinesse for the Church of Rome, to haue bene 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 moreo­uer ennobled by them: for (as TertullianL. de Praescr. c. 36. obserueth) they powred into her all their doctrine, togeather with their bloud, 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 Gouernor of the vni­uersall Church fixed his seate at Rome, and ending his life there, left the same dignity to his successors: and they (as oc­casion required) ceased not to send their pastorall admoni­tions to the Corinthians: for when not long after S. Peter and Paul had founded a Church among them, they fell in­to errors and dissentions among themselues, S. Clement Pope successor to S. Peter, writ vnto them (sayth S. Irenaeus)L. 3. c. 3. potentissimas literas, most effectuall letters, reducing them to peace, and shewing them the Doctrine, which they had newly recea­ued from the Apostles. And to the same purpose Soter Pope, not long after, writ also vnto them. And that the Corin­thians acknowledged these epistles of the Roman Church to be sent vnto them, as from their Mother Church whose doctrine they were to imbrace, and receaued them as such, [Page 153]appeareth in this, that (is Dionysius their Bishop, and Eu­sebiusL. 4. hist. c. 22. out of him testify) they held them in so great ve­neration, that they vsed to read them publikely in the Churches, for the instruction of the saythfull. But this you could not see, or if you did see it, were willing to conceale it, as not being for your purpose.

2. Wheras we in commendation of the Roman fayth and Church are wont to alleage those words of S. Paul, in his Epistle to the RomansRom. 1.8.: I giue thankes to my God; through Iesus Christ for all you, because your fayth is renowned throughout the whole world; you sayPag. 66., that we vpon this commendation of the fayth of those Romans, vse in a manner to triumph, as though that Encomium with the same fayth were hereditary to that Church, or as if at that day, Catholike, and Roman, had bene all one. If in this testimony of S. Paul we triumph, and hold the Catholike fayth, and the Roman fayth, to be all one, and hereditary to the Church of Rome, we do therin nothing more, then what the most holy and learned Doctors of Gods Church from tyme to tyme haue done. And as out of this passage of S. Paul we shew you, that the fayth of the Roman Church was pure in the Apostles tyme, so we require of you (as S. AugustineL. de. vnto. Eccles. c. 12. & 13. did of the Donatists) to shew vs out of Scri­pture, that after 600. yeares she was to fall from the true fayth, as you pretend her to haue done. Let them (sayth S. Augustine) reade vs this in the Scripture, and we yeild: but if they reade not this in the Scripture, but seeke to persuade it by their con­tentions wrangling, I belieue those things which are read in the holy Scriptures, but I belieue not those which are affirmed by vaine here­tikes. And in requiring this at your hands, we require no o­ther prose for the truth of your Protestant Church & fayth, but what we are able to shew for ours: for that the Roman Church cannot erre in sayth I haue already prouedHoc cap. sect. 1. & 2. out of Scriptures and Fathers, which therfore conuince her to be the true Catholike Church, in which the spirit of truth dwelleth for euer Ioan. 14.16. And that the Catholike Church, & the Roman Church, are termes conuertible denoting one and the same thing, hath also bene prouedAboue Chap. 1. sect. 3.. But because you seeme to thinke, that out of this text of S. Paul it cannot be [Page 154]proued, that the fayth which S. Peter deliuered to the Ro­mans, is hereditary to the Church of Rome, or that the Ca­tholike fayth, and the Romen fayth are all one, it will not be amisse to let you heare, what the ancient Fathers (the best interpreters of Scripture) haue belieued in this point.

That holy and renowned Martyr S. CyprianL. 1. ep. 3. out of this text proueth, that the Roman Church cannot fall from that fayth which she once receaued. They (to wit the No­uatian heretikes) hauing set vp a false Bishop presume to carry let­ters from Schismatikes, and heretikes, to the chayre of Peter, and the principall Church, from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued, not con­sidering, that the Romans are they whose fayth was praysed by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom vnfaithfulnes, can haue no accesse. If vnfaithfulnes can haue no accesse to the Romā Church, it followeth that she retaineth still the same fayth, which was commended by S. Paul, and that whosoeuer belieueth at this day as she belieues, is free from all error in fayth. The same is confirmed by an other testimony of the same Fa­ther, who writing to Cornelius Pope, and diuers of the Romans suffering banishment in the persecution of De­cius, and praysing their constancy and fayth, saythEp. 57.: It was fore-seene in spirit, and prophetically foretold by the Apostle: My dea­rest brethren whiles you are of one hart, and one voyce, it is the con­fession of all the Roman Church; that fayth hath shined in you which the Apostle praysed. He did euen then foresee in spirit, this prayse of your vertue, and strength of your constancy, and by prediction of fu­ture things gaue testimony of your desertes, and comm [...]nding the pa­rents, incouraged their Children.

With S. Cyprian accordeth S. Hierome: When (sayth he to Demetrias)Ep. 8. thou wast litle, and the Bishop Anastasius of happy and holy memory gouerned the Roman Church, a cruell tempest of heretikes risen out of the Easterne parts attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth, which had bene commended by the mouth of the Apostle: but this personage (Pope Anastasius) rich in a most plentifull pouerty, and in an Apostolicall care, brake the pesti­lent head, and stopped the hissing mouth of that Hydra. And because I feare, yea haue heard say, that the buds of this most renemous plant do still liu [...], and spring vp in some, I thought it my duety, to ad­monish [Page 155]thee in a deuout zeale of Charity, that thou keepe fast the fayth of S. Innocentius his sonne, and successor in the Apostolicall chayre. And writing to Theophilus, Patriarke of Alexan­driaEp. 68.: Know, that we haue nothing in greater recommendation, then to conserue the statutes of Christ, and not to transgresse the bounds of our Fathers, and alwayes to haue in mynde the Roman fayth praysed by the mouth of the Apostle, wherof the Church of Ale­xandria glories to partake. And impugning Ruffinus his errors as being contrary to the Catholike faythLib. 1. A­pol. aduers. Ruffin.: Know thou, that the Roman fayth commended by the Apostle, receaues not such delu­sions: though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath hene once preached, it cannot be altered, being fensed by Pauls authority. If therfore S. Hierome be to be credited, the Roman fayth in his tyme was conserued pure, as it was preached, and cannot be altered, as you pretend it to haue bene since that tyme. And therfore, as it were speaking to youEp. 6. ad Pammach. & Ocean. he fur­ther sayth: Who-euer thou art, that auouchest new sects, I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares, spare the fayth which was commen­ded by the voyce of the Apostle. And to Paula and Eusto­chiumProem. lib: Comment. in ep. ad Galat.: Will you know, how the Apostle hath noted euery pro­uince with their proprieties? the fayth of the people of Rome is pray­sed; where is so great concourse to Churches, and to Martyrs sepul­chers &c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the christian Churches, but that in them there is more deuotion, and simplicity of fayth. To which place of S. Hierome the Ange­licall Doctor S. Thomas alluding, saythIn vers. 8. cap. 1. ad Rom.: The Romans are commended for their fayth, because they receaued it easily, and perse­uered in it constantly: from whence it is, that to this day are shewed very many signes of their fayth in the visitation of holy places, as S. Hierome sayth vpon the Epistle to the Galathians. And a litle after: The Apostle reioyceth, and giueth thankes to God for their fayth, not only for their sake, but for the profit that followed therof, because they being Lords of nations, other countreys were moued to belieue by their example: for as the Glosse sayth; The inferior doth readily, what he sees done by his Superior: which last words are also of S. Am­brose. And S. Augustine speaking of Pelagius the Arch-heretikeL. 2. de peccat. orig. cont. Pelag. c. 8., sayth: He deceaued the Palestine Councell, and ther­fore seemeth to haue bene absolued there. But he was not able to de­ceaue [Page 156]the Roman Church, (though be endeauored, to do is) because the most blessed Pope Zozimus called to minde what opinion (Innocen­tius) his predecessor worthy to be imitated, had of his proceeding: and be considered likewise, what iudgment the fayth of the Romans wor­thy of prayse in our Lord did make of him: for he perceaued them with vnited endeauors to striue earnestly against his error for the Catholike truth. The reason therfore why Pelagius after he had decea­ued the Councell of Palestine, endeauored also to deceaue the Roman Church by a feigned profession of his fayth sent to Innocentius Pope, was, because it was the constant be­liefe of all Christians in those dayes, that the Roman Church as being heyre of the fayth commended by S. Paul, could not approue any doctrine, but what was truly or­thodoxall and Catholike, as Pelagius in that his profession acknowledgeth, saying:In fin. Symb. ad D [...]. apud Hieron. to 4. & Ba­ron. anno 417 This (o most blessed Pope) is the fayth which I haue learned in the Catholike Church, and which I haue al­wayes held, and do bold. Wherin if I haue said any thing ignorantly, or vnwarily. I desire to be corrected by you, that hold the fayth and chayre of Peter. If this my confession be approued by the iudgment of your Apostleship, whosoeuer layes an aspersion on me, shall shew him­selfe to be ignorant, or malicious, or els not to be a Catholike; but he shall not proue me to be an heretike. With this profession Pelagius sought to deceaue the Roman Church, but could not, be­cause Zozimus (sayth S. AugustineProximè cit. considered what iudg­ment the fayth of the Romans commended by the Apostle, had made of him in the tyme of (Innocentius) his predecessor. For which cause Procopius truly saidL. 1. de bello Goth.: If euer any, surely the Romans chiefly are they that haue had the Christian fayth in veneration. I conclude therfore, that (if the holy Fathers haue vnder­stood the Scriptures aright) the fayth of the Roman Church is proued to be infallible, not only by the Scriptures for­merly alleagedSupra hoc [...]ap., but by this very passage of the Apostle.

Nor do Tolet, or Sà, whome heere you obiectPag. 66., say ought to the contrary: for if they obserue, that when the A­postle sayth to the Romans, your fayth is published euery where, it is an hyperbole (because the sense is not, that the fayth which they belieued, was then actually preached throughout the whole world, but that is was a thing knowne, and published throughout the whole [Page 157]world, that they had belieued) they say nothing, but what is true: for the Apostle cold not say, that the Roman fayth which was the fayth of Christ, was then actually preached in all partes of the world, as neither it is yet at this day; but that it was publikely knowne throughout all the world that the Romans had receaued the fayth of Christ, because in common speach and morall reputation, that which is diffused ouer a great part of the world, and famously knowne, is said to be euery where. And this publike fame was of great moment for the conuersion of other nations: for Rome being the Head of the world, whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empyre had recourse for discharg of their tributes, and accompts of their offices, they cold not but haue knowledge that the Romans belieued in Christ. And (as Tolet noteth out of S. Chrysostome, but you to detract from the Romans what prayse you can, conceale it) this publike same and knowledg of their beliefe, was an example and a great motiue for other nations to receaue the fayth of Christ.

Now, wheras you addePag. 60., It is an obiection now a dayes breathed into the mouth of euery vulgar Papist, that at that day, Ca­tholike, and Roman were all one, the testimonies of antiquity which I haue formerly brought in profe therof, shew that none but he, which is not so much as vulgarly read in Ecclesiasticall history, can be ignorant of so certaine a truth. Wherfore you speake vntruly, when you say, it is an insultation of ours easily checked with a paralell of the like, if not of a larger commendation of the Church of Thessalonica by the same Apostle. 1. Thessal. 1.2. We giue thankes alwayes to God for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, remembring without ceasing your worke of fayth. And a­gaine. v. 8. From you (sayth he) sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in euery place your fayth to Godward is spread abroad &c. This is your paralell, which is easily disparalelled: for as Baronius obseruethAnno 58. out of S. Chrysostome, the Romans being Head of the world, their fayth was a forcible motiue to bring other nations to be­lieue in Christ. And therfore S. LeoSerm. 1. in Nat. Apost. Pet. & Paul. had reason to say, that S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, not by humane counsell, but by [Page 158]diuine ordination came from Antioch to Rome, to preach the Ghos­pell and fixe his chayre in that Citty, that so the chiefe seat of religion might be, where the Head of superstition had bene: and that the fayth from thence as from the top of the Empyre might be diffused through­out the world. And S. Anselme [...]n c. 1. ad Rom. that, S. Paulgiuing thankes to God for the fayth of the Romans, sayth: I giue thanks to God for all the faithfull, & in the first place for all you, because you are the chiefest, the Roman Church hauing the primacy among all Churches. And wher­as the Apostle sayth, The fayth of the Romans is published through­out the whole world, the same S. Anselme notethIn c. 1. ad Thessal., that he sayth not so to the Thessalonians, but, You are made a paterne to all that belieue in Macedonia and Achaia: and from you the word of our Lord was bruted not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in [...]uery place, that is (sayth he) in euery place neare to you. And hereby it appeareth that the Romans for the example of their fayth and the profit that redounded therby to others, were preferred by S. Paul before the Thessalonians, as farre as the whole world (ouer which the conuersion of Rome was quickly spread) exceedeth Macedonia & Achaia, with a few bordering Prouinces, which only had notice of the Thessalonians. And therfore S. Paul giueth a further prayse to the RomansRom. 15.15.: I am assured of you, that you are also full of loue, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another. And againeRom. 16.19.: Your obedience is published into eue­ry place: none of which prayses he gaue to the Thessalo­nians.

But lest we should gather any preeminence of the Ro­man Church, because the Epistle to the Romans among all S. Pauls epistles hath the first place, you preoccupate this obiection, telling vsPag. 67. that the epistle to the Thessalonians and others were written before that to the Romans. Be it so: but we aduertise you with S. AnselmePraefat. in ep. ad Rom.. It is to be belie­ued, that they which collected S. Pauls epistles into one body, iudged that the epistle to the Romans ought to haue the first place, because it was addressed to that Citty which was then Head of the whole world, and because the Roman Church still vntill this day hath the soueraign­ty of all Churches. And in his commentary of the eight verse of the first Chapter, Here againe (sayth he) it is manifest, that [Page 159]the [...]pistle to the Romans ought to be placed first, because the Romans among all the faythfull are the chiefest, & because the Roman Church hath the soueraignty among all Churches.

SECT. VII. Why S. Paul did not intitle his Epistles, Catholike Epistles.

THat S. Paul in his epistle to the Romans hath giuen sufficient testimony of the preeminency of the Ro­man Church aboue all others, is a thing manifest, if not you but the ancient Fathers may be the iudges. Them you must giue vs leaue to follow, and forsake you, fighting against S. Paul and them.

Against this truth you frame yet two Arguments more: The first isPag. [...]., that whereas the epistles of S. Iames, Peter, Iude, and Iohn are intituled Catholike epistle [...], if S. Paul had bene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome, he would haue intituled the Church of Rome, the Catholike Church, and at least in­scribed his epistle▪ Catholike. The second isIbid., that he giueth 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 giues to those Churches.

To the first I answere, that the Apostles themselues did not giue to any of their epistles the name of Catholike epistles. That title is prefixed to the epistles of Iames, Peter, Iohn, & Iude by the Church for diuers reasons, which you may reade in SalmeronDisp. 1. in Ep. S. Iacobi. and chiefly because (as S. AugustineDe fide & oper. c. 14. witnesseth) they were written against the heresy of Si­mon Magus, defending Iustification by only fayth, wherin Protestants are his heires. And for that cause their epistles insist so much on good workes, and the keeping of Gods Commandements, and shew that fayth without charity is dead and fruitlesse. And for the same cause S. IohnEp. 1. vers. 24. & 27. ad­monisheth the faythfull, to abide in that Doctrine which they haue heard from the beginning, because many seducers are gone out into the world. And S. IudeVers. 4.8. & seqq. exhorteth them to stand to their old fayth, shewing them by examples, that it is dam­nable not to be constant in it.

To your second Argument I might answere with 8. Chrysostome, that they which were but a small number newly conuerted, and weake, S. Paul salutes them by the name of a Church, to comfort them; but not those, that were more in number, and of longer standing, as the Ro­mans were, when he writ vnto them. For this reason I say, that as S. Paul did not salute the Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, by the name of a Church in expresse words, so neither did he the Romans, but only virtually and impli­citly, sayingRom. 1.7. To all that are at Rome the beloued of God, called Saints, which title cannot agree to any congregation, but to a true Church of Christ, asTom. 13. disp. 7. in ep. ad Rom. Salmeron learnedly proueth, and you contradicting your selfe acknowledge, saying:Pag. 7 [...]. sin. S. Paul to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the professors then in the place, omitteth the name of a Church, and mentioneth only the persons saying: To the Saints at Colosse: To them at Rome be­loued of God, called Saints. But because you mention Salme­rons solution, I will giue the reader notice, how fouly you abuse and fallify him. He giues three solutions to this Argu­ment. The first, he most approueth; and this you wholly pretermit to persuade your reader, that he giues not three, but only the two later: and therfore wheras he begins the second thus: Posset secundò commode dici, you leaue out fecundo that this may seeme not to be his second solution, but his first: and to the same end you say, allata alia solutione, ad hunc redit, that hauing brought another solution he returnes to this, saying, but the first solution in my iudgment is more so [...]de, which words containe a most notorious falsification: for he returnes not to this, which you make the first, by leauing out secundò, but to the first of the three, which you neuer mention. And wheras he sayth, that the first solution is in his iudgment the more solide, you by falsifying, apply this his saying to the second; against which because you can make a shift to cauill, you would haue your reader thinke it is Salmerons first solution, and that he thought it to be the most solide of all the three.

But of what import to your cause is this iugling? Marry, that because in the second solution Salmeron mentioneth [Page 161]the factions that were then in Rome betweene the Iewes and Gentiles, you may inferre, that S. Paul did thinke Rome to be (as other Churches) subiect to the alteration of Schismes and factions: and in proofe therof you say,Pag. 69. that, not only our Professors among themselues, but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into diuers Schismes, and factions &c. One of our deuout Doctors reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue ben twenty; an other accounting the continuance of one of them to haue endured fifty yeares. Our Deuout Doctor whom you mention to proue that there hath ben twenty schismes in the Roman Church, is Stapleton. The place in which you cite him is his thirteenth booke, De princip. Doctrin. Cap. 15. wheras in that worke he hath but twelue bookes in all. But be it, that there haue ben twenty Schismes in the Ro­man Church: Schisme is not a sinne against fayth, but a­gainst Charity. If then Antipopes or other professors of the Roman Church haue broken the bond of charity, was it therfore lawfull for you to renounce the fayth of the Ro­man Church? If Schismes be a lawfull cause of departure, who can stay in your Protestant congregation, diuided & subdiuided into Lutherans, Caluinists, Zwinglians, Bro­wnists and a thousand other Sects vnder these? new ones daily arising among you, as Separatists and Socinians, all which are diuided not only in poynt of charity, but in the very substance of fayth.

And surely you are ill aduised to obiect the Schismes of the Roman Church in iustification of your departure from her: for since (as our Authors haue aduertised) nether the persecutions of heathen Emperors, nor the Gothes and Vandals, nor the Turke, nor any sacks, or massacres by Alaricus, Gensericus Attila, Borbon, and others, nor the emulation of secular Princes, (were they Kings or Empe­rors) nor the many Schismes and diuisions betweene the lawfull Popes and Antipopes, nor the manifold difficul­ties & dangers in their elections, nor the great vices which haue bene noted in some of their persons, nor any scan­dall, haue had power to ouerthrow the Roman Church, as they haue done the Churches of the East, and many of the [Page 162]West; it is a manifest signe (& so much the more euident, the greater the persecutions, and the more and longer the schismes haue bene) that she is the impregnable Rock which the proud gates of hell cannot ouerthrow.

SECT. VIII. Other Arguments out of S. Paul, and other Catholike Authors answered.

S. Paul writing to the Romans saythRom. 1.13.: I haue often pur­posed to come vnto you that I may haue some fruite in you, as also in the other Gentils. Toletin eum loc. Annot. 22. vpon these words obserueth that the Ghospell is indifferent to all, and that howbeit the Romans were more eminent then other nations, and had the primacy, yet in prea­ching of the Ghospell and busines belonging to saluation, the Apostle equalleth others with them. These words of Tolet you obiectPag 70. but to what end I know not: for Tolet declareth the reasō why S. Paul equalleth other nations with the Romans in preaching to them the doctrine of Christ, and procuring their saluation, to be, because, as Christ found all sinners and dyed for all; so he calleth all, and receaueth them from whence soeuer they come. If you had set downe these words of Tolet, you had discouered, that to inferre either from his, or S. Pauls words, the equality of other Churches with the Roman in matter of iurisdiction, is a senselesse illation: for by the same consequence you may inferre, that all Diocesans in spiritual iurisdiction are equall with their Bishops, and all subiects in temporall power with their Princes, because Christ hauing shed his bloud equally for all, the soules of all are equally deare to him, and their saluation ought with all indifferency to be procured by preaching the Ghospell to all aswell to the least, as to the greatest, to the poorest, as to the richest.

2. No lesse impertinently you obiect other words of the same ApostleRom. 11.19. in which (as you confesse) he exhorteth not the Romans in particular, but all the conuerted Gen­tils in generall, not to be ouer-wise, but to feare, lest they also be broken off by infidelity, as the Iewes were. For [Page 163]these words shew, that no man hath certainty of fayth that he shall be saued, as Protestants vaynly presume themsel­ues to haue, but that all ought to liue in feare, lest they fall into infidelity, or other sinnes: which feare the Bishop of Rome and the Romans ought to haue, as well as other nations. But to inferre from thence, that the Bishop of Rome may teach hereticall Doctrine ex Cathedra, or that the whole Roman Church may fall from the fayth (which is the poynt in controuersy) nether is it S. Pauls meaning, nor any Interpreter euer expounded so.

3. As little to your purpose it is, that S. Paul saythRom. 1.11. to the Romans, I desire to see you, that I may impart vnto you some spirituall grace to confirme you: for therby, as S. Hierome (or whosoeuer is the author of those Commentaries) Theodo­ret, S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas expoundIn eum lo­cum., he shew­eth that they had receaued the fayth already from S. Peter: Because (sayth Theodoret) the great Peter had already declared to them the Euangelicall Doctrine, therfore S. Paul necessarily ad­des, To confirme you. And S. Hierome: Paul sayth, he will con­firme the Romans already belleeuing: not that they had not receaued the fayth by the preaching of Peter, but that their fayth might be strengthned by the witnesse and doctrine of two Apostles. Wherfore S. Paul desired to see them to confirme them, that is (as he himselfe declareth) to the end both he & they might receaue mu­tuall comfort from each other; they by his fayth, and he by theyrs. What makes this against the primacy of S. Peter, or of the Roman Church?

4. You obiectPag. 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 yeares after, to assist him: for which cause the conuersion 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)Cod. tit. 1. l. 1. that all the people ruled by the Em­pire of our clemency, shall liue in the same religion which the diuine A­postle Peter gaue to the Romans, as the religion insinuated by him vn­till this present witnesseth, and which it is manifest, that the high [Page 164]Priest Damasus followeth. Wherfore when Bellarmine sayth, that S. Peter and Paul were Co-founders of the Roman Church, he sayth it not to equall them in the foundation, and much lesse in authority: for in that very placeL. 1. de Pout. c. 27. he learnedly proueth that in authority S. Peter farre exceeded S. Paul.

5. You obiectPag. 72. out of Lorinus, that S. Epiphanius calleth both Peter and Paul Bishops of Rome. True: but S. Pauls Episcopall authority was only transient: he had no Episco­pall Chayre at Rome, as S. Peter had: and therfore Lo­rinus sayth, that S. Epiphanius called S. Paul Bishop of Rome in no other sense, then because he exercised the Episcopall functions there, as he might doe in any other place of the world. This explication contents you not: and therfore you sayPag. 72. marg., it is confuted in the next testimony, and in the Challenge following: but you breake promise; for there you nether confute it, nor mentiō it. And as for the thing it selfe, it is manifest: for no man euer sayd that S. Paul had an Episcopall Chayre at Rome, as S. Peter had: no do S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Optatus, S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius (whome you ob­iect,) making catalogues of all the Roman Bishops from S. Peter till their tyme, nor any other writers, reckon S. Paul as one of them.

6. You obiectPag. 72., that, the authority of both is cited in the Popes Breues for confirmation of Papall ordinances: that both haue their images ingrauen in the Popes bulls, and that in such sort, that Paul somtime hath the right hand of Peter, as well as other while Peter of Paul. You often borrow arguments out of Catho­like authors, and conceale their answeres. This you bor­rowed out of Bellarmine.L. 1. de Po [...]t. c. 27. who largely and learnedly answereth, giuing three different solutions vnto it: To him I remit the Reader. Only I will tell you, that the wordes which you set down in a different character as of Peterius are not his, but your owne: for thogh he proue out of Scrip­ture, & out of a place of Virgil, that apud homines, among men the right hand is the better and more honorable, yet he sayth not, that it is so among all people sauing the Persians (as you by adding to his words this particle, All, make him to say:) for he acknowledgeth, and Bellarmine out of Eusebius & [Page 165]Nebrissensis proueth the like by examples of other natiōs. And to what he sayth, I adde the reason, which Blessed Augustinus Triumphus a holy and ancient wryter that li­ued 400. yeares since, yieldeth,De Potest. Ecclesiact. c. 7. art. [...] why S. Paul in the Popes buls is somtimes placed on the right hand of S. Pe­ter. S. Paul (sayth he) was lesse then Peter, greater then Peter, and equall to Peter. He was equall to Peter in the office of preaching: lesse then Peter in Ecclesiasticall power, for Peter alone was Cephas, that is, Head of the whole Church: but he was greater then Peter in the prerogatiue of his election to the Apostleship, for he was chosen by Christ after his resurrection, & glorification: & for this cause Paul in the Popes bulls is placed on the right hand, & Peter on the left. So he.

Hauing now answered the arguments which hitherto you haue brought out of S. Pauls epistles, and shewed that by alleaging them, you conuince your owne Doctrine of falshood, and proue ours; I must craue pardon, if I aske 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 (sayth Optatus)L. [...]. cont. Parmen. read S. Pauls epistle to the Romans, in whose communion you are not? You (sayth S. Augustine)L. 2. de Baptism. c. 6. that haue it, and read it, and say that you liue according to it, why doe you not communicate with the Church to which it was sent? An­swere, why haue you separated your selues &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, schisma­ticall, hereticall, 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 begining? where was he Cathechized? where baptized? where ordayned? I conclude therfore 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 themL. de vnit. Eccles. c. 12.: You haue the epistle to the Ro­mans but we read it, and beleeue it, and haue the Roman Church in our communion from which we grieue (with himPsal. cont. part. Donati. to see you lye cut of, she being that Rock which the prowd gates of hell ouercome not.

SECT. I. Whether Rome shall be the seat of Antichrist.

THat the City of Rome is Babylon mentioned in the Reuelation (say youIbid. is the gener all consent of our owne Iesuits and o­ther Diuines. But in proose hereof you can find no other Ie­suits, nor Diuines to alleage, but Ribera, Viegas and the Rhemists, whom you abuse and falsify to make them serue your turne, as I shall now declare.

The Rhemists (say you)Pag. 74. do thus farre grant▪ as to say: The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be, though others thinke that Hierusalem rather shall be his principall soat. But your Iesuits Ribera and Viegas both of them Spanish Doctors and pu­blike professors do confidently auerre the contrary: and the one is so [Page 167]bold as to hold him to be a most notable foole that shall deny it. But good Sir, by your leaue, this is a most notable vntruth. That which Ribera sayth, is, that towards the end of the world, Rome shall be burned, not only for her former sinnes of Idolatry, and persecuting of Christ, vnder the Pagan Em­perors, but also for other sinnes, that in the end of the world she shall commit vnder Pagan Kings: and that this is so certaine out of the Apocalypse, that no man, though neuer so foolish, can deny it. This Ribera sayth: 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 sayth so, is, I will not say, a no­table foole, but whether he deserue not that name, I leaue to the readers censure.

The Doctrine of Ribera, Viegas, & the Rhemists is, that when S. Iohn calleth Rome, Babylon, he neither speaketh of the Church, or Pope of Rome, nor yet of the Citty of Rome, as she is vnder the gouerment of Christian Empe­rors, or in obedience of the See Apostolike: for in that estate, the hath (sayth S. Hierome)L 2. cont. louin. wiped out the blasphe­mies written in her forehead, by the confession of Christ. In that estateEp. 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 fayth praysed by the Apostle, and gentility troden vnder foote, the name of Christ daily aduancing it selfe on high. Wherfore when S. Iohn calleth Rome. Babylon, Ribera, Viegas, and the Rhemists, with the ancient Fathers ex­pound him to giue her that name, as she was the head of Paganisme, the mother of superstition, and Idolatry, and persecuted the Church and Popes of Rome, (being drunke with the bloud of the Saints, & Martyrs of Christ Iesus Apoc. 17.6. as she did vnder Nero, and Domitian, in S. Iohns tyme, & afterwards vnder other Pagan Emperors, when she put to death thir­ty Popes successiuely, one after another; and as she shall do againe in the end of the world: for both Ribera and Viegas hold, that the Citty of Rome shall then fall from the obe­dience of the See Apostolike, and from the fayth of Christ: and that as well for her enormous sinnes anciently com­mitted [Page 168]vnder the heathen Emperors, as also for other like, which in the end of the world she shall commit vnder hea­thenish Kings, she shall be burn's and consumed with fyre. But that Rome euen then vnder pagans Emperors, was, or hereafter vnder Heathenish Kings, shall be the seate of An­tichrist, neither Ribera, nor Viegas affirme, nor any way insinuate, as it may appeare out of their words, which you here set downe in LatinPag. 74. marg.: for those words, Roma sedes Antichristi which you attribute to Ribera, are not his, but foysted in by your selfe, to Father on him your owne fi­ction. And therfore wheras here, & els where oftenPag. 377. 378. & alibi. you affirme peremptorily out of Ribera, and take it as a truth granted by him and vs, that Rome shall be the seate of An­tichrist, you passe the limites of truth; for Ribera most ex­presly affirmethAdcap. 11. Apoc. n. 20. sin. & 21. init. that Antichrist shall haue his Court in Hie­rusalem & reigne there; and that the Iewes shall receyue and honor him as their Messias. And the same is the most common and receaued opinion as well of our moderne Diuines, as of the Ancient Fathers. Hippolitus Martyr, Lactantius, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, Se­dulius, S. Damascen, Arethas, Seuerus Sulpitius, S. Grego­ry of Tours. Venerable Bede, Haymo, and S. Thomas re­lated by SuarezDefens. sid. l. 5. c. 16., BellarmineL. 3. de Pont. c. 13. and SandersVisib. Mo­narch. l. 8. c. 26., that Antichrist shall not haue his seat at Rome, but at Hierusa­lem. And if the Rhemists say, it may be that he shall haue his seat at Rome, withall they rightly obserue that, whosoeuer op­poseth the Roman Church, or belieueth otherwise then she teacheth, belongs not to Christ, but is an Heretike, & a member of Antichrist, And the same was the beliefe of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church. S. HieromeEp. 57.: I know the See of Rome to be the Rock on which the Church is built. And speaking to Damasus PopeIbid.: Whosoeuer gathereth not with thee, scattereth, and is not of Christ but of Antichrist. And be­fore him S. CyprianL. 1. ep. 8. had said: He that gathereth out of the Church and chaire built vpon Peter, scattereth. Optatus:L. 2. cont. Parmen. that whosoeuer opposeth the Episcopall chayre of Rome built vpon Peter, is a Schismatike and a sinner. S. LeoEp. 75.: that whosoeuer presumeth to oppose the Roman Church built by the voyce of our Sauiour vpon the [Page 169]most blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles as vpon a Rock is either An­tichrist, or a Diuel. S. Maximus a famous Martyr, & the greatest Diuine of his ageEpist. ad Marin. Diue.; that they which speake against the Church of Rome, are heretikes that with vnbrideled mouths breath out ini­quity against heauen. S. BernardEp. ad Hil­debert. Arch. Turon.; that, they which be of God, are vnited with the Pope, and he that stands but against him, either belongs to Antichrist, or is Antichrist himselfe. By these testimo­nies it appeares first: how great reason the Rhemists, Ribe­ra, and Viegas had to admonish you, that this Prophecy of S. Iohn, though (in their opinion) it point out the destru­ction of the City of Rome for her Idolatry vnder the Pa­gan Emperors, and for the Apostacy from the fayth vnder other wicked kings in the end of the world, when she shal returne to her ancient greatnesse; yet it aymeth not at the Church of Rome, or Bishop therof, because that Apostacy shall be from the fayth of that Church, and from the Bi­shop therof.

2. And since you confessePag. 75. that these Authors ad­monish their readers here of againe and againe, thereby you conuince your selfe of folly: for this your argument out of the Apocalyps against the Bishop and Church of Rome is wholy grounded on their exposition & testimony, which being so manifestly against you, what man but your selfe would haue produced them, or (which is all one) S. Iohn as expounded by them, for witnesses against the Roman Church? Or with what cōscience could you say herePag. 74. & afterwards againe so boldly repeatePag. 377. 378., as their Doctrine, that Rome shall be the seate of Antichrist, since Ri­bera (from whom Viegas dissententh not) most ex­pressly teacheth that Hierusalem shall be his seate, and that he shall raigne there? Is not this a most wilfull falsi­fication?

3. And from hence the reader may learne how frau­dulently you remit vs to the testimonies of Ribera & Vie­gas in their exposition of this text of S. Iohn, to proue a necessity of your departure from the Church of Rome; since they condemne you as an heretike, and the holy Fa­thers pronounce you to be a member of Antichrist for it. [Page 170]The departure which S. Iohn speaketh of, is not from the Church of Rome, but from the idolatry and vices which in his tyme reigned in the City of Rome, and shall reigne in her againe in the end of the world. And this departure is not to be made so much by locall motion, as by steps of fayth, that is, by not communicating with her in her wic­kednesse. And therfore notwithstanding that admoni­tion of S. Iohn, Goe out of Babylon my people, the faythfull in his tyme did not leaue the Citty of Rome, but still remayned there, departing from her idolatry, and other Vices.

But you askePag. 76. 77.; If the destruction of Babylon mentioned in the reuelation point only at the Citty, and not at the Church, or Bi­shop of Rome, how can the Pope at that tyme still remayne Bishop of Rome, when he and all Christian people are departed out of the City, and the City it selfe is vtterly extinct? for then to be called Bishop of Rome (say you) is but a man in the moone, and, Titulus sine re. I answeare, though at that time the Citty of Rome shall be consumed with fire; yet the Church of Rome shall not, for youPag. 76. confesse, 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 it selfe, with their Bishop shall remaine, which shalbe till the end of the world (though not in the Citty after it is destroyed,) the Church of Rome shall still remayne according to your owne Principle, and chiefly according to the oracle of Christ, That the gates of Hell shall neuer preuaile against her. Suppose (which God forbid) Turkes and Infidels should take from you the Citty of Durham; or that the same should be consumed by fire into ashes, the whole multitude of your good & godly Christians escaping away with your selfe, liuing, and be­ing by you fed in some corner of your Diocesse; 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 Moone?

The Citty of Rome, as Ribera Ribera in Apocal c. 1 [...]. n. 47. Ponti­ficem cum multitudine Sanctorum eijcient. Nam multi viri bo­ni, ex has po­tissimùm Ci­uitate, [...]iecto Pontifici ad­haerebunt. holdes, shall towardes the end of the world fall from the Christian fayth and o­bedience [Page 171]of her Bishop; not that all the people of Rome shall fall away, for a great multitude of good Christians, and Saints shall re­maine constant, and adhere to the Pope, and depart with him out of the Citty; yea the Citty it selfe (their Bishop with the multitude of Saints being departed out of it) shall be consumed with fire before the reigne of Antichrist, or in the very beginning therof, asRiber a cap. 17 n. 20. in vers 16. Ex hoc, quod nunc ait A­postolus, in­telligitur Ro­man euer­tendam ante­quam Anti­christus reg­nare incipiat, vel certè ipso initio regni eius. Ribera andViegas in cap 17. n. 5. Viegas reach. In this supposition why may not the Pope with that multitude of holy Chri­stian Romans, be truly and verily, the Bishop, and Church of Rome? Why should that multitude of Roman Christian and Saints be titulus sine re, and not a very glorious and ve­nerable Church? Why should the Pope then cease to be Bi­shop, more then the Bishop of Canterbury should, in case Canterbury should be destroyed into ashes? Will you say v­pon this contingent that the Bishop of Canterbury shall be the man in the moone, the sheepheard of Vtopia, to wit, [...]? You might haue learned from Cusanus Epist. 2. ad Bohemos. (whome you cite of­ten, and highly commend) that if by any accident the Citty of Rome should fayle, the truth of the Church shall remaine there, where the Principality, and seat of Peter shalbe.

Nor is your example of the Emperor of RomePag. 77. any helpe to your Argument: For albeit the Roman Empyre be now in part decayed, or weakned, in respect of that power and greatnesse, which anciently it had; yet it still re­mayneth so, that the name & succession of the Roman Em­perors at this day is famous in the world: els why did our late Soueraigne King Iames inscribe his Monitory Prefa­tion, Sacratissimo, atque inuictissimo Principi ac Domino, Rodul­pho secundo Romanorum Imperatori, semper Augusto &c. And why els doth the Church of Rome in her OfficeIn die Pa­rasceues & Sabbatho Sancto., pray for the Roman Emperor? Nor the Authors which you alledge for the contrary, do say ought els, though you falsify Salmeron to make his words found otherwise: for wheras he spea­king of the Roman Empire, as it anciently was, sayth, Impe­rium illud Romanum iamdiu euersum est, that Empire of Rome (to wit, with that ancient splendor, maiesty, and power, which once it had) is long since destroyed; you leaue out il­lud, and make him say absolutely, The Roman Empire is long [Page 172]since destroyed, wheras in the words next following, he ex­presly affirmeth, that there is still a Roman Emperor, and that he is so called, although what now be possesseth, be but a very small sha­dow of the ancient Empire.

Lastly, I will not omit to put you in minde, of your weake manner of arguing throughout all this Section: for how doth it follow, that because Ribera and Viegas hold, that Babylon, out of which the faythfull are commanded to depart, is the City of Rome, as she shall be idolatrous in the end of the world, you may now lawfully reuolt from the Church of Rome? Againe, who obligeth me to allow of their exposition? I might retort your Argument vpon your selfe, and tell you, that Babylon signifies not Rome, but Geneua; and proue it by the testimony of Castalio, a prime brother of yours, who liued there, and was a speciall friend of Beza. They (sayth he speaking of the Geneuian brethren)Apud Rescium pag. 54. are proud, puft vp with glory, and reuenge: We may with lesse danger offend Princes, then exasperate these fiery Calui­nists: their life is infamous, and villanous: they are Maisters of art in reproches lyes, cruelty, treachery, and insufferable arrogancy. They name their Geneua, The holy City; and their assembly, Hierusalem: but in very truth we should call it, O Babylon, Babylon; O infamous So­dome, and children of Gomorrha. If you like not this exposition, yet I know no reason, why if you will belieue Ribera and Viegas expounding Babylon in the Apocalyps to be Rome you may not as well belieue your brethren Vdalricus Ve­lenusLib. de hac r [...]., and Henricus BuntingusIt 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. ThomasApud Riber. in vers. 8. cap. 14. A­poc., by Babylon vnderstand not Rome, but the socie­ty of all the wicked in generall, from whose vices the faith­full are commanded to departS. August. Breuic. Collat. collat. 3.. Others vnderstand Pa­ganisme, which because it adoreth a confused multitude of Gods, is rightly named Babylon, that signifies Confusion; o­thers Mahometisme, the mother of fornication, and all fil­thinesse. Others, Constantinople, the Metropolitan of Tur­cisme. And others, the chiefe City of the Chaldaeans, which is properly called Babylon. These expositions with their Au­thors [Page 173]and reasons, you may read in Cornelius à LapideAde. 17. Apoc., SuarezDefens. fid. l. 5. c. 7., and PeronReplic. Chapit. 15.. But the truth is, that all these senses, as likewise that of Ribera, being purely allegoricall, afford no solid foundation to build matter of fayth vpon, but are merely coniecturall. And therfore if S. August. sayEp. 48., Who dares with an vnbridled licence produce for himselfe, that which is couched in an allegory, vnlesse he haue places more cleare by whose light to illustrate that which is obscure, we may with iust reason reproue you, for grounding your departure from the Roman Church vpon the allegoricall sense of those words of the Apocalyps, Get forth of Babylon my people: and so much the more, because the Authors whose exposition you take for your ground, admonish you, that by Babylon is not vnderstood the Church of Rome, but the City, & that not as it is Christian, but as it was idolatrous in S. Iohns tyme, and shalbe againe in the end of the world. But any thing will serue your turne, be it true or false, if by sleights you can wrest it against the Pope and Church of Rome.

SECT. II. Whether S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter were subiect to the Bishop of Rome, S. Peters Successor?

SVarez treating of the authority of S. Peter, and his Suc­cessors, moueth this questionDe trip. virtute disp. 10. sect. 1., Whether the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter, were subiect to S. Peters successor in the See of Rome? His answeare is: I remember not, that I haue read any thing of this point in Authors: but it seemes to me, to follow out of what hath bene said, that they were inferior in iurisdiction, and con­sequently subiect therin to the Bishop of Rome, although in other ex­cellencies and prerogatiues they were superior to him. For the same power and iurisdiction that was in S. Peter descended to his Succes­sours; who therfore in three things surpassed the Apostles there liuing. 1. In the obiect of their power; for the charge and gouerment of the [Page 174]whole Church belongeth primarily to the Successor of S. Peter, which (as I haue said) belonged not to the other Apostles. 2. That power did extend to all Bishops, because the reason of order and Ecclesiasti­call vnity so required. 3. The power of the Bishop of Rome was al­waies ordinary, and to continue perpetually in the Church, not so in the other Apostles.

This is Suarez his Doctrine, which I haue set downe in his owne words, that the reader perusing yours, and com­paring them with his, may see how you falsify: for both in your Latin margent, & English text, you leaue outPag. 79. the reason, wherwith he proues his assertion, and set downe for his only ground, that he cannot remember to haue read in any au­thor any thing of this point, wheras he proues it out of what he had formerly said. And doth he not here againe proue it, out of the power and iurisdiction which was in S. Peter ouer the whole Church, & descended from him to his Suc­cessors? And doth he not from thence inferr, three preroga­tiues which his Successors had ouer the other Apostles, two of which you conceale? And though you set downe the third, yet it is in your Latin Margent only, and so dis­membred from Suarez his context, that the reader will not easily vnderstand the force therof. Againe, who is so blind that sees not your absurd manner of arguing, which is thisPag. 78. 79. Suarez opinion is, that S. Iohn suruiuing S. Peter, was subiect to Linus his Successor, ergo, S. Iohns fayth did not con­ceaue the Pope to haue iurisdiction ouer all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church. You might as well haue inferred, that because Yorke 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 vse your owne words against your selfe) with what vntempered morter, you daube vp, the consciences of your fol­lowers.

Now as for Suarez his assertion, that the iurisdiction of S. Peters Successor was greater, then the ordinary Episco­pall iurisdiction of the other Apostles, a iudicious Reader wil easily conceaue to be no such improbable Doctrine, if he reflect, that the Successor to euery Bishop is inuested in [Page 175]all the Episcopall authority of his predecessors and therfore Linus being Successor to S. Peter, it must follow, that 8. Peter being in Episcopall authority, and iurisdiction, supe­rior to all the other Apostles, Linus had the same authori­ty and iurisdiction ouer those that suruiued S. Peter. And this S. Chrysostome seemeth to haue expressedL. 2. de Sa­cerd. 1 [...], when he said: Christ committed to Peter, and to Peters Successors, the charge of those sheep, for the regayning of which he shed his bloud: from which number I trust you will not excluded S. Iohn, or any other of the Apostles that suruiued S. Peter. And what els did S. Cyril meane, when he saidApud S. Thom. Opusc. cont. error. Graec. c. 32.: As Christ receaued from his Father most ample power, so he gaue the same most fully to Peter. and his Successors? And what Paschasinus, when in the pre­sence, and with the approbation of the Councell of Chal­cedonAct. 1., he affirmed, the Pope to be inuested in the dignity of Peter the Apostle. And what meant S. BernardL. 2. de considerat. when he said to Eugenius Pope? Thou art Peter in power, and by vnction 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. LeoSerm. 2. [...]. Anniuers. suae assump. when he said: The ordinance of truth standeth, and S. Peter continuing in the receaued solidity of a Rock, hath not left the gouerment of the Church: for truly he perseuereth and liueth still in his Successors. And againeIbid.: In the person of my humility he is vnderstood, he honored, in whom the solicitude of all Pastors, with the sheep commended to him perseuereth, and whose dignity in an vn­worthy heyre fayleth not. And what S. Peter (surnamed Chry­sologusEp. ad Eutychet. when he exhorted Eutyches, to heare obediently the most blessed Pope of Rome, because S. Peter who liueth in his owne See, and is stil president in the same, exhibits the true fayth to those that seeke it? And what the Legates of Celestine Pope in the Councell of EphesusP. 2. Act. 2.? No man doubtes (for it hath bene no­torious to all ages) that the holy, and most blessed Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles, piller of the fayth, & foundation of the Catho­like Church, liues and decides causes yet vnto this day, and for all e­ternity by his Successors? And what Eulogius Patriarke of Ale­xandria writing to S. GregoryApud Greg. l. 6. ep. 37., that Peter Prince of the A­postles sitteth still in his owne Chayre, in his Successors? And what [Page 176]S. Gregory himselfe reportingDial. l. 3. c. [...]. that Agapet Pope com­ming to Constantinople, the friends of a man that was lame and dumbe, 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 sixt Councell generall, when commending the Epistle of Agatho Pope they saidAct. 18.: The paper and inke appeared, but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho. And finally, what Constantine Pogo­nate, when writing to the Roman SynodApud 6. Syn. Act. 18., he admired the relation of Agatho, at the voyce of the diuine Peter himselfe.

It followeth then, that if Linus was inuested in the E­piscopall dignity and power of Peter, if S. Peter still liue and rule in his owne See, and decide causes in his Successors, if he speake by them, and their voyce be to heard as his voyce; to be subiect to Linus, was no other thing then to be subiect to S. Peter; and to diso­bey Linus, was to disobey S. Peter, who did speake by Li­nus, and gouerne in his owne See by him. Wherfore as the Apostles owed subiection to S. Peter, whiles he liued, so those that surui [...] him, did to Linus, hauing the place of Peter for [...] [...]rian [...]alles the Roman See.L. 4. [...]p. 2.

SECT. I. Of the Name, Catholike.

AFTER a discourse made from an Argu­ment ab authoritate negatiuè, which euery Logician knowes to be of no force, you sayPag. 81.: We begin at the word, Catholike, and desire to vnderstand, why the epistles of Iames and Iohn, and Iude were called Catholike, or vniuersall, as well as the two Epistles of Peter, if the word Catholike were so proper to the Roman Chayre? seing that the Epistles of Iames, Iohn, and Iude were not sent to, or from Rome, nor had any relation to Peter there. Before I answere, I de­sire you to remember, that the name Catholike by the an­cient Fathers is giuen as a certaine note, or marke, wherby Orthodoxall people are distinguished from Heretikes, as you haue already heardChap. 2. sect. 2. out of Pacianus, S. Cyrill of Hie­rusalem, and S. Augustine: and contrariwise that they who to expresse their fayth, haue taken new names (as the A­rians of Arius, the Marcionists of Marcion, the Pelagians of Pelagius, the Donatists of Donatus, & the like) witnesse S. IrenaeusL. 1. c. 20., S. IustineIn Tri­phone., LactantiusDiuin. in­stitut. l. 4.30., S. Athana­siusSerm. 1. cont. Arian., and S. HieromeCont. Lu­cifer. fine., haue bene knowne therby (as by an vndoubted marke) to be Heretikes, who haue bene inforced to take new names, knowing that the ancient name of Catholike cold not agree to them. And for the same [Page 178]cause you knowing your selues not to be Catholikes, & that you shall neuer be esteemed such, haue bene inforced to call your selues by a new name of Protestants, to distinguish your selues from those, who in all ages haue bene, and are still knowne by the name of Catholikes; by which neither we, nor you vnderstand any other, then those, which pro­fesse the Roman fayth, and are in the communion of the Roman Church; Catholike and Roman being termes conuer­tible, as hath bene prouedChap. 1. sect. 3.. And this is the reason, why Protestāts speaking not only to vs, but euen among them­selues, euer call themselues Protestants, as knowing, that by Catholikes, no man vnderstands any other, but them that before Luther began, were, and are still knowne by that name, and can neuer loose the possession of it.

This was a thing well knowne to ancient Heretikes, who therfore abhorred the name Catholike. So did Gau­dentius the Donatist, calling itApud S. Aug. l. 1. cont. Gau­dent. c. 23. a humane fiction. So did other heretikes, who speaking in the Lutheran language, saidPraefat. in nouum Te­stam. anni 1565.; Come, O yee fooles, and silly wretches, that are commonly called Catholikes, and learne the true fayth, which lay hid many ages heretofore, but is now reuealed, and shewed of late. With these iumpe our Protestants: for Beza (k) call's it, A vayne word: Doctor HumphreyIn vita Iuelli p. 113., An empty tearme: Mayster Sutcliffe,Chal­lenge pag. 1. A fruitlesse name: and others of you scoffe at the word,Doctor Bristow Motiues, pag. 7. nicknaming vs, Cacolikes, and Cartholikes. And this is the reason why the Lutherans reiected an allegation out of Luther, because (said theyIn Colloq. Altemburg. anno 1568. pag. 154. Is is not a phrase of Luther, that any thing ought to be vnderstood Catholikely. And for this cause (as LindanusIn Dubi­tant. obserueth) Luther and other your new reformers in hatred of that name haue corrupted the Creed of the Apostles, saying in their Catechismes, insteed of, I be­lieue the holy Catholike Church: I belieue the Christian Church. And you english Protestants insisting in their steps, for the good will you beare to that name, haue left it out of your Bibles: for whereas EusebiusL. 2. histo. c. 12. reporteth that the Epistles of Ia­mes, Peter, Iohn, and Iude were knowne in antiquity by the name of Catholike Epistles, and therfore the Catholike Church so instiles them in her Bibles, you in yours of the [Page 179]yeares 1562. and 1577. (which are yet currant among you, hauing neuer bene forbidden) haue wholy left out that name. And though since that tyme you haue bene ad­monished of your bad dealing therin, yet still in all your later Bibles you commit the same fault, vsing the prophane signification of the word Catholike in lieu of the Ecclesia­sticall, and in styling the Catholike Epistles, The generall E­pistles, saying, The generall Epistle of Iames, of Peter &c. Who seeth not the absurdity of this translation? For it is as ridi­culous to translate Catholike, Generall, as if when S. Hierome saidL. 1. A­pol. aduers. Ruffin.: If Ruffinus call his fayth that, which the Roman Church professeth, then are we Catholikes, you should translate, Then are we Generalls: or whom S. AugustineContra ep. Fundam. c. 4. reporteth, that Ca­tholikes trauailing among Heretikes, to distinguish their owne Churches from hereticall conuenticless, aske. qua itur ad Catholicam? which is the way to the Catholike Church, you should translate which is the way to the Generall? All this shew­eth that you know your selues not to be Catholikes, since you seeke as far forth as you can, to suppresse the name. How therfore can you aske why the Epistles of Iames, Iohn, and Iude, were called Catholike, as well as the two Epistles of Peter? (I say) you that call none of them Catho­like, but in a prophane manner, Generall Epistles? And that very improperly if not also falsly: for some of them, (as the two last of S. Iohn) were not written to all the faythfull in generall, but to particular persons: The reason why the Ca­tholike Church instileth the Epistles of Iames, Iohn, and Iude Catholike Epistles, as well as the two Epistles of Pe­ter, is, because they were written in defence of the Catho­like fayth against heretikes, as well as the Epistles of S. Peter were. So it hath bene already shewed out of S. AugustineChap. 12. sect. 8..

Your second question isPag. 81.; why S. Paul was so sole, as of himselfe to anathematize the false Apostles? I answere, that not only S. Peter, but each of the Apostles had power to excommunicate or anathematize offenders; for their Apo­stolicall iurisdiction was vniuersall ouer all the faythfull; but yet not ordinary, at S. Peters was: and therfore 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 isPag. 82., why S. Paul did absolue 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 argumēt you vrge again afterwardsPag. 242. as of principal note, and confirme with the testimonies of S. Ignatius, of Euse­bius Pope, and Genebrard who obserues that Tertullian calleth Paul, Vicar of Christ. Answere. The name of Vicar may be giuen to any one, that supplieth the place of ano­ther. Kings are Vicars of God, in things belonging to Ciuill gouerment. Bishops are Vicars of Christ, in spirituall and ec­clesiasticall affayres, because, the holy Ghost hath placed them to rule the Church of God Act. 20.28.. All the Apostles were Vicars of Christ, because they were Legates, God as it were exhorting by them 2. Cor. 5.20.: and thereby S. Paul had power to absolue the in­cestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ, or, as his Vicar, as the Rhemists expound. But the supreme Vicar, and chiefe Lieutenant of Christ on earth (as S. Peter was, so now) is the Bishop of Rome his Successor: and so much the holy Councels haue declared. He that hath the See of Rome (sayth the Councell of Nice)Can. 39. ex Graecis & Arab. is Head and Prince of all Patriarkes: for as Peter was, so he is, the chiefe, to whom power is giuen ouer all Christian Princes, and all their people, as one that is the Vicar of Christour Lord ouer all people, and ouer the whole Christian Church. And the generall Councell of LionsIn S [...]xt. Decret. Cap. Vbi. pericu­lum. calleth the Pope the Vicar of Iesus Christ, the Successor of Peter, the Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church; the guyde of our Lords slock. And in the same sense S. BernardL. 2. de Confid said: Peter walking vpon the water like our Lord, shewed himselfe to be the only Vicar of Christ, that was to go­uerne not one nation, but all: for many waters, are many people: By this you see, that when we call the Pope, The Vicar of Christ, we take the name of Vicar, antonomastice, for him, that bea­reth [Page 181]the person, and holdeth the place of Christ, as vniuer­sall Pastor and Gouernor of the whole Church. In which sense, neither Tertullian attributed that name to S. Paul, as Genebrard obserueth in that very place in which you cite him for the contraryChrou. 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 li­ueth: but he hath Vicars and Ministers, on earth, among which Peter and the Bishops of Rome his Successors haue the Soueraignty, as all antiquity without exception hath belieued: and therfore with great reason we reckon their Succession, which is to continue till the worlds end, as one of the markes that hold vs in the lap of the Catholike Church.

S. Ignatius, and Eusebius Pope you likewise abuse: for although Deacons be in their degree Ministers and Vicars of Christ, yet S. Ignatius sayth it not, but only commandeth the Trallians to whom he writeth, to reuerence them as our Lord Iesus Christ, and as guardians of that place: and so much his owne words set downe by youPag. 242. n. 15. in Greeke declare. The testimony of Eusebius you falsify: He sayth, Caput Ecclesiae Christus est, Christ is Head of the Church: You corruptly tran­slate, There is one Head of the Church, Christ; to signify, that there is no one Head thereof vnder Christ, as his chiefe Lieutenant, and Vicar on earth; which is contrary to the Doctrine of Eusebius in the same Epistle, both before and after the words which you obiect. And to this you add an other corruption: for where Eusebius sayth, Priests are Vi­cars of Christ you in your English leaue out the word Priests for the good will you beare to that name, and function. Whose Vicar may he be thought to be that deales so impo­sterously?

But you obiectPag. 82.: S. Paul to auoyd Schismes among the people, will not haue them adhere to any one man; no more to Cephas (that is Peter) then to Paul or Apollos: wheras your Roman Cephas would haue taught S. Paul a contrary lesson, saying, that they who adhere vnto Cephas, cannot be called Schismatikes, as those who hold of Apollos, because Cephas was the Rock whereupon the Church was [Page 182]built. Answere. That Cephas was the ministeriall Rock on which Christ built his Church, is a truth asserted by Christ, and by all the Orthodoxall writers, that haue liued in the Church: & therfore with great reason they haue pronoun­ced him, that separates himselfe from the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome, to be, a sinner, a Schisma­tike, an Heretike, and not to be of Christ, but of Antichrist. Their words I need not repeate; you haue heard them alreadyChap. 1. sect. 4..

And tell vs now; did those Fathers teach S. Paul a lesson contrary to our Doctrine? So you say, but misunderstand S. Paul: for S. Augustine, and S. Gregory expound him to speake these words against them, that contemning Christ did not build their fayth vpon him, but vpon men, as v­pon Heads not subordinate to him;L. 4. ep. 38 or to vse S. Gregories words, extra Christum, out of Christ. Paul the Apostle (sayth S. AugustineSerm. 13. de verb. Dom. knowing himselfe to be chosen, and Christ to be con­temned, said: What? is Christ diuided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? In like manner expound S. Anselme, and S. ThomasIn eum loc., saying, that the Apostle spea­keth against those that made many Christs, and many Authors of grace. What force then hath this Scripture against vs, who hold S. Peter and his Successors to be Vicars of Christ, and reuerence and obey them, because they are his Vicars? so farre we are from contemning him, or setting vp another Head different from him, as the false Apostles, and some of the Corinthians seduced by them, did; for which the Apo­stle reprehendeth them. You might with more truth haue proued out of these words, with S. ChrysostomeIn hunc locum., that Paul acknowledged S. Peter to be his Superiour, because he spake ascending by gradation, that so he might place Peter aboue himselfe, and next to Christ.

SECT. III. Whether S. Paul, reckoning the Ecclesiasticall Orders, gaue the Pope any place among them.

IF S. Paul (say you)Pag. 82. had bene of our sayth to belieue, that the Pope of Rome as Successor of S. Peter, is the visible Head of the [Page 183]Church, whereas he alleageth the Ecclesiasticall orders twice, first, A­postles, then Prophets, after Doctors: and againe: Some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Euangelists, he should haue alleaged Pe­ter among them, and the vnion with the Bishop of Rome, as a true note of the Church. Syr, you may be pleased to take for an answer the fearfull example, which Doctor SandersVifib. Mo­narch. l. 7. pag. 690. related of one Wright a Doctor of law, and Archdeacon of Oxford, who after the change of Religion in England, being loath to loose his place, falling one day in a Sermon on these words of S. Paul, said: Here you find not one word of the Pope. Which when he had vttered, being presently strucken with a vehement disease, & as it were suddainly become dumbe, he was carried from the pulpit, not to dinner as he had in­tended but to bed, where the eight day after he ended his life. I feare that this answer (howbeit it is from God) will not please you; S. Damascen will giue you another. For with him I desire to know of you (who to flatter Se­cular Princes grant them the chiefest place of gouerment in the Church, making them Heads therof) where among the Ecclesiasticall Orders reckoned by S. Paul, you with all your wisdome can sind any place for secular Princes, or Magistrates, or any mention at all of them? It belonges not to Kings (sayth S. Damascen)Orat. 2. de Imagin. to giue lawes to the Church: for consider what the Apostle sayth, and whom he hath placed in the Church, first Apostles, after Prophets, then Pastors, and Doctors: in the constitution of the Church he placed not Kings: And againeIbid.. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them, for they watch, as being to render accompt of your soules. And; remember your Prelates, which haue spoken the word of God to you. Kings are not they which haue spoken the word, but Apostles, and Prophets, and Pastors, and Do­ctors. The ciuill gouerment belongs to Kings; but the Ecilesiasticall constitution to Pastors and Doctors. So Damascen, whose Do­ctrine if it please you not, you may learne the same lesson from your Grand-maister Caluin, teaching, that the chie­fest place of gouerment in Christs Church belonged to the Apostles, and so to Bishops and Priests their Successors. And lest you might thinke, that there is so much as one word in S. Paul, which may argue him to grant vnto secu­lar [Page 184]powers any place of gouerment in the Church. CaluinL. 4. In­stit. c. 3. sect. 5. & cap. 11. sect. 1. specially noteth that by gubernationes, gouerments (which S. Paul after Apostles, and Doctors reckoneth in the sea­uenth place) are not vnderstood ciuill officers, but, such men, as were ioyned to the Preachers, for better order in spirituall gouer­ment.

But though you in neither of these places (where the Apostle speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall dignities) can finde any place for secular Princes, and Magistrates, the Fathers of the Church haue found in both of them a place for the Pope: for S. Hierome obseruethIn Psal. 44. that in the Church, Bi­shops succeed in place of the Apostles: and therefore Ter­tullianL. de praes­crip. c. 2 [...]. & 32., and S. AugustineEp. 162. haue noted, that their Churches were called Apostolicall, so long as they continued in the fayth receaued 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 Epis­copall Chayre, and into which (sayth Tertullian)L. de praser. c. 36. both he, and S. Paul powred all their Doctrina, togeather with their bloud, was, and is still by a speciall prerogatiue called, The See Apo­stolike, in so much, that when the See Apostolike is named without any addition, the Roman See is alwayes vnder­stood. In this language speake S. HieromeL. 2. A­pol. aduers. Ruffin. when he said Ironicè to Ruffinus: I wonder how the Bishops haue rece [...]ed that, which the See Apostolike hath condemned. In this spake S. AugustineEp. 106., saying: Relations concerning this busines were sent by the two Councells of Carthage and Mileuis, to the See Apostolike. And els whereEp. 162.: In the Roman Church hath alwayes florished the Principality of the See Apostolike. In the same language spake the Councell of ChalcedonAct. 1., calling Paschasinus the Popes legate, The Vicar of the See Apostolike. And the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to GelasiusExt [...] in­ter epist. Ge­lasij.: It is our desire to obey all your commands, and to keep inuiolate the ordinations of the See Apostolike, as from our Fathers we haue learned to do. And S. BernardL. 2 de Considerat. vpon those words of S. Paul, He that resisteth power, resisteth the ordinance of God, sayth to Conradus the Em­peror: [Page 185] This sentence I wish, and by all meanes admonish you to keep in yelding reuerence to the chiefe, and Apostolicall See.

From hence it also proceedeth, that (as S. HieromeEp. 58. said to Damasus): The Bishop of Rome followeth the Apostles in ho­nor, and therfore he aboue all other Bishops is called Aposto­licus, Apostolicall. So was S. Leo called in the Councell of ChalcedonAct. 1., The most blessed and Apostolicall man, Pope of old Rome, which is the Head of all Churches. And the Bishops of FranceInter op. Leonis. [...]to 52. salute him with the title of, The most blessed Pope to be reuerenced with Apostolicall honor. And RupertusDe diui [...] offic. l. 1.27.: The Successors of the other Apostles are called Patriarkes: but the Succes­sor of Peter for the excellency of the Prince of the Apostles, Apostoli­cus nominatur, hath the name of Apostolicall. And Hugo Victo­rinusL. 1. Erud. Theol. de sa­cram. Eccles. c. 43.: The Pope is called Apostolicall, because he hath the place of the Prince of the Apostles.

From hence also his Episcopall dignity is by a speciall prerogatiue called, Apostolatus, Apostolate, or Apostleship. So Paschacinus in the Councell of Chalcedon said of Pope LeoAct. 1.: His Apostleship hath vouch safed to command, that Diosco­rus sit not in the Councell. So the Bishops of France writing to the same Leo, beseech his Apostleship to pardon their slownesse Iuter ep. Leon. ante 52.. Honorius the Emperor beseecheth Pope BonifaciusEp. ad. Bonifac. that his Apostolate would offer vp prayers to God for the good of his Empire. S. Bernard sayth to InnocentiusEp. 190.: It is fitting that whatsoeuer dangers or scandals arise in the kingdome of God, be re­ferred to your Apostleship All this sheweth that vnder the name of Apostles, to whom S. Paul allotteth the first and chiefest place among Ecclesiasticall gouernors, are vnderstood S. Peter and his Succcessors, who haue the first and chiefest place of gouermentin the Church. And this the Fathers & Councels haue sufficiently declared by giuing the Pope the title of Apostolicall, by calling his place Apostleship, and his Church absolutely Apostolicall See. This you could not see: so dimme sighted you are in beholding any light that shewes 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, vnder the name of Pastors: for Christ made Peter Pa­stor [Page 186]of his flock; & the same dignity remayneth to his Sue­cessors: for why els did the Mileuitan Councell (in tyme of the Pelagian heresy) beseech Innocentius PopeAug. ep. [...]2. to apply his Pastorall diligence to the great perills of the weake members of the Church? why did S. HieromeEp. 57. liuing in Palestine fly to Damasus Pope for resolution of his doubts, as a sheep to his Pastor? Why did S. Chrysostome sayL. 2. de Sacordot. that, Christ com­mitted to Peter, and his Successors, the charge of those sheep for which he shed his bloud? Why did S. AmbroseEp. 81. call Siricius Pope a good and rigilant Pastor, that with pious solicitude keepes the flock of Christ? Why did S. Prosper sayl. de in­grat. c. 2. that Rome by the See Apostolike is made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world? Why did the Bishops of the East say to Pope Symmachus,In volum. Orthodoxo­graph. impres. Basileae. You are taught dayly 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, write to Siluerius Pope in banishment:Ep. ad Sil­uer. What do you thinke becomes of vs, when such things are done to the chiefe Pastor? Why did that Em­peror Leo, surnamed the wise, saySerm. de. S Petro. that Christ made Peter Prince of Pastors, and required of him the care of feeding his flock as a returne of his loue? Why did the Emperor Constantine Pogonate, and the sixth Councel generall call Agatho the vniuersall Arch-pastor? Ep. ad synod. Apost. in [...]. synodo. Act. 18. You (say they to the Councell of the West) and the vniuersall Arch-pastor by your procurators haue bene present at our Councell. Why did the second generall Councell of LionsSext. de­cret. C. Vbi peric. call Gregory the tenth, Gouernor of the vniuersall Church and guyde of our Lords flock? And finally why did S. BernardL. 2. de considerat. say to Eugenius Pope. To you are committed the sheep not of one City, or countrey, but all the sheep of Christ without exception? What thinke you M. Doctor? These Fathers and Councels found the Pope among the Pastors reckoned by S. Paul, and beleeued him to be the Arch-pastor, and Pastor of all Pastors vnder Christ: but you that shut your eyes against the light, cold not discerne 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. Hypolitus Martyr sayth:Orat de consummat. mundi. Peter the Prince, the Rock of fayth: he the Doctor of the Church, [Page 187]the chiefe of the Disciples. S. Chrysostome calleth himOrat. En­com. in Pet. ac Paul. Doctor of the Apostles, and Mayster of the world. And the Coun­cell of FlorenceIn lit. vni­on. with the accord both of the Latin and Greeke 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 Chayre, saythEp. 160.: The hea­uenly Mayster hath placed in the Chayre of Vnity the Doctrine of ve­rity. To you (sayth S. Basil to Damasus Pope)Ep. 69. per Sabin. Di­ac. it is giuen by our Sauiour to discerne betweene what is counterfiete, and what is pure; and without any diminution to teach the fayth of our Ancestors. And S. HieromeL. 1. Apol. aduers. Ruf­fin.: That though an Angell should preach other­wise then the Roman Church teacheth, he were not to be beleeued: Wherof Maximianus Patriarke of Constantinople yeldeth the reason, sayingEp. ad Oriental.: The Creator of the world among all the men of the world, selected S. Peter, to whom he granted the Chayre of Doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of priuiledge, that whosoeuer is desirous to know any profound and diuine thing, may haue recourse to the oracle and Doctrine of this instruction. Nor is there any man that can deny this truth, if he credit the auncient Fathers, teaching that the priuiledge giuen to S. Peter of confirming his Brethren, did not dye with him, but was in him grāted to his Successors: In regard wherof the Councels haue sent their decrees to the Pope to be cō ­firmed by him: & S. Hierome, S. Augustine, Theodoret, S. Cyril, Venerable Bede, S. Anselme, S. Bernard, and many other of the most learned Doctors of Gods Church haue submitted their writings to the seuerall Popes of their tymes to be examined & approued, or reproued according to their iudgment.

SECT. IV. Doctor Mortons rayling against the Inquisition.

YOu obiectPag. 83. 84 that, S. Peter as an Elder exhorteth the Elders or Bishops: feede the flock of God, not dominiering ouer Gods [Page 188]heritage. What may be inferred from hence (say you) we may vn­derstand in your second Challenge. But you must giue vs leaue not to learne the sense of this Scripture from your Chal­lenge, but from the Ancient Doctors of Gods Church, who out of it shew, that S. Peter had, & practised the au­thority of Supreme Pastor, and Gouernor of the vniuersall Church.

But because S. Peter writing to Bishops, commanded them not to dominiere in the Clergy, See aboue Chap. 9. fin. you take occasion to raile against the Romish Inquisition, first by making a relation of your ownePag. 85. no lesse false then spitefull) of imprisonment, famishment, torment, and ropes to strangle prisoners, and all in tene­bris, workes of darknesse; employed against all beleeuers, receyuers, defenders, and fauorers of heretikes. And to this your relation you add another like of Cornelius Agrippa,Ibid. whom you know to be a Magician, an heretike, and a forbidden author, and yet you are not ashamed to call his lyes. Our Confession. And to the same purpose you bring Thuanus,Ibid. whom we owne not, but bequeath him to you, as one who by praysing the Huguenots and theyr Doctrine, and by speaking against the Pope and Church of Rome, suffi­ciently declareth what he is.

Now as for the thing it selfe, who seeth not the absur­dity of your argument, which reduced to a few words is: The inquisition is seuere in punishing heretikes, especially such, as hauing abiured their heresy before a Iudge, relapse into the same againe, and are in danger to infect others, Ergo saluation may behad out of the Roman Church; or, Ergo it is lawfull to depart from her fayth & communion: or, Ergo the Roman Church is not the Head of all Chur­ches: for these are the poynts in proofe wherof your grand Imposture wholly insisteth. That you know all these illa­tions to be absurd, t'is not to be doubted: but you are con­tented that men of learning, and iudgment should know you to be absurd, so that therby you may make the Roman Church hatefull to simple soules, that want learning and iudgment to discerne your Impostures.

That Iews, Mahumetans, and Heretikes hate the In­quisition, [Page 189]t'is no wonder. Malefactors hate their Iudges, & theeues the gallowes. How (sayth S. Augustine)Ep. 166. can he that hath an ill suite, prayse the Iudges, by whom he hath bene con­uicted? And els whereTract. 11. in Ioan. & ep. 48. & 50. he declareth, that as they which blasphemed the God of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, were iustly punished by the Edict of Nabuchodonosor; so heretikes, because they draw men from Christ are in like manner iustly punished according to the lawes made a­gainst them by Christian Kings and Emperors. And shew­ing that they haue no reason to complaine therof, he saithTract. 11. in Ioan.: They (the Donatists) will do such things, and yet will not suffer such punishments: See what they do, and what they suffer: They kill soules, and are punished in their bodies: They cause euer­lasting deathes, and complaine that they suffer temporall deathes. And againeCont. ep. Parmē. l. 1. c. 8.: What do not these men iustly suffer, seing they suffer deseruedly for their offences by lawfull power, and by the iud­gement of God gouerning from aboue, and admonishing them by such punishments to beware of euerlasting fyre. Let them first proue them­selues not to be Heretikes or Schismatikes, and then let them com­plaine that they suffer iniustly. And els where he saythConc. 2. in Psal. 34.: The Physician is somtymes inforced to cut and lance, and desisteth not, though the Patient curse, and rayle: They that are in a letargy are wakened, and they that are in a phrensy, are bound; yet both of them are loued. Let no man therfore say, I suffer persecution: let him not proclayme his punishment, but let him proue his cause, lest if he proue 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 refraine men frō euill by shame and freedome, then by feare of punishment, he answereth,Ep. 50. that albeit those which are drawne with loue be better, yet more come by feare; which he proueth, 1. out of the same Poet, say­ing: Thou knowest not how to do well, vnlesse thou be enforced with punishment: 2. with a Prouerbe of Salomon, that, A stif-necked seruant will not be amended with words: for though he vn­derstand, he will not obey: & 3. by experience: for (saith he) it is superfluous to proue this with words, seing it is manifest by, many examples, that not these, or those men, but that many Cities of Here­tikes [Page 190]are now become Catholike for feare of the Imperiall lawes from Constantine to the present lawes. These are the lawes M. Doc­tor, which you storme 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 iu­stice, so with great meekenesse. If he be found guilty of heresy, they vse all meanes both by themselues and by o­ther learned men to reclayme him. If he acknowledge his error, he is deliuered vp to religious persōs to be instructed, and with charitable vsage gayned to God. But if they find him to stand out obstinatly against all persuasions, they de­liuer him vp with his whole processe, to the secular Ma­gistrates, beseeching them to deale mercifully with him. And if the Magistrates iudge him worthy of death, & pu­nish him according to the Imperiall lawes, I know no reason you haue to blame them: for (as S. Augustine saith with the Apostle)Ep. 164. & l. 1. cont. ep. Parmen. c. 8. &. l 2. cont. Petil. c. 83. they beare not the sword without cause: for they are Gods Ministers, reuengers vnto wrath, to them that do euill. Nor do I see what you haue in all this to quarrell at, vnlesse you thinke, that theeues, and murderers of mens bodies ought to be punished with death, and that murderers of mens soules ought to be spared. And so much the more inconsiderate you are in this your cauill, because your sel­ues vse the same proceeding against heretikes: for haue you not burnt Dauid George in Holland, Hacket, Coppinger, and others in England?

But you complainePag. 85. 86., that not only heretikes are pu­nished, but also Beleeuers, Receauers, Defenders, and Fauorers of heretikes, namely such as commend their learning, wit, Zeale, 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 SuarezDe trip. virt. Theol. disp. 24. n. 2. and AzorPart. 1. l. 8. c. 15. the very authors whom you obiect haue declared) Beleeuers are they that giue credit to the Doctrine of heretickes, and make profes­sion therof, or prayse the same as no way dissonant to the Catholike fayth: May a Christian do this to a Pagan? De­fenders are not they that praise the learning, wit, or elo­quence of heretikes, but that commend or maintaine their [Page 191]doctrine, or praise their pertinacy (which you call zeale) 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 heretike. Fauorers or receauers are not they, that receaue heretikes into their howses, or shew loue or fauor vnto them as to their freinds or kinsfolkes (this any man may do to a Pagan) but that receaue, cōceale or assist them, that they may perseuer in their heresy, and teach it to others: also officers, that ought to concurre to the apprehension of heretikes, and do it not, but ayd them to escape the hands of the lawfull iudges, that so they may not be punished, but remaine free to peruert others.

This is the Doctrine of Suarez and Azor, whom you obiect: & no Catholike Diuines speake otherwise against him, that hauing abiured his heresy before a Iudge, relap­seth into the same: for if he talke with an heretike, or visit him as his neighbour, or reuerence him as his Superior, or reward him for any fauor receaued, or commend him for his wit, or other talents of nature or learning, he is not therfore thought to haue relapsed into heresy. But if he vi­sit, reuerence, reward, or commend him, because he is an heretike, and for his hereticall Doctrine, he is then by the law of Frederike the Emperor to be deliuered to the secular Magistrate, & as a relaps 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, receaues him into her bosome, allowing him the Sacrament of Alsolution and Eucharist, and affords him all instruction, and helpe, for the good of his soule, that so he may dye in state of sal­uation.

Against this your choler riseth, sayingPag. 87.: Bubalus was neuer so stupid, as to iudge them morally incorrigible, which do repent so▪ as to make themselues capable of Absolution: but, Syr, Bubalus was neuer so stupid, as not to vnderstand that a relapsed heretike being condemned to death, may by the helpe of Gods grace open his eyes to see and acknowledge his error, and thereby make himselfe capable of the Sacraments; and [Page 192]yet that neuerthelesse the Church may iustly feare, that as he became a relaps after he had once solemnly abuired his heresy, so if he be permitted to liue, he may fall the third and fourth tyme againe, which is to be morally incorri­gible.

And wheras you adde,Ibid. that there was neuer any Rha­damanthus so extreme, as at once to pardon and kill, and that ther­fore such mercy is to be cursed, because it is cruell: by these words you condemne the practice of all Christian Common we­alths, which when they put Malefactors to death, grant them accesse to the Sacraments of Pennance and Eucharist, & afford them all help and instruction to dye well, as the Church doth to Heretikes, if they will accept therof: for with them she dealeth no otherwise in this case, then all Christian Princes do with other malefactors. But belike nether heretikes nor other Malefactors must be put to death, or if they be, the Church must deny them the holy Sacra­ments, that so their soules may perish with their bodies; or els you will compare her to Rhadamanthus: you will say she pardons and kils at once, and curse her mercy, canoni­zing it for cruelty. What may we say, or thinke of such a man?

Small reason therfore you hadP [...]g. 85. 86. to call the Inquisiti­ons proceeding against heretikes, Tyrannous Romish cruelty, and Barbarous Romish cruelty. And so much the reader will yet better vnderstand, if he consider, that nether the In­quisitors, nor any other Ecclesiasticall persons pronounce, nor much lesse execute sentence of death against heretikes: and what the secular Magistrate doth in that kinde against Lutherans & Caluinists, is not by force of any new lawes made against them, but according to the lawes which the most godly Christian Emperors haue anciently prouided (before any Protestants were exstant in the world) for the preseruation of Christian Religion against Iewes, Mahu­metans, and Heretikes.

But if I were disposed to deale with you by retorsion (which kind of argument is familiar to you in this Grand Imposture) I cold put you in mind, how without any [Page 193]warrant of law (for at that tyme you had made no lawes against Catholikes) yea and contrary to all lawes of this kingdome, and of Christianity, in the dayes of K. Henry the eight, and Queene Elizabeth, you partly sent and for­ced into banishment, and partly consumed with the loath­somnesse of prisons, and stench of dungeons, many Catho­likes of all degrees, aswell Ecclesiasticks, as Laicks. I cold write of your racking, and many other wayes cruelly tor­turing of Priests, and lay Catholikes, and of your putting to death many of them for crimes composed, and malici­ously forged against them by your selues, you hauing then no lawes wherby to condemne them. And I cold reckon the number and specify the cruelty of your Parlament Sta­tutes made since that tyme against all sortes of Catholikes, and the seuerity vsed in the execution of them, with con­tinuall vexation of innocent people, especially by the in­ferior sort of your officers. But for the honor of our Coun­trey: I forbeare the rehearsall of them, and wish that the Christian world abroad had not taken so much notice of them, as their Histories shew them to haue done. But if leauing England, I passe to other nations, what pen is able to expresse the neuer before heard of inhumane, bar­barous, & sacrilegious cruelties of your Geuses in the Iow Countries, and your good brethren the Huguenots in France? which whosoeuer desires to know more in par­ticular, may see liuely presented to his view, by M. Ri­chard Verstegan in a booke of pictures intituled Theatrum crudelicatum haere [...]icorum nostri temporis, printed at Antwerp, Apud Adrianum Huberti Anno 1592. with so many particu­lars of the tyme, place, persons, and torments, that no man euer had the face to question the truth therof: nor the relation which Doctor Harding, In his proofe of certayne ar­ticles of religion against Maister Iuell Fol. 129.130. hath made of the Cal­uinists at Pat [...]é, not farre from Orleans, throwing 25. infants quick into the fire; of their burying of Catholikes aliue at S. Macarius; of cutting infants in two; of ripping vp the bellies of Priests aliue; of drawing out their en­trailes by litle and litle, and winding them about stakes; [Page 194]of cutting of the priuy parts of a Priest, then frying them, after causing him by violence to swallow them downe, and last of all ripping vp his stomach being yet aliue, to see what was become of them; of their dragging other Priests after their horses, then picking out their eyes, cutting off their eares, noses, and priuy parts, wearing their eares in their hats as iewels to glory in their malice; hanging vp the carcasses of some yet striuing for life, dispatching others at once with their pistols, hacking and mangling the faces of some, & cleauing the heads of others in two at a stroke to make tryall of their strength. To which you may adde the horible sacriledges, the vnspeakeable cruelties fitter for Tygers then men; and the monstruous beastlinesse of your French and Holland Brethren at Tillemont in Brabrant Anno 1635. I pretermit the particulars not to soyle my paper with the rehearsall of them. If you desire to know them, the famous Vniuersity of Louayne, next neighbour to Tillemont, hath depainted them in liuely colours: in their relation you may read them. If you had consired these and many other most horrible cruelties of your Ghospel­ling Bretheren, the like wherof haue neuer bene heard among any people neuer so inhumane and sauage, and ad­ded vnto them your owne outrages committed both in England and Ireland (some of which Verstegans Thea­trum representeth vnto you) you wold surely haue bene a­shamed to instile the iust proceedings of the Inquisition, or the sentences pronounced against them by Catholike Ma­gistrates, Tyrannous Romish cruelty, Barbarous Romish cruelty.

SECT. I. That the word Catholike proues the Roman Church to be the true Church.

YOv demandPag. 88. 89 how the Roman Church (seing it is Roman, that is, a particular Church) can be called Catholike, that is, vniuersall, 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 vs beleeue, that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body? Syr as we are not so witlesse as to thinke that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole body, so nether are we so foolish as to beleeue that the particular Church of the Roman Dioces can be the vniuersall Church. We know, and so do you to, and it hath bene already prouedChap. 1. Sect. 2. &. 3., that not only the particular Church of Rome, may in a true & proper acception be called the Catholike 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, [Page 196]may be, and is truly and vsually called The Catholike Church, and the vniuersall Church. Yea it is euident, that if (according to the Etimology of the name Catholike, andCont. Gand. l. 3. c. 1. Serm. 131. de temp. & ep. 170. the interpre­tatiō of S. Augustine, the Catholike Church be that which is vniuersally spread ouer the world, the Roman Church and none els but she, is the Catholike Church: for Vni­uersality agreeth to none but to her, all Sects lurking in corners. Wherfore you not only inconsideratly but against your selfe produce S. Augustine herePag. 89., and Optatus af­terwardsPag 341., to proue, that your Protestant Church is the Catholike Church. S. Augustine saythL de pa­stor. c. 8.; Not all heretikes are spread ouer the face of the earth. & yet there are heretikes spread ouer the whole face of the earth, some heere, 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 Aegypt, an­other in Mesopotamia. In diuers places they are diuers: One Mother Pride hath begot them all, as our one Mother the Catholike Church hath brought forth all faythfull people dispersed throughout the whole world. So said S. Augustine to the Donatists; and so say we to you: There are diuers sectcs in the world: Wiclefists in Bohemia; but in any other part of the world they are not. There be Lutherans in Germany, in Denmarke &c. but in the rest of the world they be not. There are ridged Calui­nists in Geneua, France, and Scotland, to whom you may ad your English Puritans, but in other parts of the world they are not. There are Protestants a more temperate sort of Caluinists in England; but out of England they are not. These therfore, and all other sects of heretikes whatsoeuer are confined to a few Countries; and therfore none of them can be the Catholike Church, which is vniuersally spead ouer the whole world, as the Roman Church is; & therfore she, and none els but she, is the Catholike Church.

Optatus speaking also to the Donatists, saydL. 2. con­tra Parmen.: You will haue the Church to be where you are; and you will haue it not to be where you are not: that it may be with you, you will haue it to be in a corner of Africa: and that it may not be with vs, you will not haue it to be in allmost innumerable Ilands, Prouinces, and Coun­tries, where we are, and you are not. So we say to Protestants: [Page 197]you will haue the Catholike Church to be in England, where you are: but you will not haue 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 Catholike Church, if it be vniuersally spread ouer the face of the earth, as the Catholike Church must be; we say to you, as S. Augustine did to the DonatistsEp. 163.: Giue vs for­med letters to men of your fayth 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 therfore can giue you letters of communion to men of our Religion, professing the fayth, & liuing 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 therfore, [...]e al one, and [...]on [...] but she, is v­niuersally spread ouer the face of the earth, whersoeuer the name of Christ is knowne: and therfore if Christ haue any Catholike Church on earth, none but she is the Catholike Church.

The words which you obiect out of the Confer [...]nce of Carthage (which in some copies are ioyned 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 Hierusa­lem where his Ghospell was first preached by S. Peter, and from thence by degrees spread ouer the world, so whosoe­uer is in communion of this Church vniuersally spread, hath God for his Father, and the Catholike Church for his Mother, as S. Augustine professed himselfe to haue. But withall he tea­chethPsal. cont. part. Donat. (and so doth all Antiquity) that this Catholike Church so spread ouer the world, is built vpon S. Peter and his Successors as vpon a Rock which the proud gates of Hell cannot ouer­come: and so doth S. Hierome, sayingEp. 57. to Damasus of the Roman See, I know the Church to be built vpon this Rock. In re­gard wherof he [...]nceth all them that are not in the [Page 198]communion of the Bishop of Rome, not to be of Christ but of Antichrist. And for the same cause S. AugustinePsal. cont. part. Donat. grieued i [...] see the Dou [...]tist [...]l ye cut of from the Roman Church; and exhorted them, as [...]eunite themselues to her, as branches to their Vine.

SECT. II. The iudgment of S. Hierome, concerning the Church Catholike.

WHat his iudgment was you haue partly heard. [...] [...]eli [...] the Roman See to be the Rock on which the Catholike Church is built▪ he was in her com­munion andEp. 57. [...]eld you that refuse her communion, to be a prophane person belonging to [...] [...]brist: he held her to be, The [...] of [...] whos [...]uer els shall be found at the [...]ing [...], shall [...]. His iudgment wasDial. cont. 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 Northerne parts of the world, as your Protestant Congre­ga [...] [...]) fit i [...] [...]e [...]creding p [...]or [...]. His iudgment wasIbid. that [...] [...]or [...]ayne in that Church, which being founded by the [...]postles d [...]th vntill this day, which is none els but the Ro­man, [...] in her alone there hath bene, and still is a neuer in­terrupted Succession of Bishops from S. Peter, vnto Vrban the eight, who [...] g [...] [...]e [...]h that Church; wheras there is no other. Church founded by the Apostles, in which Suc­cession is not either wholly decaied, or hath not bene often interrupted and broken of by heretikes, or Arch-heretikes, those Churches being wholly possessed by them▪ His iudg­ment was that which he declar [...], when he said of Ruffi­nusL. 1. Apol. aduers. Ruf­fin.: Which fayth doth he call his is. If that which the Roman Church holdeth, then we are Catholikes. And speaking to Ruf­finusIbid. ▪ Know, that the Roman fayth commended by the voyce of the Apostle, admitteth not such delusions: though an Angell should teach otherwise th [...] [...]eth bene on [...]iuered, it cannot be altered being sensed [...]. Paul [...]thority. He declared his iudgment▪ [Page 199]when he said to such as you areEp. 6. ad Pammach. & Ocean. ▪ Whosoeuer thou are, that auouchest no [...] Sects, I pray thee haue respect to the Roman eares: spare the fayth which was praysed by the voyce of the Apostle: He de­clared his iudgmentEp. 8., when aduising Demotrias to auoyd the cruell tempest of Heresy, which rising out of the Easterne parts, at that tyme when Anastasius of happy and holy memory goa [...]ned the Roman Church, attempted to pollute and corrupt the sincerity of that fayth, which was commended by the mouth of the Apostle, he prescri­beth her this rule, that the keep fast the fayth of S. Innocentius, sonne and Successor to Anastasius in the Apostolicall Chayre. He de­clared his iudgment, when he saidProom. lib. 2. Com­ment. ad Ga­lat.: The fayth of the people of Rome is praysed: Where is there so great con [...]rse to Churches, and to Martyrs sepulchers? Where soundeth Amen like thunder from He e­uen &c. Not that the Romans haue any other fayth then the rest of the Christian Churches, but that there is in them more deuo­tion, and simplicity of fayth. He declared his iudgment, when he said to MarcellaEp. 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 fayth celebrated by the Apostle, and gentility trod­den vnder foot, the Christian name daily aduancing it selfe on high: He declared his iudgment when he saidEp. 16. that Peter (Pa­triarke of Alexandria) persecuted by the Arians sted to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion.

These testimonies of S. Hierome declare his iudgment of the Roman Church: against which you obiectPag. 91. that he reproued an ill custome (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 practise 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 custome S. Hierome reprehended, because it pro­ceeded from pride, and wanted authority: for (sayth he) if authority be required, greater is the authority of the world, then of a Citty: which is true in things of this nature, that nether con­cerne fayth nor the Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome: for who feeth not, that a custome no way con­cerning [Page 198] [...] [Page 199] [...] [Page 200]sayth or iurisdiction, but discipline, and warranted by all other Churches of the would, was of greater authori­ty, then a contrary, custome brought in by a few Deacons of the Roman Church, without any warrant of the Bishop of Rome? And who seeth not, that these words of S. Hierome are impertinently brought against the Roman sayth, or the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome? for in them he neither speaketh against the Roman fayth, nor maketh any comparison betwene the Church of Rome, & the rest of the world in point of iurisdiction, but only bet­weene the authority of all the other Churches of the world, and the authority of a few Deacons of the Roman Church in a custome no way repugnant to fayth, nor tou­ching the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

And finally, who seeth not, that your intention is to de­lude, and deceaue your readers? For he that hath so many and so pregnant testimonies of S. Hierome, in which he ex­presly declareth, that the Roman fayth is the. Catholike fayth; that it admitteth no delusions, nor can be changed; that the way to auoyd heresy, is to hold fast the fayth of the Roman Church; that we must re­maine 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 vpon the Roman See; and that he which is not in the communion of the Bishop of Rome, gathereth not, but scattereth; that he is prophane, and belongs not to Christ, but to Antichrist. He (I say) that hath so many, and so forcible testimonies of S. Hie­rome, & yet comming to deliuer his iudgment concerning the Roman Church, concealeth them all, and obiecteth one only testimony wholly impertinent, as you do; what intention can he be thought to haue, but to deceaue men in the most important affaire of their saluation?

But you replyPag. 91.: This is that testimony of S. Hierome, wherin the Fathers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph in oppo­sition to the Popes clayme. How proue you this? With a sen­tence of Aeneas Siluius. O imposture! For you know, that the Councell of Basil was a Schismaticall Conuenticle: & moreouer you know, that the words which you obiect, are, not of the Councell of Basil, but of Aeneas Siluius, and [Page 201]that he hath retracted them, with the whole booke out of which you tooke them. Are not then you a deceiptfull merchant, to cosen your customers with such false wares?

Nor do I well see, how you can be excused from contra­diction: for you sayIbid., S. Hierome was a professed and deuout child of the Church of Rome, when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother, and no Step-dame: Ergo, in S. Hieromes dayes the Church of Rome became a Step-dame, which could not be otherwise then by falling into error. How then is it true, that, as afterwards you grantPag. 17 [...]. & 19 [...]. the Roman Church remained pure and free from error in fayth 600. yeares af­ter Christ, which was not in S. Hieromes tyme, but 200. yeares after him?

SECT. III. The iudgment of S. Gregory, concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and his title of Vniuersall Bishop.

YOur scope here is, to disproue the vniuersall authority of the Bishop of Rome by the iudgment of S. Gregory refusing, and reprehending in Iohn Patriarke of Constan­tinople the title of Vniuersall Bishop, as likewise did Pela­gius, and Leo Bishops of the same See. And first you tell vsPag. 91., It can be no sufficient argument for concluding a Papall au­thority, to obiect against you the testimonies of Popes in their owne cause. It was necessary for you to premit this Caueat: for howsoeuer you here pretend that S. Gregory, S. Leo, and Pelagius did not acknowledge in themselues any superio­rity or iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church, your guilty conscience tels you the contrary: and therfore you slight their testimonies as of men partiall, and that speake in their owne cause. And the like you do afterwards againe with reproachfull and contumelious words: for wheras Bellar­mineL. 2. de Pont. c. 21. in profe of the ancient practise of appealing to the Pope, produceth the testimonies of S. Leo and S. Gregory, youPag. 30 [...], 304, reiect them, as of partiall witnesses, and compare [Page 202]them to Adonias, who traiterously sought to set the crown on his owne head, which is in effect to say, that as Adonias traiterously assumed to himselfe the dignity of a King, not due vnto him: so did these Popes vnlawfully challenge to themselues, the dignity of Pastors, and Gouernors of the vniuersall Church, hauing no right therunto. A most vn­godly comparison: for these two Popes were of the most holy, learned, and renowned Prelates, that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter, since his tyme, whose sanctity God hath testified with most illustrious miracles, and whom all po­sterity hath iustly honored 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 vsed singular industry to roote out the Donatists in Africa, the Pelagians in France, & the Priscilianists in Spaine, writing to the Bishops of greatest learning, and fame, that were then liuing in those Coun­tries, to be watchfull, and assemble Councells for the con­demning, and extirpating those heresies: and like wise he himselfe against the errors of Nestorius, Eutyches, & Dios­corus assembled in the East that famous Councell of 630. Bishops at Chalcedon, who all acknowledged him to be their Head, and themselues his members, and children; and that to him the gouerment of the Church was committed by our SauiourIn relat. ad Leon.; and who esteemed his words as the words of S. Peter, and his iudgments as oracles of God, cry­ing out all which one voyceAct. 1., Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo; Leo hath iudged the iudgment of God.

Nor was S. Gregory of lesse renowne: for to omit the admirable humility wherwith he refused the dignity of su­preme Pastor, the conuersion of our English nation, and o­ther great workes, which he performed for the good of the Church, the excellent bookes he writ, for which he hath deserued the title of Doctor of the Church, and the many famous miracles wherwith God declared his sanctity, who is ignorant of the admirable Elogies wherwith ancient writers haue celebrated his prayses? Among others, that fa­mous Archbishop of Toledo, and Primate of Spayne S. [Page 203]Hildephonsus writeth of himIn lib. de viris illust., that in sanctity he surpassed Antony, in eloquence Cyprian, in wisdome Augustine, & by the grace of the holy Ghost was endowed with so great light of humane science, that in former ages none had bene equall vnto him. And Petrus Diaconus testifiethVit. S. Greg. that he saw the holy Ghost in forme of a doue at his care, inspiring him whiles he was writing: which alone might haue made you forbeare the traducing of so admirable a man. But returning to our question: this very euasion of yours, to wit, that the testimonies of Popes are no sufficient argument to conclude a Papall au­thority because they speake in their owne cause, sufficiently conuinceth, that you know them to haue acknowledged such authority in themselues, and that when you deny it, you speake without all ground of truth: for who can think that S. Leo, S. Gregory, and many other Popes renowned Martyrs, and glorious Confessors, most eminent in humili­ty, and all kind of vertue, and to whose sanctity God ad­ded the seale of diuine miracles, should with a Luciferian pride arrogate to themselues Pastorall authority, & power ouer the Church of God throughout the whole world, if that dignity had not bene giuen by Christ to S. Peter, and in him to them? I deny therfore that when they maintayne their authority, they speake in their owne cause: They speake in the cause of God, as (witnes your selfe)Pag. 4 [...]. S. Paul did when he saidRom. 11.: I will magnify myne office, in as much as I am Doctor of the Gentiles. And the like did S. Gregory, when vpon that text he collected a generall lesson for the defence of his owne iurisdiction against such as you are, sayingL. 4. ep. 36.; The Apostle teacheth vs so to carry humility in our hart, that we do keep and preserue the dignity of that order, wherunto we are called. Wherfore as if a Vice-Roy should defend & maintaine the dignity of his place, for the seruice of the King his Maister, and the repression of seditious persons, he that should op­pose him, and resist his authority, vnder color that he spea­keth in his owne cause, would be accounted no better then a rebell; so no other reckoning is to be made of him, that re­iects the testimonies of Popes, the Vicars and Lieutenants of Christ on earth, because they defend their authority: for [Page 204]they do it, to defend the honor of Christ their Maister, to magnify their office with S. Paul, and with S. Gregory to pre­serue the dignity of that order wherunto they are called: which dig­nity S. AugustineEp. 92. and the whole Councell of Mileuis acknowledge to be taken out of the authority of holy Scriptures,

But here by the way I desire to be resolued of a doubt. You confessePag. 301. that power of appeales if it be right, and proper, is a most certaine argument of dominion. Againe you cōfessePag. 303. marg. fin. n. 8. that S. Gregory excommunicated Iohn, a Greeke Bishop of the first Iustinianaea, because he had presumed to iudge Adrian Bishop of Thebes, after he had appealed to the See Aposto­like: which conuinceth S. Gregory to haue belieued that the Bishops of the Greeke Church might lawfully appeale from their owne Metropolitans, and from their Patriarke of Constantinople to the See Apostolike, & that the same See had true and proper right, to admit their appeales, and re-iudge their causes; which it could not haue, if the Pope had not true & proper authority ouer the Greeke Church. How then can you deny, that S. Gregory belieued him­selfe to haue that authority, or that he practised the same?

Yea, that he had power and iurisdiction not only ouer the Greeke Church, but also ouer the vniuersall Church, & practised the same, is a thing so certaine, that your Prote­stant brethren Friccius, Peter Martyr, Carion, Philippus Nicolai, the Centurists, and OsianderApud Brier. Protest. Apol. Tract. 1. sect. 7. sub­diu. 9. à n. 11. ad 29. shew out of his writings, these particulars: That, the Roman Church appointeth her watch ouer the whole world: that the Apostolike See is the Head of all Churches: that the Bishop of Constantinople is subiect to the Apo­stolike See: that S. Gregory challenged to himselfe power to command Arch-bishops, to ordayne, or depose Bishops: that he assumed to him­selfe right for citing Arch-bishops to declare their causes before him, when they were accused, and also to excommunicate & depose them, giuing commission to their neighbour Bishops to proceed against them: that in their prouinces he placed his Legates to examine, and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman See: that he vsurped power of appointing Synods in their prouinces, and required Arch-bishops, that if any cause of great importance happened, they should referre the same to him, appointing in prouinces his Vicars ouer the Churches [Page 205]to end smaller matters, and to reserue the greater causes to himselfe. All this is testified by your owne brethren: to which Doctor SandersVisib. Mo­narch. l. 7. à n. 433. ad 541. addeth much more of the same kind, out of S. Gregories owne workes, and in his owne words: as, that the See Apostolike by the authority of God is preferred before all Churches: That all Bishops if any fault be found in them, are sub­iect to the See Apostolike: That she is the Head of fayth, & of all the faythfull members: That if any of the foure Patriarkes had done a­gainst the Popesletters, that which was done by the Bishop Salona, so great a disobedience could not haue passed without a most grieuous scandall: That the See Apostolike is the head of all Churches: That the Roman Church, by the words which Christ spake to Peter, was made the Head of all Churches: That no scruple nor doubt ought to be made of the fayth of the See Apostolike: that all those things are false which are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Roman Church: That to returne from Schisme to the Catholike Church, is to returne to the communion of the Bishop of Rome: That he which will not haue S. Peter (to whom the keyes of heauen were committed) to shut him out from the entrance of lyfe, must not in this world be separated from his See: That they are peruerse men, which refuse to obey the com­mands of the See Apostolike.

I conclude therfore with Doctor Sanders, that he which readeth all these particulars, and more of the same kinde that are to be found in the workes of S. Gregory, and yet with a brasen forehead feareth not to interpret that which he writ against the name of Vni­uersall Bishop, so, as if he could not abide, that any one Bishop should haue the chiefe seate and supreme gouerment of the whole militant Church; that man (sayth he) seemes to me, either to haue cast of all vnderstanding and sense of a man, or els to haue put on the obstinat peruersnesse of the Diuell. How comes it then to passe, that you are not ashamed to vrge here, and els where so often in this your grand Imposture S. Gregories refusing the name of vniuersall Bishop, as an argument to disproue his au­thority, and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church, espe­cially since it hath bene so often, and so fully answered by vs? But because here you insist so much theron, I will for the readers satisfaction briefly declare, in what sense Pela­gius, and S. Gregory refused that title, and how to better [Page 206]your argument, you abuse, and falsify our Authors.

The title of Vniuersalis Episcopus, Vniuersall Bishop, may be ta­ken two wayes: first for a Bishop, that challengeth an vni­uersall power ouer all other Bishops, clayming to himselfe a right of hearing, and determing all Ecclesiasticall causes in his owne, and their Diocesses, leauing them no other right to exercise any Episcopall iurisdiction & power, but only such as they shall receaue frō him as his Vicars. In this sense S. Gregory conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constanti­nople to stile himselfe Vniuersall Bishop, as it appeareth out of his plaine and expresse words in diuers of his EpistlesL. 4. ep. 32.34. & 36.38. & l. 7. ep. 70. to which the margent will direct you. And in this sense he calleth the name of vniuersall Bishop, A prophane and Antichri­stian title. 2. It may be taken in the same signification with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae, so, that it signify a Bishop to whom belongeth the gouerment of the vniuersall Church and the determining of all such causes as appertaine to her in generall, without taking away, or hindering the ordi­nary power and right of other Bishops, and leauing each of them in their seuerall places & degrees with full power and authority to iudge and determine all Causes Ecclesia­sticall belonging to their Diocesses, and within them. In this sense the tytle of Vniuersall Bishop is not condemned by S. Gregory as new, or prophane, or any way vnlawfull, but agreeth to the Pope, no lesse then the title of Bishop of the vniuersall Church. And therfore as S. GregoryEp. ad omnes Episc. stileth himselfe Bishop of the vniuersall Church, so likewise when Eu­logius Patriarke of Alexandria writing to himL. 4. ep. 36. gaue him the title of vniuersall Bishop, he acknowledgedL. 4. ep. 36. that in this sense he might lawfully accept therof, and that, the Councell of Chalcedon, and the following Fathers had giuen it to his predecessors. But yet he refused it out of his great humility, as also he denied himselfe to be a PriestL. 4. ep. 31., and as S. Paul called himselfe the greatest of sinners 1. Tim. 1.15., and thought him­selfe vnworthy to be called Apostle 1. Cor. 15. [...].: And chiefly lest he might be thought to accept of it in the former sense vnlawfull, & iniurious to other Bishops, in which he conceaued Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople to vsurpe it: And finally, that [Page 207]therby he might better represse his insolency.

This doctrine is deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine, of whom (because they declare Vniuersalis Episcopus in this second sense to be all one with Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesiae) you sayPag. 94.: They would gladly confound these two titles, therby to proue their Popes to be proper Monarkes ouer the whole Church, be­cause some predecessors of S. Gregory haue bene called Bishops of the vniuersall Church, which is their peruerse error refuted by one of their learned Iesuits. But you must pardon me, if I tell you, that this is a shamefull vntruth: for Baronius and Bellarmine deliuer the same double acception of Vniuersalis Episcopus, which I haue declared; and likewise affirme, that in one of them it may be attributed to the Pope, but not in the other: which is not to confound, but to distinguish, that confusion and mistake may be auoyded. And the thing it selfe is eui­dent: for if the title of Vniuersalis Episcopus might not be ta­ken in a sense vnlawfull, S. Gregory would not haue con­demned it in Iohn of Constantinople, as a new, prophane, & Antichristian title. And againe, if it might not be taken in a sense lawfull, neither the Councell of Chalcedon, nor the following FathersApud S. Greg. l. 4. ep. 36. would haue giuen it to the Bishops of Rome. The former sense is vnlawfull because it taketh away all ordinary power and iurisdiction due to other Bi­shops in their Diocesses. The second is lawfull, because it leaueth to them their ordinary power and iurisdiction. From whence it followeth, that as S. Gregory in this se­cond sense did instile himselfe Episcopum Vniuersalis Ecclesiae; Ep. ad om­nes Episcop. so if Vniuersalis Episcopus be taken in the same sense, it is al­so lawfull, and due to the Bishops of Rome: and in this sense he taketh it when he sayth, that the Councell of Chal­cedon and the following Fathers gaue it to his predeces­sors. But the former sense he condemned as prophane and Antichristian, & reprehended in Iohn of Constantinople.

And Salmeron (for it is he whom you call the learned Iesuit) is so far from refuting this double sense of Vniuersalis Episcopus deliuered by Baronius and Bellarmine, that in the very place which you nominateTom. 12. Tract. 78. he expresly deliuereth the same: but you (to make good your word) falsily him: [Page 298]for (say youPag. 94. he confesseth that a Bishop of the vniuersall Church, is one, that hath care of the whole Church, which terme may agree to euery Bishop. This cannot be excused from an vntruth: for Salmerons words are: Episcopus Vniuersalis Ecclesia is est, qui vacat curae & regimini Vniuersa Ecclesia: at Episcopus Vniuersalis est, qui solus omnibus praeest, omnia curare vult. He is Bishop of the vniuersall Church that hath the care and gouerment of the Vniuer­sall Church: by which words Salmeron rightly proueth that which is auerred by the two Cardinals, to wit, that as the Popes before S. Gregory were stiled Bishops of the Vniuersall Church, so they had not only a charitable care, which be­longeth to euery Bishop, and to euery lay man, and wo­man, but also the gouerment of the whole Church, which by vertue of their office of supreme Pastors belonged vnto them. This explication of Salmeron you cannot disgest: & therfore though you set downe truly part of his Latin words in your margent, yet in your English of them you fraudulently leaue out regimini, gouerment, to persuade your readers (which either vnderstand not or els seldome looke into your Latin margents) that the ancient Popes had not the gouerment of the whole Church, but only a charitable care of her good, such as euery Bishop, & lay man is bound to haue.

Hauing thus falsified Salmeron, you do as much for Platina, whose words you set downe thusPag. 97.: Bonifacius tertius à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, vt sedes Petri, ficut 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 obtaine of the Emperor Phocas, that Rome should haue the same title of Head-ship ouer all other Churches, which the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged to his See. In these few English words you haue no lesse then three falsifications. For, 1. Sedes Petri, you trāslate not the See of Peter, but Rome, which fignifieth 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. Peters Succes­sor. 2. Platina sayth, that The See of Peter is, Caput omminm Ec­clesiarum, The Head of all Churches: and this in your english you [Page 299]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 obteyned with much importunity by Bonifacius 3. You say, Boniface ob­teyned of the Emperor Phocas that Rome should haue the same title of Head-ship ouer all Churches, which the Bishop of Constantinople challenged to his See. And these words you set downe in a different character, as the words of Platina, which is ano­ther imposture: for Platina's words are: Boniface obteyned of Phocas that the See of Peter, as it is, so it should be called and estemed to be, the Head of all Churches: which is not to say that Phocas gaue that title to the Roman See, but that it belonged vnto it by right, and that Phocas preserued the right of that See, ordayning, that the Patriarke of Constantinople, who did falsly challenge to his Church a Head-ship, and to him­selfe a title of Vniuersall Bishop, should desist from that vniust clayme, and that the Roman See, as it is, so it should be called and held to be the Head of all Churches.

Phocas therfore did not first giue the title of Vniuersall Bishop to the Pope, but preserued it to him, as his right: for it had bene giuen to him long before by the Emperor Martian in the Councell of ChalcedonAct. 3.. and by the Clercks of Alexandria, whose petitions presented in the same Councell beare this titleIbid.: To the most holy and most blessed Vniuersall Archbishop, and Patriarke of great Rome Leo, and to the holy generall Councell. And in the Councell of Constan­tinople vnder Menas the petitions of the Regulars of Con­stantinople, and of Syria, & of the Bishops of the Patriark­ships of Antioch and Hierusalem, to Pope Agapete were inserted with this inscriptionAct. 1.: To our holy and blessed Lord the Archbishop of old Rome, and vniuersall Patriarke Agapetus. And the Angelicall Doctor writethOpuse. cont. error. Graec. c. 3 [...].: It is read in the Councell of Chalcedon, that the whole Synod cried out to Leo Pope; Long liue the most holy, Apostolike, and vniuersall Patriarke Leo.

Hereby appeares how falsly you sayPag. 9 [...]., that the title of V­niuersall Bishop was not absolutely ascribed to Pope Leo in the Coun­cell of Chalcedon, but with a great restriction as thus: Vniuersall Bi­shop of great Rome, which is as much, as to deny him to be the Bishop [Page 300]of the Vniuersall Church, euen as when the now Roman Emperor is instiled, The vniuersall Emperor of Rome, he is therby distinguished from the Emperor of Turky of Persia, and others. Who feeth not the futility of this cauil? for as none of these Emperors are Vniuersall ouer the world, so neither do they instile themsel­ues, nor are by others instiled Vniuersall Emperors. But in the Councell of Chalcedon the Pope is not only stiled Pa­triarke of Rome, but also Vniuersall Archbishop, and Vniuersall Pa­triarke absolutely, without any addition, or restriction; which sheweth him to be not only Archbishop and Pa­triarke of Rome, but also of the vniuersall Church: for els those titles absolutely, and without addition could not a­gree to him; as the title of Vniuersall Emperor without addi­tion, agrees not to the Emperor of Rome, of Persia, or to any other, whose Empire is not absolutly Vniuersall throughout the world, as the iurisdiction of the Pope is, & of whom that famous Bishop of Patara in Lycia said to Iustinian the EmperorApud Li­berat. in Breu. c. 22.: that albeit there were many Kings in the world, yet not one of them, as the Pope, who is ouer the Church of the whole world.

2. You reuile the Roman See with most vnseemly termes, and are extremely out of patience with Phocas, for repressing the insolency of the Bishop of Constantinople, and righting the Pope. Your words arePag. 97.: The Head of the Popes vniuersall iurisdiction vnder that title, as it were vnder a poy­soned Miter, hath growne far more loathsome by impostumes, and swolne with tyranny, then it could possible be at the first vsurpation therof; being become no lesse intolerable, then was that Emperor Pho­cas, of whom Pope Boniface with much importunity receaued that title: which Emperor your Cardinall Baronius noteth to haue bene a bloudy Tyrant. So you, who by calling Phocas a bloudy Ty­rant, would diminish the dignity of the Roman See, as though that See had not had for her protectors and deuo­ted Children, the most godly and religious Emperours of the Christian worldOf this see Coccius to. 1. l. 7. art. 8.: Yea, by how much more pious they haue bene, so much the more deuoted haue they bene to the Chayre of S. Peter. And although Phocas his cruelty be not excusable, yet he was not so vngodly, but [Page 301]that as he preserued the right of Roman Church, so he per­formed other workes of Christian piety. Such were, his clensing Rome from all filth of Idolatry, and his causing that famous Temple of Pantheon, which was built in ho­nor of all the heathenish Gods, to be dedicated to Christ, in honor of his blessed Mother, and all the Martyrs.

3. You cauill at BellarminePag. 96. without cause, for say­ing, that the Bishop of Constantinople by clayming the title of Vniuersall Bishop sought to make himselfe sole Bishop, and the rest only his Vicars: for Bellarmine sayth no­thing, but out of the expresse words of Saint Gregory himselfeL. 4. ep. 34. & 36. & [...] 7. ep. 70.: Nor is it against this, that diuers Bishops of the East, which still held, and exercised their ancient iu­risdiction, gaue to the Patriarke of Constantinople the Name of Vniuersall: for they did giue him the sole name, without yelding to him any part of their Episcopall iuris­diction, which therfore they still exercised as freely, and fully, as before he laid clayme to that title.

4. Without, and contrary to all truth, you obiect S. Leo against the title of Vniuersall Bishop: for he was not only so called by the Councell of Chalcedon (as you haue heard) but he himselfe also vsed that title,Ep. 54. as appeareth out of the Latin Volume of his Epistles, and out of the Greeke Copy of the same annexed to the Councell of Chalcedon.So noteth Spondanus anno 451. n. 34. To which I adde, that speaking of such as you are, he saythEp. 89.: Whosoeuer denieth the Supreme Authority of the Roman Chayre, cannot diminish the power therof, but puffed vp with the spi­rit of pride, plungeth himselfe headlong into hell.

5. I must not omit to aduertise you, that you abuse Bi­niusPag. 9 [...] ▪ fathering on him certaine words in his Annota­tion vpon the third Action of the Councell 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 sheweth out of S. Gregory that the name of Vniuersall Bishop was giuen to the Popes his predecessors in that Councell, and by other Fathers after wards, as also that Syxtus and Zephyrinus vsed the same title long before that tyme: and finally that S. Leo writing to Martian the Em­peror [Page 302] Ep. 54. stiled himselfe Episcopus Romanae & vniuersalis Eccle­sia. Wherfore when S. Gregory sayth, that his predecessors vsed not that title, he only denieth that they vsed it in a so­lemne manner alwayes, and in all their inscriptions as Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople did, who (witnes S. Gregory) almost in euery lyne intitled himselfe, Vniuersall Bishop.

SECT IV. S. Dionyse his iudgment concerning the Supremacy of the Roman Church.

CAsaubon (say youPag. 100. spurs vs a necessary Question, Why S. Dionyse the Areopagite professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and gouerment, was so vtterly silent in not mentioning the Vniuersall Visible Head of the Church reigning at Rome, if at that tyme there had bene any such Monarchicall Head there? Before I answer, I must spur you a more necessary question, why S. Dionyse professedly wryting of the Ecclesiasticall Hierar­chy, did not reckon secular Princes, at least in generall, whom you not only place in the Hierarchy of the Church, but make Heads therof?

Now to Casaubons question I answeare, that S. Dionise treateth not of any Church in particular, nor of the Bishop of any particular See, but of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, and orders in generall, which he defineth thusDe 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 giues the first and chiefest place to Bishops. The diuine order of Bishops (sayth heIbid. 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 Chiefe of all Bishops: for (as S. Thomas the Maister of Diuines defining a Hierarchy,1. p. q. 108. art. 1. corp. sayth) A Hierarchy is a holy Principality; by which name of Principality; two things are vnderstood, namely the Prince himselfe, and a multitude ordered vnder the Prince. Who is this Prince in the Hierarchy of the Church, but the Prince of the Apo­stles, [Page 303]whom Christ made Pastor, & Gouernor of his flock, and whom S. Dionyse did acknowledg for suchDe diuin. nomin. c. 3. post med., when speaking of the Apostles and Bishops vnder the name of Diuines, he sayth: Peter was present the most ancient and supreme top, or Head of Diuines. These passages of S. Dionyse, Casau­bon and you either out of ignorance could not find, or if you could and did, why do you conceale them?

SECT. V. S. Ignatius his iudgment of the Roman Church.

CAsaubon, and you with him obiectPag. 100. out of the Epi­stles of S. Ignatius, that ancient Bishop of Antioch, that, he being frequent in setting forth the order Ecclesiasticall, and dignity of Bishops, forbeareth all mention of S. Peter, or any Roman Pope.

What Ignatius his iudgment was of the great dignity of the Bishop and Church of Rome, he himselfe 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 fayth, and the loue of Iesus-Christ our God and Sauiour, and which gouerneth in the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of eminency, worthy of memory, worthy of bles­sednesse, worthy of prayse, founded in the loue and fayth of Christ, hauing the name of Father &c. Although this holy Martyr writ to the Trallians, Magnesians, Philippians, Antiochians, E­phesians, Philadelphians, and to those of Tharsis & Smyr­na, and gaue great prayses vnto them, yet he attributeth to the Roman Church, as her peculiar prerogatiues, that, she is illuminated in the will of God, that she is founded in the loue and fayth 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 subiect to her, and that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans: the sense of which words cannot be, that she gouerneth the Roman Dioces; for no Church go­uerneth it selfe, but one Church gouerneth another, as the Metropolitan doth the Suffragans, & the Roman Church as being the Head, and Mother Church, ruleth all others of the world.

Nor is this explication of lesse force, becauss he sayth, that she gouerneth in the region of the Romans: for he sayth it not, to limit her gouerment, but to expresse the place, in which she is seated, and from whence she gouerneth all other Churches. I conclude therfore that by calling her the Church that gouerneth, and not limiting her gouerment to anyone Church, or nūber of Churches, he declareth her to be Head & Gouernesse absolutely of all Churches: for as S. Bernard speaking of this subiect, saythL. 2. de consider at.: Where there is no limita­tion, nothing is excepted. And in this sense, Theodoret long before had saidEp. ad Leon.: The Roman See hath the sterne of gouerment of all the Churches of the whole world.

This to be the genume sense of S. Ignatius his words, Casaubon and you peraduenture did see; and therfore to giue an expedite solution, you reiect the whole Epistle, saying:Pag. 100. marg. No man skilfull in Greeke, would belieue it to be written by S. [...]gnatius. But this solution is exploded by EuscbiusL. 3. hist. c. 30. and S. HieromeL. de Scriptor., who might be Casau­bons and your Maysters in Greeke, and yet affirme S. Ig­natius to be the Author of this Epistle, and transcribe a part therof yēt to be found in it; as also doth S. IrenaeusL. 4. ad­uers. haeres. apud Baron. anno 109. to shew the admirable spirit and feruor of that holy Bishop.

Hauing proposed these arguments of Casaubon, you obiect out of your owne obseruationsPag. 100., that S. Ignatius exhorting the Trallians vnto obedience to Bishops, instanceth equally in Timothy S. Pauls scholler, as in Anacletus Successor to S. Peter. Answere. You may by the like argument proue that S. Ignatius equalleth Priests in authority with Bishops: for exhorting the Trallians to obedience, he instanceth as well in Priests as in the Bishop: Obey (sayth he)Ep. ad Trallianos. the Bishop, & the Priests. Who then seeth not your argument to be a chil­dish Sophisme?

SECT VI. S. Irenaeus his iudgment of the Roman Church.

I Renaeus (say you)Pag. 100. for direction in the right of Tra­ditions, referreth as well to Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna▪ as to [Page 305]Linus Bishop of Rome. Tertullian also to secure Christians in the Do­ctrine of the Apostles, prescribeth vnto them, that they consult with the Mother Churches, immediatly founded by the Apostles, naming as well Ephesus in Asia, and Corinth in Achaia, as Rome in Italy: and for the persons, mentioning as well Polycarpe ordayned by S. Iohn, as Clemens by Peter. The like argumēt you make out of Vin­centius Lyrinensis. But all of them imposterously, and a­gainst your selfe.

And first to begin with S. Irenaeus: these words, Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs. Habetis Romae Linum, which you alleage as of S. IrenaeusL. 2. c. 3., I find not in him. It is true, that both he and Tertullian teaching the Christians of their tyme to auoyd heresy, warned them, that the true fayth was to be learned from the Apostolicall Churches, that is, from the Churches founded by the Apostles themselues, or by Apo­stolicall men, as Timothy, Polycarpe, and other their dis­ciples, that preached the same fayth they learned from the Apostles their Maysters. But withall they taught them, that the chiefe Church they were to adhere vnto, and by whose authority they were to confound all Heretikes, was the Roman Church. All men (sayth S. Irenaeus)L. 3. c. 3. may behold the tradition of the Apostles (that is the fayth deliuered by them to their Successors) in euery Church, if they be desirous to heare the truth: and we can number the Bishops, that were made by the Apostles in Churches, and their Successors, euen vnto vs, who neither taught▪ nor knew any such thinge as rauing heretikes do broach &c. But because it were a long businesse to number the Successions of all Churches, we declare the tradition of the most great, most ancient, and most knowne Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; which tradition and fayth it hath from the Apostles cōming to vs by Succession of Bishops; and thereby we confound all them that any way ether by euill complacence of themselues, or vaine­glory, or blindnesse, or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought. Lo here how Catholikes in S. Irenaeus tyme did confound all heretikes, by the fayth of the Roman Church, and by the Succession of Bishops in that See. And he yeldeth the reason, sayingIbid.: for to this Church by reason of her more power­full Principality, all Churches must necessarily agree, that is to say, all [Page 306]the faythfull of what place soeuer: in which (Church) the tradition and fayth of the Apostles hath bene alwayes conserued. And in con­firmation of this, he reckoneth by name all the Popes from S. Peter to Eleutherius who at that tyme gouerned the ChurchIbid.: And by that orderly, and neuer-interrupted Succession, he proueth the Roman Church to haue con­serued vnto his daies the fayth pure, and entyre, as it was preached by the Apostles: By this Succession that Doctrine and truth which the Apostles preached in the Church hath come to vs: And this is a demonstration conuicing, that it is one, and the same quickening fayth, which from the Apostles tyme vntill this day, is conserued, and delinered in truth. And againe relating to this place, and speaking of the same Succession of Bishops in the Roman Church (which he calleth the principall Succession) he declareth all those that withdraw themselues from it, to be Schismatikes, or heretikes: They that are in the Church (sayth he)L. 4. c. 41. ought to obey those Priests, which haue their Succession from the Apostles, which togeather with the Succession of their Bishoprikes haue receaued the assured grace of truth, according to the good will of the heauenly Father. And we ought to hold suspected, all others, that withdraw themselues from the like Principall Succession, and ioyne togeather in some other place. We ought (I say) to hold them as here­tikes of a peruerse iudgment, or as Schismatikes, and selfe-liking pre­sumptuous fellowes, or els, as Hypocrites, that worke for lucre and vaine-glory. If then S. Irenaeus in his dayes thought it an ar­gument sufficient to conuince all Heretikes, that they had fallen from the true fayth preached by the Apostles, be­cause they had fallen from the Succession of Bishops in Pe­ters See, to which all the Churches, and faythfull of the world must necessarly agree, how much more conuincing is the same Ar­gument against Protestants, to whom we shew not the Succession of twelue Popes in S. Peters See, as S. Irenaeus did to the heretikes of his tyme, but almost of 240.

You were not ignorant of the force of these testimonies of S. Irenaeus, and therfore lest you might seeme to passe them ouer without answere, you sayPag. 100. marg. fine.: As for the words, Propter Principalitatem, they are answered hereafter. How are they answered? first, you bid vs Pag. 253. marg. remember, that Irenaeus was [Page 307]he, which consented with the Asian Bishops that were excommunica­ted by Pope Victor. But wee know this to be an vntruth, and wish you to remember, that you acknowledge so much, & contradict your selfe, sayingPag. 131.: Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops. These then are your propositions: Ire­naus consented with the Asian Bishops: Irenaeus differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops: Reconcile them.

2. Wheras S. Iraeneus saythL. 3. c. 3.: It is necessary that all Churches haue recourse to the Roman Church by reason of her more mighty principality, you answerePag. 253.: This might haue bene spoken of the Imperiall power of that City, to which the subiects of the Roman Empire were bound to resort, for paying of tributes; and the Gouer­nors of Prouinces, to yield an account of their offices. But the very words of S. Irenaeus shew the falshood of this answeare: for he mentioneth not the City, but the Church of Rome. Ad hanc Ecclesiam &c. To this Church (sayth he) all Churches must of necessity resort. Againe, they which were to resort to the City of Rome for the discharge of their offices and paymēt of tributes were the subiects of the Roman Empire only: But S. Irenaeus tels you, that omnes vndique fideles, that is, All the faythfull, and all the Churches, not only of the Roman Em­pire, but of all the world are necessarily to repaire to the Church of Rome; shewing therby, that her authority and command is of larger extent then that of the Roman Empire: for (as Prosper truly saydDe ingrat. c 2. & de vo­cat. gent. l. 2. c. 6., Rome the See of Peter is greater by the for­tresse of Religion, then by the throne of (temporall) power: and be­ing made the Head of Pastorall honor to the world, possesseth by reli­gion, what, she doth not by force of armes.

3. You answearePag. 253.254.: Be it Ecclesiasticall power, yet was not the necessity of recourse vnto it, absolute, and perpetuall, but occasio­nall for that tyme. This is as vntrue as the rest: for the neces­sity of resorting to the Roman Church (sayth S. Irenaeus)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 Apostolike, which (sayth S. Augustine)Ep. 162. hath alwaies florished in her and which maketh her the Mother Church of the world. And therfore so long as she shall be S. Peters See, which shall be till the end of the world: so long the necessity of [Page 308]all other Churches resorting to her, and agreeing in fayth and communion with her, shall still continue.

SECT VII. Tertullian his Iudgment of the Roman Church.

TErtullian agreeth with S. Irenaeus in pressing against all heretikes the same argument of the neuer interrup­ted succession of Bishops in the Roman See,L. 3. Carm. cont. Marcio. c. vltimo. recknoning all the Popes by name vntill his tyme against Marcion and all heretikes, to proue thē to be such. It is manifest (saith he)Praes­crip. c. 21. that all Doctrine which agreeth with those Mother and originall Churches, founded by the Apostles is true, and to be held as certayne, being that the Churches receaued it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, and that whatsoeuer is contrary to this, is to be accounted false, and erroneous. And speaking of heretikesIbid. c. 32.: If there be any of them that darevent their Doctrine for Apostolicall, let them shew the originall of their Churches; let them vnfold the order of their Bishops, in such sorte, that by a Succession deriued from the beginning, they proue their first Bishop to haue bene some one of the Apostoles, or of the Apostolicall men that perseuered with the Apostles vnto the end. This Tertullian sayth the Smyr­naeans in his dayes could do, shewing that Polycarpe their Bishop was placed there by S. Iohn; and that the Roman Church could do the like, shewing Clement ordeyned by S. Peter. And the same she can do at this day, shewing that all her Bishops vnto Vrbā the eight which now possesseth that Chayre, had S. Peter the Apostle for their predecessor, and first Bishop in that See; and that from him they can li­neally deriue their pedigree; wheras no heretikes could e­uer shew any such descent, as Protestants at this day can­not. And therefore Tertullian bringeth in the Catholike Church vpbrayding them, and all heretikes in this manner.Ibid. c. 37. Who in Gods name are you? When, and from whence came you hither? What do you among myne, being none of myne? By what right O Marcion dost thou cut downe my woods? What leaue hast thou, O Valantine, to turne my streames and fountaynes another way? [Page 309]By what authority doest thou remooue my bounds, O Apelles? (O Luther, O Caluin, O Zuinglius?) The possession is mine: I haue it of old I enioyed it before you: I can deriue 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 giuen, my Tenure standeth. As for you, they alwayes disinherited you, and reiected you as aliens, yea and as enemies. In this very manner may Catholikes with great reason vpbrayd you, who as you cannot shew any Suc­cession of your Bishops continued from the Apostles; so you are therby conuinced not to be their heires, but stran­gers and enemies to them, and to the Churches founded by them.

Againe, Tertullian prescribing a rule for you to finde out the true fayth, & doctrine deliuered by the Apostles; saithIbid. c. 36.: Goe to: If thou wilt be curiously exact in the affaire of thy sal­uation, repaire to the Apostolicall Churches &c. If thou be a neigh­bour to Italy, thou hast Rome, from whence we also haue authority. O happy Church, into which the Apostles powred all their Doctrine to­geather with their bloud; where Peter is equalled to our Sauiours passion, where Paul is crowned with Iohn Baptists lot, where Iohn the Apostle being plunged into boyling oyle, and yet not hurt therwith, was banished into an iland. Let vs obserue 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, sayth: From whence we, that is (as Mace­rus expoundeth) all the African Churches, or all Catholikes haue authority at hand for our defence. Wherfore out of this place of Tertullian Quintinus rightly inferreth, that the Roman Church euen from her first foundation had great authority aboue all Churches of the world; and that all men are to learne from her the Doctrine of fayth, deliuered vnto her by the blessed Apostles. And this is the reason why Ter­tullian speaking of Marcion and ValentinusIbid. c. 30., proueth them to be heretikes, because they had fallen from the faith into which they had beleeued in the Roman Church. Nam constat &c. For (sayth he, and his words no lesse agree to Luther and Caluin, then to Marcion and Valentinus) it is ma­nifest [Page 310]that they first beleeued the Catholike Doctrine in the Roman Church vntill in the tyme of the blessed Bishop Eleutherius, for their turbulent spirit of nouelty, wherwith they did also peruert their Bre­thren, they were often excommunicated, and at length cast out for e­uer to perpetuall ruine. By this it appeareth, that the Roman fayth was then held to be the Catholike fayth, and the Ro­man Church, (which Tertullian calleth, The Catholike Church)L. 4. cont. Marcio. c. 4. the Head and Mistresse of all Churches in the world: for Marcion was borne at Sinope in Pontus, and for his heresy and lewdnesse of lyfe excommunicated by his owne Father a holy Bishop, who refusing to absolue him he went to Rome to seeke absolution: but (his Father op­posing) obteyned it not. Valētine was as Aegyptian borne, and hauing fallen into heresy in Cyprus, came to Rome in the tyme of Higinius Pope, and feigning himselfe to be a Catholike, was receaued into the Communion of the Roman Church, but falling often backe into heresy, as a dog returning to his vomit, was finally cast out of the Church by the blessed Pope Elutherius, as you haue heard Tertul­lian report. And why did these heretikes (as also Cerdon at the same tyme) when they sought absolution from heresy, come from so remote countreyes subiect to other Patriar­kes, and why from all the Easterne Church, and why all of them to the Church of Rome in particular, but because they knew her to be the Head & Mistres of all Churches, that had power to absolue all those which had bene ex­communicated by any other Bishops whatsoeuer, and to be the originall and center of Catholike Communion, and that so long as they remayned out of her bosome, they ne­ther were, nor should be esteemed Catholikes, nor to be in state of saluation?

Herby it appeares how little reason you had to say out of Beatus RhenausPag. 131.1 [...]. ▪ though Tertullian giue an honorable testimony to the Church of Rome, yet be did not esteeme her so highly, as wee see her accounted of at this day. And since you acknow­ledge that Rhenanus his mouth (for that and other his in­considerat speeches) is gagged by the Index expurgatorius, you shew litle iudgment in obiecting his authority against vs.

SECT. VIII. Vincentius Lyrinensis his iudgment of the Roman Church.

VVHat hath bene sayd, sheweth 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 haue for your cause in the au­thority of this ancient and learned Father, he will testify for himselfe: for when the Doctrine of rebaptizing Here­tikes at their returne to the Catholike Church defended by Firmilianus Bishop of Cefarea, Agrippinus, & S. Cyprian Bishops of Carthage, and many others, wrought so great inconueniences, that it gaue a paterne of sacriledge to all heretikes, and occasion of error to some Catholikes, Vin­centius declareth, how Stephen then Pope of Rome sup­pressed it by his authority. When (sayth heL. cont. propha. hae­res. nouat. c. [...]. all men euery where exclamed against the nouelty of that Doctrine, & all Priests in all places, ech one according to his zeale did opppse, then Pope Stephen of blessed memory Bishop of the Apostolike See resisted indeed with the rest of his fellow Bishops, but yet more then the rest, thinking it (as I suppose) reason, so much to excell all others in deuotion towards the fayth, as he 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 innouated, but that which comes by tradition be obserued. And Ibid. c. 10. notwithstanding that the contrary doctrine had (sayth he) such pregnant wits, such eloquent tongues, such a number of Patrons, such shew of truth, such testimonies of Scripture, but glosed after a new and naughty fashion, and that it was decreed in an African Councell; yet the authority of the Pope declaring it a nouelty, was of so great force, that after he had condemned it, all those things were abolished, were disa­nulled, were abrogated as dreames, as fables, as superfluous. And afterwardsIbid. c. 43. he alleageth as witnesses of his Doctrine, diuers Greeke Fathers, and addeth to them, the authority of S. Felix Martyr, and S. Iulius, both Bishops of the Ro­man [Page 312]Church, whom (to declare their soueraigne authority) he calleth The Head of the world▪ And he concludeth: Ibid. c. 45. Least in such plenty of proofes any thing should be wanting, wee haue added for a conclusion a double authority of the See Apostolike; 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 Apostolicall, and Catholike decrees.

SECT. IX. Other Obseruations of Doctor Morton, out of Antiquity, answeared.

YOur obseruations arePag: 101. & seqq. that S. Athanasius, S. Augustine, the Councels of Constantinople, of Aegypt, and of Cauthage, rec­koning diuers Bishops to shew their agreement in fayth 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 giue the Bishop of Rome so many mates, and to equalize other Bishops with him. But who seeth not what poore stuffe these your obseruations are? For if one concerning matters of fayth 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 Coun­sell, I should lay to your charge, that by consulting with his Maiesty, and his Counsell, you giue his Maiesty so many mantes, as he hath Counsellors, and equalize them in power and dominion with him, would you not thinke m [...] a trifling, and indeed a childish opponent? how then shall wee thinke otherwise of you, that by like consequence go about to equalize other Bishops with the Pope, & among themselues?

SECT. I. Doctor Mortons Obiections, against the precedent Doctrine, answeared.

THough you either could not, or would not find any thing of all that which hath bene alleaged out of the Councell of Nice in proofe of the Popes authority, yet you cold find two argumēts to obiect against it, The first isPag. 105. & seqq.: [Page 319] The Councell of Nice decreeth, that the ancient custome goe on, to wit, that the Patriarke of Alexandria, haue power ouer Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, because the B. of Rome hath so accustomed. To this argument Bellarmine hath answearedL. 2. de Pont. c. 13., that the Canon speakes of the Patriarke of Alexandria with restri­ction, assigning to him the Prouinces of Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis: and of the Pope, without restriction, not prescribing any lymits to his iurisdiction, nor ordeyning any thing concerning the authority of the Roman Church, but making her, a rule, and patterne for the gouerment of other Churches, commanding, that the B. of Alexandria haue power ouer those three prouinces, because the B. of Rome hath accustomed so to allow, or permit. And this canon is so explicated by Nicolas the firstEp. ad Michael. Im­per. that liued al­most 800. yeares since, and for his learning and sanctity hath deserued the surname of Great. And the same explica­tion is confirmed by the practise both of the Roman, and of the Alexandrian Church. For if according to your con­struction the Roman Church by this canon be proued to haue no superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Church of Ale­xandria, or other Easterne Churches, but only ouer those which are within the Patriarkeship of the west; how comes it to passe, that S. Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria, and other Easterne Bishops, which had bene personally pre­sent at the Councell of Nice, being soone after cast out of their Seates by the Arians, did fly to Rome, and appeale to Pope Iulius for redresse, as to their lawfull Su­perior, and Iudge? Or if this Canon do limit the iurisdicti­on of the Pope to the Patriarkeship of the West, as it doth that of the B. of Alexandria to the prouinces named in the canon; how comes it to passe, that (as SocratesL. 2. c. 1 [...]. Sozo­menL. 3. c. 7. and NicephorusL. 9. c. 8. report) Iulius by the ancient dig­nity, and prerogatiue of his See, and because the care of them all be­longed to him▪ restored each of them to their Churches, and rebuking the Arians for their iniust proceedings threatned to punish them, vn­lesse they desisted to innouate; and cited Athanasius, and some of the chiefe of the Arians, to make their appearance at Rome, on a set day, and answere for themselues in iudgment; and that Athanasius obey­ing, [Page 320]transported himselfe in all diligence to Rome? And how comes it to passe, that when the Arians in their mock-Councell of Philippopolis required the Fathers assembled at Sardica, to absteyne from the communion of Athanasius, & the other Bishops whom they had deposed, those Fathers represen­ting all the Catholikes of the world, answered,Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. that they neuer had, nor would now abstaine from their communion▪ and prin­cipally because Iulius B. of Rome hauing examined their cause, had not condemned them? And how comes it to passe, that Peter Successor to S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria (whom Theodosius and GratianCod. Tit. 1. l. 1. call, A man of Apostolicall sanctity) being in like manner deposed by the Arians, appealed to Rome as to the safest hauen of communion S. Hieron. Ep. 16., and relying on the authority of Pope Damasus his letters, returned to A­lexandriaL. 4. c. 30., and by vertue of them recouered his Seat, & expelled Lucius the Arian intruder? Doth not all this shew, that the authority of the Roman Church was not limited by the Nicen Councell to the Patriarkship of the West? vn­lesse you will haue vs belieue, that you vnderstand the sense and meaning of the Councell better, then S. Athana­sius, and other holy Bishops, which were present at it, and at the Councell of Sardica; and better then Peter that re­nowned Patriarke of Alexandria, that liued soone after these Councells.

In confirmation of this, I adde, that the Councell of Nice ordeynethCan. 6.: that the ancient custome goe on. Now the ancient custome was, that all Churches should resort to the Ro­man Church by reason of her more mighty principality Iren. l. 3. c. 3. and be­cause, she is the Chayre of Peter, and the principall Church from whence Sacerdotall vnity is deriued Cyp. ep. 55. ad Cornel.: and because, in her the principality of the Apostolike Chayre hath alwayes florished S Aug. ep. 162.. And if we come to the Patriarkes of Alexandria, of whom this Canon particularly speaketh, they did alwayes euen be­fore the Councell of Nice, acknowledge themselues sub­iect to the B. of Rome, as appeareth by the example of Dionysius Patriarke of that Citty, who being fallen into suspicion of heresy, long before the Councell of Nice, the Catholikes of Alexandria had not recourse to the Synods [Page 321]of their owne prouinces, nor to any other Patriarke of the East, but went to Rome, to accuse him before Dionysius Pope. They went vp to Rome (sayth S. Athanasius)De sent: Dionys. to accuse him before the B. of Rome, being of his owne name. And a litle af­terIbid.: And the B. of Rome sent to Dionysins, to cleare himselfe of those things, whereof they had accused him; and suddenly he answered, sending his bookes of defence, and apology. And againeDe Syn. Arim. & So­leu.: Some hauing accused the B. of Alexandria before the B. of Rome, to hold the Sonne for a creature, the Synod of Rome (that is the Popes Consistory consisting of the neighbour Bishops, and the principall Church-men of Rome, without whose aduice he iudgeth nothing of importance) was offended with him, & the B of Rome writ to him the opinion of all the Assistants: and he for his iustification addressed to him a Booke of defence, and apology. This playnely sheweth, that the custome before the Coun­cell of Nice, was, that the Bishop and people of Alexan­dria did acknowledge the Pope of Rome to be their Supe­rior: which custome therefore the Councell will haue to goe on.

But that the true meaning of this Canon may the better be vnderstood, it is to be noted, that the entire Acts of the Councell of Nice being lost, that which remayneth of them in the vulgar copies, is but fragments. Among the rest this very Canon hath not passed without mutilation: for the beginning of it (as it is related by Dionysius Abbas, an author of 1000. yeares standing) is: Ecclesia Romana semper ha­buit primatum: The Roman Church hath alwayes had the primacy. This beginning troubleth your patience, and to refute it, you sayPag. 108.: They shame not to preferre one vulgar booke before all other Greeke and Latine Copies: False. For that beginning of the Canon is in like manner extant in an ancient Manus­cript of the famous Monastery of S. Vedastus in Atras, writ­ten aboue 800. yeares sinceOf this see Pamelius in Annot. ad lib. Cyp. de V­nit. Eccles. n. 16.: and (which taketh away all occasion of doubt) it is so read in the famous Councell of ChalcedonAct. 16.. True (say you)Pag. 108. but by the Popes Legates. But what? Were not the Popes Legates reuerend Bishops, and Presidents of that Councell? And when they read this beginning of the Canon, did the Fathers of that Councell [Page 322]except against it, as you do? Nay, after they had read and considered it, did they not sayAct. 16.? Ex his quae gesta vel ab vno­quoque deposita sunt perpendimus omnem primatum, & honorem prae­cipuum secundum canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissmo Archie­piscopo conseruari. By those things which haue bene done, and the proofes which haue bene produced on both sydes, we find that accor­ding to the Canons▪ all primacy▪ and chiefe honor is preserued to the most beloued of God the Archbishop of old Rome. Then which words none can be more effectuall, to declare the primacy of the Pope, to be Primacy of authority and iurisdiction, and not of order only as you falsely comment; both because primacy of order is not all primacy, nor is it the chiefe ho­nor: for the honor due to superiority of gouerment, and iu­risdiction, is farre aboue it. Besides, that as I haue already shewedAboue Chap. 12. and shall in the next Chapter proueSect. 2., this your shift of Primacy of Order (to which you often betake your selfe, as to your last refuge, when you are pressed with vnanswearable arguments) is a mere shift inuented to de­lude ignorant readers, with empty words voyd of truth. And by this canon it is in like manner euident, that the pri­macy was not then first giuen to the Church of Rome, but preserued vnto it according to the canons.

Your second ArgumentPag. 107. to proue, that the later Roman Councells are bastardly▪ and illegitimate, and that we haue little re­gard to the Councell of Nice, is taken out of Theodoret, wri­ting, that Constantine the Great required in that Synod, that, because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in diuine matters, therfore we ought to make our determinations vpon questions from words which are diuinely inspired. And then you tell vs, that Bellarmine answeareth thus: Co [...]stantine was a great Em­peror indeed but no great Doctor of the Church who was yet vnbapti­zed, and therfore vnderstood not the mysteries of religion. Thus (say you) doth this your Cardinall twite▪ and taunt the iudgment of that godly Emperor, and (as the Steward in the Ghospell) iniustly con­cealeth from his reader that, which followeth in Theodoret namely, that the greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voyce of Con­stantine. So you, as you are won [...]: for first you falsify Bellar­mine, who sayth not, that Constantine was yet vnbaptized, but [Page 323]that, that is the opinion of you Protestants, and the old Arians: from whence he argueth ad hominem against you, that this testi­mony of Constantine is not of so great weight, as Caluin and Kemnitius make it: for if he were vnbaptized, he could then be no great Doctor of the Church, as being a Neo­phyte, and therfore not so well skilled in the mysteries of Christian Religion. What twiting, or taunting of that godly Em­peror your find in this answere of Bellarmine, I know not; but I know, that you in holding Constantine to be then vnbaptized, both seeke to disgrace that godly Emperor, and withall to vphold the authority and credit of the Arian heretikes, who to make him a Patron of their heresy, gaue out that he was not baptized vntill a litle before his death, and that then he receaued his baptisme from Eusebius B. of Nicomedia, the chiefe ringleader of the Arian faction.

But that your dealing may the better appeare, it is to be noted, that Bellarmine is so farre from twiting, or taunting that godly Emperor, that he admitteth of his testimony: Ad­mitting (sayth he)L. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. §. Admiss [...] the authority of Constantine, I say, that in all those doctrines which concerne the nature of God, there are ex­tant testimomes in Scripture, out of which if they be rightly vnder­stood, we may be fully and plainly instructed; but the true sense of the Scriptures dependeth on the vnwritten tradition of the Church. Wher­fore the same Theodoret that reporteth this speach of Constantine, declareth in the next Chapter, that in the Councell of Nice Scriptu­res were produced on both sydes, but the Arians were not conuinced with them▪ because they expounded them otherwise then the Catho­likes, and therfore were condemned by the vnwritten tradition of the Church piously vnderstood: to which condemnation no man euer doub­ted, but that Constantine assented. So Bellarmine. And hereby it appeares, that when you say, Bellarmine citeth Theodoret, & yet (as the Steward in the Ghospell) iniustly concealeth that which followeth in him, namely, that the greater part of the Councell obeyed the voyce of Constantine, you wrong Bellarmine, and a buse Theodoret, who in those words relateth not to the determining of controuersies by Scriptures, but to Constantines exhortation made to the Bishops of peace, and concord among themselues, which [Page 324](sayth Theodoret) the greatest part of the Councell obeyed, im­bracing mutuall concord, and true doctrine, though diuers Arians disagreed, some of whose names he there expresseth. This you iniustly conceale, like the ill Steward in the Ghospell, that you may pick a quarrell with Bellarmine. In confir­mation of this I might adde, that (as S. AugustineL. 5. de Baptism. c. 23. and Vincentius LyrinensisCont. haer. c. 9. & 10. haue testified) the heresy of Re­baptization could not be disproued by Scripture, but was condemned by Tradition. And finally I might aske you, why you, like the bad Steward, conceale what Theodoret writeth in that very place, namely, that what Constantine said, he spake not to the Bishops, as their Head, but, as a sonne that loued peace offered vp his words to the Priests as to his Fa­thers, and that he would not enter into the Councell but after them all, nor sit downe but with their leaue, and in a low chayre. Did he (trow you) belieue himselfe to be Head of the Church?

SECT. I. By what authority this Councell was called.

BELLARMINE in proofe of the Popes vni­uersall iurisdiction, alleageth, that the Fathers of the first generall Councell of Constantino­ple, (which was the second generall of the whole Church) in their Epistle to Pope Damasus, say: They [Page 325]were gathered by his Mandate, and confesse that the Church of Rome is the Head, and they the members. This (say youPag. 109. is all that is obiected, but vpon a mistake. What then is the mistake? Because Bellarmine in the Recognition of his workes, afterwards obserued, that it was not the Epistle of the second generall Synod, but of the Bi­shops which had bene present at the Synod, and met againe the next yeare after at Constantinople. But if this Epistle were not of the Synod, why do you, speaking of it not without con­tradiction, sayPag. 10 [...].: The generall Councell of Constantinople do en­dite an Epistle Pag. 110. margin., and inscribe it thus? And why do you mentio­ning the inscription of the same Epistle call it, Synodicae Epi­stolae inscriptio, The inscription of the Synodicall Epistle? And why doth TheodoretL. 5. hist. c. 9. stile it Libellus Synodicus à Concilio Con­stantinopolitano missus, A Synodicall writ sent by the Councell of Constantinople &c? But howsoeuer, you alleaging that Bel­larmine acknowledgeth his owne mistake, is a mere cauill, nothing auailing your cause: for be it, that those Bishops writ not their Epistle, whiles they were assembled in Councell, but when they met the next yeare after at Con­stantinople, yet you must acknowledge the truth of what Bellarmine alleageth out of their Epistle, vnlesse you will make them all lyers.

But let vs goe on. Bellarmine saythRecogn. pag. 46. in hoc Concil., it is sufficiently proued out of the sixth generall Councell, that this of Constantinople was called by the commaund of Pope Damasus: you answearePag. 109. that, in proofe therof he referreth himselfe to another Councell, a­gainst the vniuersall current of histories, which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperors as the supreme, and first com­pulsary causes for the collecting of Councells. So you, but falsly as hath bene already prouedChap. 1 [...]. [...]. 8.. And to go no further for examples, That very sixth generall Councell which you mention, beareth witnesse for Bellarmine against you, say­ing: As soone as Arius arose, the Emperor Constantine, and Syluester worthy of prayse assembled the great and famous Councell at Nice. And that Constantine did not call that Councell by his authority, hath bene proued,Ibid., and is confirmed out of the sixth Councell it selfe, which was cal­led by the authority of the Pope, as it appeareth out of the [Page 326]Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to DonusInter 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 Councell, to represse heretikes, and restore peace to the Church; promising withall to see them securely con­ueighed to Constantinople, to receaue them with due ho­nor, and the Councell being ended, to returne them home with safety. Donus being dead before this letter came to Rome, it was receaued by Agatho his Successor, who yiel­ding to so pious a desire of the Emperor, caused diuers Sy­nods to be held in the West to examine the Monothelites Doctrine. Which being done, he called a Synod at Rome to establish more firmely the Catholike fayth against those Heretikes, and then sent his Legates to Constantinople, vpon whose ariuall the Emperor (as knowing that with­out the authority of the See Apostolike no Councell could be valid) signified by lettersExtat apud Bin. to. 3. pag. 7. to the Patriarkes of Con­stantinople and Hierusalem, that the Pope hauing yelded to his desire of calling a Councell, had sent his legates re­presenting his owne person, and with them order, and in­structions how to proceed therin: and therfore wished them with their Metropolitans and Bishops, to resort to Constantinople. All which sheweth how vntruely you say, that Emperors are the supreme, and first compulsarie causes for the collecting of Councells: for indeed how can that authority belong to them, who haue no more, then the sixth Coun­cell sheweth? Which being ended the Popes Legates, though none of them were Bishops, but two of them Priestes, and the third a Deacon, as they had presided in the Councell, so they subscribed in the first place, before all the Bishops, and Patriarkes, and the Emperor in the last place after all, and in these words, Legimus & consensimus Apud Bin. to. 3. pag. [...]7., shew­ing therby, that he had no authority of a Iudge in the Councell, but that his duety was (as it is also of other Em­perors) to agree vnto what the Bishops by their authority, as Iudges had determined.

2. To proue that the Emperor was the supreme and first com­ [...]ulsaty cause of collecting the second generall Councell at Constanti­nople, [Page 327]you produce Theodoret as a witnessePag. 109. 110., that not Da­masus, but he was the absolute Commander. If Theodoret say, that the Emperor commanded, he sayth it not to shew, that he commanded by his owne authority, but by the power he had receaued from Damasus; so, that his command and conuocation was only executory of Damasus his authori­ty: for why els doe not those Bishops say, that the Empe­ror called them? and why do they say to Damasus, You cal­led vs, as your owne members by letters sent to the Emperor, but be­cause Damasus was he that chiefely called them, and the Emperor no otherwise, then by vertue of Damasus his let­ters sent vnto him to that effect? Euen as Basilius the Em­peror in like manner called the eight generall Councell by the Mandate of Pope Adrians lettersApud Bin. to. 3. pag. 881.: Volumus &c. Wee will (sayth Adrian to the Emperor) that a full Councell be held at Constantinople, by the industry of your Piety, in which our Legates presiding &c. And this would haue bene no lesse cleare con­cerning the calling of the second generall Councell at Cō ­stantinople, if what you set downe in your Latin and Greeke marginals, you had syncerely rendred in your En­glish text, which most imported your readers for the vn­derstandding of the truth.

And the same is yet further proued out of two very an­tient Manuscripts, the one of the Vatican, and the other of S. Maria Maior, in which it is saidApud 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 belieue, that the au­thority of calling Councells belonged to the Emperor or to himselfe, may be gathered out of another Epistle of his, written in answere to one Stephen, an Archbishoppe of Mauritania, and three African CouncellsDamas. Ep. 4. apub. Bin. to 1. pag. 499., in which ha­uing declared, that he had the Episcopall charge, or ministery ouer the house of God, which is the vniuersall Catholike Church, and that the See Apostoleke is constituted by God ouer all Priests, and Bishops, he addeth; for as you know, it is not Catholike, that a Synod be held without the authority of the holy See Apostolike, nor a Bishop condem­ned, [Page 328]but in a lawfull Synod assembled by the same authority: nor are any Councells read to be valid, but only such as haue their strength from the Apostolicall authority.

And hereby you are conuinced of an vntruth, in saying,Pag. 110. that Damasus his letters were not mandatory to the Orientals, but letters of request to the Emperor Theodosius for obteyning liberty, to collect, and assemble a Synod. For albeit Damasus requested Theodosius to assist him therin, as the duty of a Christian Emperor was to do, yet (witnes TheodoretL. 5. c. 8. he with his Roman Synod (without whose aduice he dispatcheth no busines of moment) sent letters to the Easterne Bishops themselues, to call them to a Councell at Rome; which let­ters they hauing receaued by the Emperor, returne an ans­were to Damasus, not taxing him for want of authority to call them, but excusing their not obeying his command, by reason of the shortnes of tyme, & the great inconuenien­ces their long absence would haue bred to their Churches newly freed from the persecutions, and troubles of Here­tikes. Which excuse sufficiently sheweth, that they ack­nowledged in him authority to call them.

SECT. II. Whether the Primacy of the Pope be Primacy of Authority and Iurisdiction, or of Order only.

BEllarmineL. 2. de Pont. c. 13. proueth the Popes authority ouer the Orientals by their acknowledging him to be their Head and themselues to be his members. You answere,Pag. 110. that the simi­litude of Head, and members, implieth, no superiority of iurisdiction, but only of Order, that is, of priority of place, of voyce, and the like. But this euasion is cōfuted by the very comparison it selfe: for the Head hath not only priority of place aboue the members, but gouerneth and ruleth the whole body. And therfore your answere is no lesse contrary to reason, then if you should tell vs, that in a politicall body, as in a Col­ledge, the Rector, which is Head of the house, hath no o­ther superiority ouer his fellow-Collegials, but only priority [Page 329]of place, or of voyce: nor the Gouernor of a City ouer the Ci­tizens, nor the Vice-Roy ouer the inferior officers of the kingdome. And so much the more reprehēsible is this your sophistry, because you know, that the holy Councell of Chalcedon speaking to Leo Pope, saythInrelat. ad Leon.: You rule ouer vs, as the Head doth ouer the members. AndIbide: We beseech you to honor our iudgment with your decrees, and that as in what concernes the weale we haue had correspondency to our Head; so your Soue­raignty would fulfill to your Children, what concernes decency. Do not these Fathers here expresly acknowledge Leo to be the ruler and Gouernor of the Vniuersall Church, and beseech him to confirme and authorize their decrees? If he had not power and authority ouer the whole Church, why did S. Ambrose (one of the Bishops to whom these Orientals ad­dressed their letter, as the inscriptionApud Theodoret. l. 5. hist. c. 9. declareth) speaking of this very Pope Damasus, sayIn cap. 3. prior. ad Ti­moth.: Though all the world be Gods, yet the Church is called his house, wherof at this day Damasus is Gouernor? If the Pope haue not iurisdiction ouer all Bi­shops, euen the greatest Patriarkes of the East, and power to annuall their decrees, and the decrees of their Councells, why did S. ChrysostomeEp. 1. ad Innocent., when he was deposed from the See of Constantinople, in a Councell held by Theo­philus Patriarke of Alexandria, write to Innocentius Pope, beseeching him to annull the Acts of that Councell, and punish them that had so iniustly condemned him? Why did Theodoret Bishop of Cyre, deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus, ap­peale to Pope LeoEp. ad Renat. & ep. ad Leo., acknowledging, that the holy Roman See hath the sterne of gouernment ouer all the Churches of the world? If the rule and gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to the Pope, why did the Bishop of Patara in Lycia, vpon the expulsion of Pope Siluerius from his SeeLiberat. in Breui. c. 12., re­present vnto Iustinian the indignity of that fact, saying, that albeit there be many Kings and Princes in the world, yet none of them ouer all the earth, as the Pope is ouer the Church of all the world? If the gouerment of the vniuersall Church belong not to him, why did the Emperor Valentinian the thirdCod. l. 7. & 8. in­stile him, Rector of the vniuersaloty of Churches? Why doth the same Emperor and Theodosius decreeConstit. Nouel. tit. 24., that all those things [Page 330]shall be lawes, which haue beue or shall be ordayned by the Pope of the eternall Citty, and that presumption attempt nothing against his au­thority: for so (say thoy) the peace of the Church shall be maintay­ned by all, if the vniuersality acknowledge her Rector. If the Pope haue no superiority ouer other Bishops, but only priority of place, or of voyce, why did Athanasius Patriarke of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, with many others of the East, in their wrongs, appeale to Iulius Pope, as to their IudgeSocrat. l. 2. c. 11.? & how came he to replace them in their seates, but Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. by the soueraignty of his Church; and Nicepho. l. 9. c. 8. because the charge of all belonged to him?

But to returne to the Councell of Constantinople; Those Fathers in their letter to Damasus, made sufficient acknowledgment of his authority ouer themApud Theodoret. l 5. c. 9., when they demanded from him the confirmation of their decrees of fayth, and in particular that of the deposition of Timo­thy Patriarke 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 approue them. To which petition Damasus answearedApud Theodoret. ibid. c. 10.: Wheras your chari­ty (most honoured children) yeldeth due reuerence to the Apostolike See, it shall turne you to great honor &c. But what need was there to require from one the deposition of Timothy, seeing he was long since deposed here, with his Maister Apollinarius, by the iudgment of the See Apostolike, and in the presence of Peter Bishop of Alexandria?

SECT. III. Whether the name of Brother, Colleague, and fellow-Minister, which the Pope giueth to other Bishops, and they to him, argue them to be of equall authority, and iurisdiction with him?

YOu obiectPag 110.111., that the Fathers of this second Councell generall write not to the Pope alone, but to him with other Bishops of the Roman Synod, whome they acknowledge to be their Colleagues and fellow members, and therby cut the Roman Head into so many peeces, as there were Bishops, to whom they inscribed their Epistle.

It is a prime Argument of yours, which you often re­peate, and strongly insist onPag 63. fin. 64.83.84.110.111.116.141.268., that because Bishops are ioyned 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 betweene the Pope and them, but that they are all equall with him. Whiles you giue to the Pope (say you)Pag. 63. fin. 64. an absolute iurisdiction, cum plenitudine potestatis, ouer all Bishops, how can you suffer him to be mated, or equaled with others Bishops, as Paul did Peter, by ioyning in society with him Iames and Iohn? 2. HerePag. 110.111. you inferre, that because the Orientall Bishops that had bene present at the second Councell ge­nerall, 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 iu­risdiction in the Pope, more then in themselues, or in the other Bishops, to whom they write. 3. You frame the like ArgumentPag. 116. out of the Councell of Ephesus, because it cal­les Celestine B. of Rome, Fellow-Minister. 4. And out of S. E­piphaniusPag. 241., who called Pope Hormisdas, Brother. 5. And out of S. Cyprian you tell vsPag. 268., that he neuer calleth the Pope Bishop of Bishops, Father of Fathers, High Priest of Christ, and Mo­narke of the vniuersall Church, as he would haue done, if he had be­lieued his Monarchy: but contrariwise in all his Epistles, saluteth Pope Cornelius, with only Charissime frater, Most deare Brother, & taketh his Vale, with the same, Most deare 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 glasse is, as if a Vassall should salute his King, with, All hayle brother Henry, & take his leaue with, Farewell brother Henry. Fy fye: What will you make of the Fathers? will you iudge them so witlesse, as not to haue vnder­stood their Morals. This is your discourse: Graue (I warrant you) and very iudicious, but how farre from the purpose, haue but a litle patience, and you shall heare.

And first, to begin with your secular glasse; God in the holy Scripture sayth to his peopleDeutero. 17.15.: Thou shalt take a King whom our Lord thy God shall choose out of the number of thy [Page 332]brethren. And againeIbid. vers. 20.: That the Kings hart be not lifted vp in­to pride aboue his Brethren. Wherfore the subiects of a King, are his brethren: and yet because the manner of gouerment vsed by Kinges to keep their subiects in awe, and represse the Violence of Malefactors, is with a Lordly dominion, such as our Sauiour discribeth, sayingLuc. 22.25. The Princes of na­tions dominier ouer them, in the stile of the world he should be esteemed vnmannerly and saucy, that should presume to say to his Soueraigne. All haile Brother Henry, or farewell fel­low Henry. And therfore S. Gregory speaking of the worldly greatnesse, and state of Kings, saythIn 1. Reg. l. 4. c. 2.: The things which are conteyned in the law, that concerneth Kings, are foretold, to the end they may be auoyded, rather then followed. And the same is taught vs by the example of our Blessed SauiourMarc. 10.45. & Luc. 2.27. who, as he came into the world to serue, and not to be serued, so he would not haue the Ecclesiasticall Monarchy like to that of Secular Prin­ces, but a gentle and brotherly Monarchy, as that of an El­der brother, ouer his yonger brethren: for that is the title which the Apostle giues him, calling himRom. 8.29.. The first begot­ten among many brethren. And therfore albe it (as he told his ApostlesIoan. 13.23. he was their Lord, and Maister, yet proposing him­selfe vnto them as an example of superiority, accompanied with humility, and teaching them in what manner they ought to gouerne their inferiors, he said vnto themLuc. 22.27. & vers. 25.2 [...].: I am in the middest of you▪ as one that ministreth: the Princes of nations dominier ouer them, but you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the yonger; and he that is the leader, as the waiter.

This rule S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, and first B. of Rome obserued, according to our Sauiours command; and exhorted all Bishops, as his inferiors to obserue the same, saying1. Pet. 5.2. & 3.: Feed the flock of God, which is among you, prouiding 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 paterne of sweet and brotherly gouer­ment vsed 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 haue [Page 333]drawne theirs, and therfore call and salute ech other, by the name of Brethren: in so much that S. Gregory speaking of Bishops saythL. 7. ep. 65.: When crimes exact it not, all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall. And yet to shew, that all Bishops are subiect to the Pope, he had said immediatly be­fore, I know no Bishop, but is subiect to the See Apostolike. And a­gaineL. 7. op. 64.: Who doubts, but that the Bishop of Constantinople is sub­iect to the See Apostolike? which the most religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother Bishop of the same Citty, do continually Protest. In which words he calleth the B. of Constantinople, Brother, and yet declareth him subiect to the See Apostolike. And in like manner our Sauiour in the Ghospell often calleth the Apostles. His brethren Luc. 25.40 & cap. 28.10. & Ioan. 20.17.: from whence you may inferre, that he was not Superior to them in authority, and it will be as good a consequence, as to inferre, 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 vse the word Brother, not to exclude the superiority of iurisdi­ction, but to expresse the vnity of communion. For, 1. the Catholike Bishops of Africa answeated the Donatists in the Conference of Carthage, that Cecilianus who had bene Archbishop of that City, and consequently the Head and Superintendent of all the Bishops of Africa, was their Bro­ther: He was (sayth S. Augustine)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 De oper. Monach. c. 1., notwithstan­ding that he was the spirituall subiect of Aurelius, & made B. of Hippo by meanes of the dispensation, which he had giuen to Valerius B. of that City, to take him for his Coad­iutor (m); and he acknowledged himselfe bound to exe­cute his commands: I haue (sayth hePossid in vita Aug. c. 8. obeyed your commands my holy Brother Aurelius. 3. Epigonius one of the Bishops of the third Councell of Carthage, calls the same Aurelius,De opere Monach. c. 1. His Brother Conc. Car­thag. c. 45., whom yet he there acknowledgeth to haue iu­risdiction ouer all the Bishops of Africa. 4. The Councell of Carthage writing to Innocentius Pope, to confirme the [Page 334]sentence of condemnation, which both in that, and in the Councell of Mileuis, had bene pronounced against Pela­gius, saythAug. ep. 90.: This, ô holy Lord and Brother, we conceaued we ought to represent to your Charity, that to the statuts of mediocrity might be added the authority of the See Apostolike. In which words they acknowledge Innocentius to be their Lord and Superior, and to haue authority to confirme their decrees, & yet notwithstanding, call him their Brother. 5. Iohn Pa­triarke of Constantinople calls Hormisdas Pope, Brother, Ep. ad Hormisd. and yet protests to obey the See Apostolike in all things. 6. IustinianCod. tit. 1. l 8. writing to Pope Iohn surnamed Mercurius, calleth the Patriarke of Constantinople, his Bro­ther: and yet both in the same Epistle and in another to the Patriarke himselfeCod. 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 falsly you in­ferre, that S. Cyprian equalleth himselfe in authority with Cornelius Pope, because he styleth himselfe his Brothrer, or that Cornelius acknowledgeth in himselfe no authority ouer Cyprian, because he giueth him the same title. For be­sides what hath bene said, Erasmus a man highly esteemed by you hath taught youNot. in ep. Cyp. ad Cor­nel. that the word Brother there sig­nifieth not equality, but society of religion.

And nothing els 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 rebaptization defended by Firmilianus, and Cyprian, saythCont. haer. cap. 9.: Then the blessed Ste­phen made resistance together with, but yet before, his Colleagues, iudging it (as I conceaue) a thing worthy of him to excell them in fayth, so much, as he did in the authority of his place. And Inno­centius the first in answere to the Councells of Carthage and MileuisInter ep. Aug. ep. 93.: I conceaue, that all our Brethren and fellow-Bi­shops ought not to referre 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 Aegypt in the Synod of Alexandria call S. Athanasius, their Colleague Athan. Apol. de fuga sua., who yet [Page 335]was their Head, and had iurisdiction ouer them, as the Coūcell of Nice declarethCan. 6.. And lastly the Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus, call Celestine Pope, their fellow-mini­ster Par. 2. Act. 1.; and yet in the same place stile him their most holy Father. and make themselues 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 teares, to pronounce this heauy sentence against Nestorius.

I conclude therfore, that these words, Brother, Colleague, and fellow-minister, when they are vsed by the Pope to other Bishops, or by other Bishops to the Pope, signify nothing els, but society of religion and vnity of communion: from whence to inferre (as you do) that other Bishops are of e­quall authority with the Pope, is a peece of ignorance, no way suiting with a man of your reading, and altogeather vnbeseeming him that holds the place of so great a Bishop.

SECT IV. A friuolous cauill of Doctor Morton against Bellarmine, answeared.

YOu obiectPag. 109. fin. that, wheras Theodoret sayth, [...], which is, letters the yeares past, Bellarmine a­gainst all Lexicons readeth, The mandate of letters. Is not this fine art, trow yee? &c. If any should translate the yeare past, into Man­date, might it not be suspected, that the mans witts were now in the wayne, as being ignorant &c. So you; who by seeking to shew your wit in scoffing at Bellarmine, discouer your igno­rance, and folly. Bellarmines intent is to shew, that the Councell of Constantinople was called by the Popes au­thority, because the Fathers of the Councell 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 vnderstand, that it is all one, to call the [Page 336]Bishops to a Councell, by his letters, as the Greeke sayth, 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 wayne, haue imputed so grosse an ignorance to that learned Cardinall, especially, since in two different places, he setteth downe the same passage at large, and ex­presseth both Mandato litterarum, 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 Reuerentia ad sanctissi­mum Imperatorem Theodosium missarum: by the Mandate of letters sent the last yeare by your Reuerence to the most religious Emperor Theodosius. Which sheweth, that if he had left out of the La­tin, Anno superiore, (as you citing his words cunningly do) it had not bene to translate [...] into Mandate, but to omit Anno superiore, as a particle wholly impertinent, either to proue, or disproue the Popes power of calling generall Councells, which no way dependeth on the yeare, but on the authority and dignity of his place.

SECT. V. Of the Decree of this second Councell generall, made in fauor of the Archbishop of Constantinople.

AGainst what hath bene said, you oppose aPag. 112. 113. Canon of the second Councell, ordayning, that the B. of Con­stantinople haue the honor of primacy next after the B. of Rome, be­cause Constantinople is new Rome. This Obiection reboundeth on your owne head: For if the Bishop of Constantinople sought then to obtayne the second place after the Pope, be­cause Constantinople is new Rome, it is therby manifest, that before that tyme, the B. of old Rome had the prima­cy, aboue all Bishops: The primacy (I say) not of order only (for this the Bishops of Constantinople neuer denied to the Pope) but of authority, and iurisdiction ouer the Pa­triarkes of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem: for that authority it was, in which they sought to participate with him, though in the second place after & vnder him: which [Page 337]they cold not haue done, vnlesse the primacy of authority ouer those Patriarkes had primitiuely, and originally be­longed to him. So farre therfore is this your Argument from euincing any thing against the Popes authority, that it confirmeth the same.

And so much the more, because the Canon obiected (whatsoeuer the sense of it be, and whatsoeuer the Bishops of Constantinople pretended by it) is of no force: for the Councell in which it was made, consisted only of the Bi­shops of the East, and therfore was not Generall of it selfe, but only by the adiunction, and confirmation of another Councell of the Westerne Bishops, held at Rome, vnder Damasus Pope, at the same tyme, which neither knew of this Canon before it was made, nor confirmed it after it was made, as S. Gregory hath testified sayingL. 6. ep. 31.: The Roman Church neither hath, nor receaueth the Canons, or the Actes of the Councell of Constantinople: but she hath admitted that Synod in what it defined against Macedonius. And the same is testified by S. LeoEp. 53., who reprehending Anatolius Patriarke of Con­stantinople, for seeking to renew this Canon in the Coun­cell of Chalcedon, sayth: The signature of certaine Bishops made (as thou vauntest) more then threescore yeares since, cannot iustify thy intention, to the vpholding whereof (being of it selfe from the be­ginning ruinous, and long since quite fallen) thou hast sought weake and feeble props: for neuer hauing bene transmitted by thy predeces­sors to the knowledge of the See Apostolike, it could be of no force.

That this Canon was neuer allowed by the See Apo­stolike, you know, but shift it off sayingPag 112.: Truly it were more then maruell, if the Church of Rome should admit any Canon, that may any way derogate from her presumption This your ans­were is, as if the lower house of Parliament should enact a law against the Kings iust and lawfull authority, or at least without his knowledge: and the King not admitting therof, you should iustify their acte, saying (a): It were more then maruell if the King should admit any acte that may any way de­rogate from his presumption: Were this loyalty? Were this good Doctrine? Yet such is yours: for concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires, the Pope hath the same place in a generall Coun­cell, [Page 338]that a King hath in his Parliament. And as no Statute enacted in Parliament can be of force, vnlesse it be confir­med by his Maiesty, so no Canon, nor decree of a Councell can be of force, vnlesse it be confirmed by the Pope.

SECT. VI. That no Canon of any Councell can be of force, vntill it be confirmed by the See Apostolike.

FOr who knoweth not, that, as Socrates shewing the decrees of the Arian Councell at Antioch, to be of no force, saythL. 2. c. 5.: Iulius B. of Rome was not there, nor sent any in his steed, wheras the Ecclesiasticall Canon commandes, that no decrees be made for the Churches, without the sentence of the B. of Rome. Which Doctrine is els where repeated by himselfeL. 2. c. 13., and by Epiphanius Scholasticus in the Tripartite, sayingL. 4. c. 9.: Councells must not be held without the allowance of the B of Rome. And by Sozomen,L. 3. c. 9. who writes, that Iulius rebuked the A­rians, for that against the lawes of the Church they had not called him to the Synod, there being a Sacerdotall law, which declareth all Actes to be inualid, that are made without the allowance of the B of Rome. The reprehension of Iulius, which these Historians men­tion, is exstant in his first Epistle to the Orientalls, where he sayth: The Nicen Canons command that by no meanes Councells be held without the B. of Rome. And in his secōd Epistle (which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology) spea­king to the Arians: Are you ignorant that the custome is, that if any exceptions were taken against the Bishops there, we should first haue bene written to, that what is iust might be determined from hence?

And how ancient this custome is, Marcellus the first a holy Pope and Martyr testifieth, sayingEp. ad E­pise. Antioch. Prouin.: The Apostles or­deyned, 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 speciall law in these wordsConst. Nouel. Theo. tit. 24.: We decree, that according to the ancient cu­stome, nothing be innouated in the Churches, without the sentence of [Page 339]the Reuerend Pope of the City of Rome. And in like manner Iu­stinian in his Law to Epiphanius Patriarke of Constanti­nopleCod. tit. 1. l. 7.: We preserue the estate of the Vnity of the most holy Chur­ches in all things, with the most holy Pope of ancient Rome, to whom we haue written the like, because we will not haue any thing to passe concerning the affayres of the Church, which shall not be also referred to his Blessednesse, because he is the Head of all the holy Prelatet of God. And in his letter to the PopeCod. tit. 1. l. 8.: We wil not suffer that any thing be treated of, belonging to the estate of the Church, though cleare and manifest, which shall not also be referred to your Holynesse, who are the Head of all Churches.

Vpon this ground it was, that Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria was accused, and by the Popes command pu­nished in the Councell of ChalcedonAct. 1., for, that he had temerariously presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike, which neither was, nor could euer lawfully be done. And Euagrius in the history of the same Councell, repor­tesL. 2. c. 18. that the Senators demanding of Leo's Legates, what charge there was against Dioscorus, they answered, that he must yeld an ac­count of his iudgment, because against right he had vsurped the person of a Iudge, without the B. of Romes permission. Wherupon by the iudgment of the Synod he was commanded as a person guilty to stand vp in the middest of the place, and accused of many crimes, as the same Narration declareth.

Againe from this ground it proceeded, that (as the Fa­thers of Chalcedon testifyAct. 10., in generall Councells the Legates of the See Apostolike were alwayes wont to speake, and confirme the decrees made, in the first place, be­fore all other Bishops. And as all those Councells generall and particular which haue required and obtained Confir­mation from the See Apostolike, haue euer bene held valid, and reuerenced throughout the Christian world; so con­trarily all those that haue wanted this confirmation, haue bene reiected, and condemned as vnlawfull, and spurious assemblies. The Councell of Ariminum for number of Bi­shops, was exceeding great; and yet for want of this con­firmation, the profession of fayth made by them in that Councell, as also the Councell it selfe, haue euer bene repu­ted [Page 340]inualid. The number of Bishops assembled at Ariminum (sayth Damasus with many other BishopsTheod. l. 2. c. 22. Sozom. l. 6. c. 23. ought to haue no force of preiudice for as much as that profession of fayth was made without the consent of the B. of Rome, whose sentence before others, ought to haue bene attended. Againe, for want of this confirmation the second Councell of Ephesus hath alwayes bene condem­ned as a piraticall Synod. And that famous Martyr Stepha­nus Iunior, speaking of a Councell held by the Image-breakers vnder Constantinus Copronymus, answeredApud Damas. edit. Pacis an. 1603. part. 2. pag. 491.: How can this Councell be called Oecumenical, which was not allowed by the B. of Rome, without whose authority no Ecclesiasticall decrees can be made. In like manner Pelagius predecessor to S. Gre­gory speaking of Iohn B of Constantinople saythEp. 1.: That intituling himselfe Vniuersall, he presumed to call a general Councell, wheras the authority of calling generall Synods, hath bene consigned by a singular priuiledge to the Apostolike See of blessed Peter &c. And therfore (sayth heIbid. to the Bishops of that Councell) all that you haue decreed in that no-Synod of yours (for Synod so at­tempted it could not be, but a Conuenticle) I ordaine by the authori­ty of blessed Peter, that it be annulled and abrogated. And S. Gre­gory speaking of this sentence of Pelagius, saythL. 4. op. 38. & l. 7. ep. 70.: Our Predecessor Pelagius of blessed memory, hath disanulled by a sentence entirely valid, all the actes of that Synod, except what concerned the cause of Gregory B. of Antioch.

Finally to adde more proofes for the confirmation of a truth so certaine, were to adde light to the Sunne, starres to the Heauens, and water to the Ocean. These sufficiently shew, that you by confessing, that this Canon of the Coun­cell of Constantinople was neuer admitted by the Church of Rome, discouer your folly, in insisting so much on a Ca­non, which for want of due confirmation is inualid.

SECT. VII. That the Bishops of Constantinople knew this Canon to be of no force.

YOu aske;Pag. 112. Which of the Fathers, for the space of 60. yea­res after, opposed against this Canon? What one Bishop before [Page 341]Pope Leo thought is not most equall? I answeare, that this Ca­non was so farre from being allowed, either by the Popes, or other Fathers of that tyme, that because it was not con­firmed by the See Apostolike, it presently dyed: and the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged themselues still subiect to the Pope, and the Pope exercised his iuris­diction ouer them, as formerly he had done.

For this Councell of Constantinople being held in the tyme of Nectarius Patriarke of that Citty, S. Chrysostome that was his immediat Successor, being deposed at the pro­curement of Eudoxia the Empresse, by a Councell of Bi­shops held at Constantinople vnder Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria, had recourse by letters of appeale to Inno­centius Pope, beseeching him to disanull by his letters, and authority, the Actes of that Councell; to abrogate their sentence of condemnation iniustly pronoūced against him, to restore him to his Bishopricke, and punish his aduersaries according to the Canons of the Church; yet not with such rigor, but that if they did repent, he would be pleased to spare them. All these particulars are the requests of S. Chry­sostome expressed in his letters to InnocētiusEp. 1. & 2. ad Inno­cent.: in which who seeth not, that he acknowleged in him the power of an absolute Iudge, not only ouer himselfe, but also ouer Theophilus the greatest Patriarke of the East, and ouer the whole Councell, that had condemned him?

Chrysostome was no sooner thrust out of his See, and sent into banishment, but his enemies set vp Arsacius in his place, who liuing not much aboue a yeare, Innocentius would neuer 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, Chrysostome yet li­uing. Him likewise Innocentius excommunicatated: and notwithstanding that he sent many embassages, to procure absolution he could neuer obteyne it, vntill he had inrolled the name of Chrysostome in the records of the Church, as Innocentius ordeinedTheod. l. 5. c. 34..

Sone after him succeded Nestorius, who being fallen [Page 342]into heresy, was by the authority and command of Pope Celestine excommunicated, & deposed in the first Coun­cell of EphesusSee the next Chap. sect. 1..

In his place Maximianus a man of excellent vertue was ordained by the Legates of the See Apostolike, and confir­med by Celestine Pope: and who, in acknowledgment of the See Apostolike, writ a famous Epistle to the Orientals. Part of his words you haue heard aboueChap. 1. sect. 4..

After him succeeded Flauianus, who hauing condem­ned Eutyches in a Synod at Constantinople, and being therfore deposed in the second Councell of Ephesus by meanes of Dioscorus, an hereticall Patriarke of Alexan­dria, appealed to Leo Pope. Fliuianus (saith Liberatus)In breuiar. c. 22. appealed to the Apostolike See by petition presented to his Le­gates. The same is testified by Leo himselfeEp. 24., and by Valentinian the third to Theodosius his Father in lawIn Ep. preamb. Con­cil. Chalced..

These examples are so many testimonies of your ig­norance. You aske, which of the Fathers for the space of 60. yeares (after the Councell of Constatinople) opposed against this Canon, or what one Bishop before Leo thought it not equall? But we contrarily demand of you, which of the Bishops of Constantinople (in whose fauor this Canon was made) for the space of 70. yeares, which passed betweene the two Councells of Constantinople, and Chalcedon, did clayme any priuiledge of honor, ouer the other Patriarkes of the East, or any exemption from the Popes iurisdiction, by vertue of this Canon▪ Or what Pope in those 70. yeares did thinke it equall? The examples alleaged conuince, that the most famous Bishops of Constantinople, which liued in that tyme, knew the Canon to be of no force; since in the wronges done them by other Patriarkes, and Councells of the East, they neuer alleaged it in their owne defence, but still appealed to the Popes of those tymes, as to their law­full Iudges: and the Popes thought their appeales, to be most equall, and iust: & absoluing them, condemned their aduersaries.

And finally, that this Canon tooke no effect, is a thing evident, by the answere which the Popes Legates made, [Page 343]when Anatolius B. of Constantinople attempted to haue it renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon: for hauing said, that it was not to be found in the Code of the Canons of the vniuersall Church, they addedAct. 1 [...].: If the Bishops of Constantinople haue en­ioyed it, what would they haue more? And if they haue not enioyed it, why do they now require it?

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 Patriarke of Constantinople (who held that in Christ there were two per­sons, diuine, and humane, and that ther­fore the B. Virgin Mary was the mo­ther of man only and not of God) con­demned it first at Rome, and then made Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria his Vicar in the East, giuing him Commis­sion to publish, and execute his sentence at Constantino­ple. This he signified to Nestorius himselfeConc. Ephes. to. 1. c. 17. sin.: We haue sent (sayth Celestine) the forme of this iudgment, together with the [Page 344]whole processe to our holy fellow-Bishop of Alexandria, to the end that he being made our Vicar, may notify this our Decree vnto all, And giuing Commission to Cyrill to publish and execute his sentence, he saythEp. ad Cy­ril. in Conc. Ephes to. 1. c. 16.: Adding to thee the authority of our See, and vsing with power the representation of our place, thou shalt exe­cute exactly and seuerely this sentence, namely, that if within ten dayes told, after signification of this admonition made to Nestorius, he do not in expresse words anathematize his wicked Doctrines &c. thy Holinesse shall prouide for that Church without delay, and declare him to be wholly cut off from our body. Who seeth not that these words of Celestine import a command to Cyrill? And in conformity to this command, Cyrill writ to the Clergy, & people of ConstantinopleConc. E­phes. to. 1. c. [...]5.: We are constrayned to signify to Nestorius by Synodicall letters: that if very speedily, that is, within the tyme prescribed by the most holy Bishop of the Roman Church, he renounce not the Nouelties of his Doctrine, he is to haue no more com­munion with vs, not place among the Minister of God▪ And the Councell it selfe proceeding to the sentence of condemna­tion against him, saythConc. 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 teares, to pronounce this heauy sentence against him. And then they couch the sentence it selfe in these wordsIbid.: Therfore our Lord Iesus Christ whom Nestorius hath assailed with his blasphemies, by this holy Synod pronounceth him wholly depriued of all Episcopall dignity, and cast out from all company, and conuersation of Priests.

These passages proue the authority of the Pope. 1. Ouer Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria whom he made his Vicar, and who acknowledged himselfe bound by Celestines let­ters, to condemne Nestorius, and cast him out from among the Ministers of God. 2. Ouer the Patriarke of Constanti­nople, whom he first condemned at Rome, and afterwards gaue command to Cyrill, to publish his condemnation at Constantinople, and to substitute another Bishop in his place. And 3. ouer the Councell of Ephesus, in which the Bishops professeEuagr. l. 1. c. 4., that they were compelled necessarily by the force of the Canons, and by the letters of Celestine, to condemne Ne­storius: Which (sayth Bellarmine) was to professe that they depo­sed [Page 345]him by the command of Pope Celestine. False (say youPag. 114.: There is not the word Command vsed by the Councell &c. No, you know well, that to command, was not the stile of Popes in primitiue, and ancient tymes. S. Gregory B. of Rome 150. yeares after Celestine, did vtterly abhorre it. I command (sayth he)? Away with the word Command: I haue not commanded. And the same you repeate afterwards againePag. 233.. And to persuade your readers, that the passages alleaged containe no Command of Celestine to Cyril, or to the Councell, you shift them off sayingPag. 115.; Those Fathers confesse, they were moued, 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 euasion cannot serue: 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 compell, but Commands. And what more cleare, then that Celestine did exercise the authority of a Iudge, and Commander, in ordayning Cyrill to execute exactly, and se­uerely the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius, if he did not within ten dayes after admonition giuen him, anathematize his here­ticall Doctrine? Was this only to persuade? Was it not most stri­ctly, and properly to command? Vnlesse you will say, that when his Maiesty (without vsing the word Command) gi­ues strict charge to his Iudges, to condemne a Malefactor, he commands them not, but only persuades them to condemne him.

But you sayPag. 115., Those Fathers were compelled by Celestines letters, and by the Canons: and therfore not wholly by his letters, but only in part. What then? If the Iudges say, they are compelled by the lawes, and by his Maiesties letters to condemne a malefactor, doth it therfore follow, that his Maiesty hath no authority to command the Iudges, or that his letters were not mandatory to them, but only persuasiue? with such poore euasions you deceaue your disciples.

But you sayPag. 114.: We well know, that to command, was not the style of Popes in primitiue and ancient times. Pardon vs Syr, we well know, that you speake vntruly, and ignorantly: for [Page 346]Victor the first Pope of that name who liued 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 [...] Euseb. l. 5. hist. c. 24.. 2. Anthetus that liued in the beginning of the next age, writ to the Bishops of Andaluzia, & Toledo: These things we command to be obserued, according to your desire Apud. Bin. to. 1. pag. 145.. Stephen the first of that name writing to S. Cyprian, comman­ded that such as were baptized by hetetikes, should not be rebaptized: Let nothing be innouated (sayth he)Vincent. Lyr. aduers. haer. c. 9. but the an­cient to adition abserued. And notwithstanding the opposition of S. Cyptian, of Firmi [...]ian [...]s, and many other learned Pre­lates, this command of Stephen preuailed, and the contrary doctrine was condemned by the Councell of Nice, as he­reticall. 4. Iulius the first of that name, rebuked the Arians Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. because they had rashly depersed Athanasius, and other Catholike Bi­shops, and commanded that some of them in the name of all, should appeare at Rome on a set day, to giue [...]ccempt of the iustice of their sentence, and threatned not to let them passe without punishment, vn­lesse they did leaue to innouate. And both Theodore [...] L. 2. hist. c. 4. & S. A­thanasiusApol. 2. out of an vndoubted Epistle of the same Pope, report, that following the Ecclesiasticall law, h [...] commanded the Arian Bishops to come to Rome, and su [...]ned Athanasius can [...]nic al­ly to present himselfe in iudgment: and that as soone as he receaued the citation, he transported himselfe in diligence to Rome.

What thinke you of these examples? Was it not the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregory, to command, and to command the greatest Patriarkes of the East? But let vs goe on. 5. Anastasius the second of that name speaking to Ana­stasius the Emperor saythIn ep. ad Anastas. Aug.: Let not Pride make resistance to the Apostolicall precepts, but those things which are commanded by the Roman Church and Apostolicall authority, let them be obserued. 6. when Aurelius Bishop of Carthage writ to Damasus Pope for a copy of all the decrees and Statutes ordeined by the Roman Church since S. Peter to his tyme, he sent them to him, sayingEp. 5.; We wish you to obserue them, and command you to publish them, that with due reuerence they may be kept by all. The African Bishops acknowledgeEp. ad Bo­nifac. in Con­cil. Africa. c. 101., that they had recea­ued [Page 347]from the Pope, Mandata & literas, Mandates and letters. 8. Gelasius a learned & holy Pope maketh expresse mention of the decrees and commandes of the Popes his predecessor for the good of the ChurchEp. [...]. 9. Leo the great writing to Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople testifiethEp. 4 [...]. that he bath enioyned him the execution of his decree. And in his first Epistle which is to all Bishops, he sayth: All the decrees and constitutions, as well of Innocentius of blessed memory, as of all our predecessers, we command your Dilection to keepe, so, that if any one contemne them, he may know, that pardon shall be denied him. And to the Bishops of MauriraniaEp. 8 [...].: We command, that the cause of Lupicinus Bishop be heard there, whom we haue restored to our com­munion, he himselfe earnestly, and often desiring it.

These few testimonies of holy and renowned Popes that liued before S. Gregory, are sufficient to shew, how ignorantly you affirme, that it was not the style of Popes in the ancient and primitiue tymes to Command.

And as the ancient Popes commanded, when it was ne­cessary for them to shew their authority; so the Bishops, euen the greatest Patriarkes, acknowledged in them au­thority to command, and in themselues subiection, and o­bligation to obey. For did not S. Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius his citation, obey, taking his iourney from Aegypt to RomeTheoder. l. 2. hist. c. 4.? and doth he not professe his subiection to Mar­cus PopeEp. ad Marc., when he sayth: We are yours, and with all that are committed to our charge, are, and will euer be obedient to you? And do not the African Fathers writing to Bonifacius Pope promise, to obey his Mandates, vntill a more diligent inquisition of the Nicen Canons? And do not the Fathers of the Mileuitan Councell beseech Innocentius the first, to shew his autho­rity against the Pelagians? Many (say they)Ep. ad Innocent. oppose against them, in defence of Grace, and the truth of the Catholike fayth &c. But we belieue, that with the helpe of the mercy of our Lord Iesus Christ, they that hold these opinions so peruerse, and pernicious, will more easily yeld to the authority of your Holinesse, drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptures. And when Paschasinus B. of Lilibaea, & Lucentius of Ascoli, Legates of Leo pope, said to the Councell of ChalcedonConc. Chalced. Act. 1., We haue in our hands the [Page 348]Commands of the blessed and Apostolike Prelate of the Citty of Rome, wherby he hath vouchsafed to ordaine, that Dioscorus sit not in the Councell; and that if he offer to do it, he be cast out, because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge, he attempted it, and presumed to hold a Synod, without the authority of the See Apostolike, which neuer was lawfull, nor hath euer benedone. And did not the Councell obey the Popes command, causing Dioscorus not to sit among the Bishops, as a Iudge, but as a person guilty, to stand in the midest of the place to yeld account of hid proceedings? And did not the Bishops of Dardania in their Epistle to Gelasius, acknowledge, that they had receaued his commands with due reuerence, and thanke him that he had vouchsafed to visit them with his Pastorall admonitions? And did not the Bishops of France in the second Councell of Tours, sayCan. 21.: Our Fa­thers haue alwayes obserued, what the authority of the See Apostolike hath commanded? And when Chrysostome was deposed by a Councell of Bishops at Constantinople, did he not ap­peale to Innocentius Pope, and petition him in these wor­desEp. 1. ad Innocent.: Vouchsafe to command, that these things so wickedly done, we being absent, and not refusing iudgment, may not be valide, as in truth they are not; and that they which haue caried themselues so in­iustly, may be submitted to the punishment of the Ecclesiasticall lawes? And when Theodoret B. of Cyre was deposed in the se­cond Councell of Ephesus, did he not write to Leo Pope:Ep. ad Leon. I attend the sentence of your Apostolike Throne, and beseech your Holinesse, to succour me appealing to your right, and iust iudgment, & to command that I transport my selfe to you, and verify that my Do­ctrine followes the Apostolike steps? And finally did not the Em­perors Theodosius & ValentinianNouel. Theod. tit. 24. publish a law which ordeynes, that to all Bishops those thinges shall be lawes which haue bene, or shall be ordeyned by the Apostolike See; in such sorte, that whatsoeuer Bishop being called by the Pope, shall refuse to appeare, shall be constrayned therunto by the Gouernor of the Prouince.

These, and a thousand more examples which may be alleaged, conuince, that it was the stile of ancient Popes before S. Gregories tyme to command, when necessity requi­red it; and that all Bishops, and generally all Christians ac­knowledged this power in the Popes, and in themselues obligation to obey.

And as for S. Gregory in particular, who (say you): vt­terly abhorred the word Command, as he was a man of ad­mirable humility, so his gouerment was not dominiering in the Clergy, but according to the commandment of ChristLue. 2 [...].27., and of S. Peter his predecessor1. Pet. 5.2., with great meekenesse and humility: and therfore writing to Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria he wisheth him,L. 7. ep. [...]5. not to mention any command of his: for, when crimes exact it not (sayth he) all Bishops according to the condition of humility are equall. And in many places of his workes he teachethL. 4. ep. 38. l. 2. Pasto. c. 7. Hom. 18. in Ezechiel., that, the Ecclesiasticall Gouernor ought to make himselfe a companion, and equall to his subiects; and whiles they do well, to preferre himselfe before them in nothing: but yet so, that if they offend, he shew his power, and authority in corre­cting them. This therfore is the reason, why in his Epistle to Eulogius (which you obiect) he beseecheth him not to say, that he commanded: for being he writ not to him, to taxe him of any crime, or offence committed, though by the autho­rity of his place he knew himselfe to be his Superior, yet by humility, he made himselfe his equall, and wished him not to say that he commanded: for (sayth he) I commanded not, but endeauored to signify those things, which are profitable.

All which notwithstanding, the same S. Gregory to shew, that in authority and iurisdiction, he was Superior to Eulogius, and all other Bishops, and had power to com­mand, and punish them, when they ossended, saythL. 7. ep. 64.: For wheras the Patriarke of Constantinople confesseth himselfe subiect to the See Apostolike, I know no Bishop that is not subiect to it.

And what he professed in words, he practised in dee­des, commanding, and exercising his iurisdiction ouer the Bishops of all Christian nations, as out of his writings, and the confessions of our owne more learned brethren, I haue formerly prouedChap. 15. sect. 3.. But because you so boldly auerre, that he vtterly abhorred the word Command Pag. 114., I will briefly shew, how ignorantly, and vntruly you speake: for to An­themius he writethL. 11. ep. 35.: Because notice hath bene giuen vs, that the Bishops of Campania are negligent &c. therfore with this autho­rity we command you, to call them together, and by vertue of our Command, to giue them a strict charge, that hereafter they be not [Page 350]slouthfull, but by their cariage shew themselues to haue the zeale, and solicitude which becometh Priestes, and that they be vigilant in these things which it is fitting for them to do iustly according to God, that hereafter no complaints may be made of them. And if you finde any of them to be negligent, send him to vs without excuse, that he may feele by Canonicall punishment, how grieuous an offence it is, not to a­mend those thinges which are reprehensible. And in the priuiledge which he granted to the Monastery of S. MedardusL. 12. Epi­stolarum sin. & alias l. 2. post ep. 38.: If any King, Bishop, Iudge or secular person whatsoeuer, shall violate the de­crees of this Apostolicall and our Command, let him be depriued of his honor, be he of neuer so high a degree. I know that Bellarmine al­leaging this decree, you tell vs out of Doctor IamesPag. 179. (a man of as much credit as your selfe) that it is forged, wheras that most holy and learned Pope Gregory the seauenth, which liued 600. yeares nearer the tyme of S. Gregory, then Doctor Iames, and had better meanes to know, what writings of his were legitimate and what spurious, allea­geth it as his vndoubted Epistle. And his testimony you disproue no otherwise, then by rayling against him, whom yet (as hereafter I shall shewChap. 32. sect. 3. the Historians of that age, and among them the two S. Anselmes of Canterbury, and Luca, highly extoll for one of the most admirable Prelates that euer sate in the Chayre of S. Peter; and whose sanctity God himselfe testified with many most famous miracles.

But howsoeuer you carpe at this decree of S. Gregory, Bellarmine in the same placeCont. Bar­ [...]. c. 40. alleageth another of the same tenor, granted by him to an Hospitall built in Au­stum by Brunichildes Queene, & Syagrius Bishop of that City, which because you know not how to shift of, you slily passe ouer without mentioning it, notwithstanding S. Gregories authority and command is no lesse effectually expressed in it, then in the former. I conclude therfore, that (as this holy Doctor confesseth)L. 4. ep. [...]6. he had learned from the Apostle to cary humility in his hart, and yet to preserue the honor and dignity of his place, commanding, and denouncing punish­ment to offenders, when it was needfull.

SECT. II. The Councell of Ephesus acknowledged the supreme au­thority of the Pope in the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch.

HAuing shewed that the Councell of Ephesus deposed Nestorius by the commandment of Pope Celestine, and that it was the ancient custome of the best and holiest Popes to Command, when the affaire required it, let vs goe on with youPag. 115. to the cause of Iohn Patriarke of Antioch, whom the Councell of Ephesus durst not iudge, but reserued him to the iudgment of Celestine Conc. E­phes. to. 4. c. 17. in ep. ad Celestin, Pa­pam.. This againe (say we) sheweth the supreme authority of the Pope. You deny it, because: Those Fathers in the same Epistle report, that they had diuested him of all Sacerdotall power, and deposed him, before they made any relation therof to Celestine Pope. False. For their words areIn eadem ep.: Moued with the indignity of his proceeding, we would haue pronounced a­gainst him such a sentence, as he had pronounced against those, that were not conuicted of any crime. But to the end, that we might with lenity ouercome his rashnesse, we haue reserued his sentence to the iudgment of you Piety, and in the meane tyme, we haue excommuni­cated him, & diuested him of all Sacerdotall power. These words euidently conuince against you, that those Fathers to gaine Iohn with lenity, and hoping that he might be reclaimed (as afterwards in the time of Sixtus Pope he was) pronoun­ced not any absolute and finall sentence against him, ac­cording to his deserts, but reserued that to Celestine, as to his supreme Iudge: yet they excommunicated him in the meane time, and (as they say to the EmperorEp. ad Theodos. to. 4. c. 8. tantisper, for a while suspended him from the exercise of his Episcopall function, that he might not hurt others. And the same is gathered out of Celestines Epistle to the CouncellApud Bin. to. 1. pag. 628., in which he sayth, that, after their sentence against Iohn, diuers things remained to be considered, and determined by him. And this proceeding of the Ephesine Councell against Iohn, was afterwards imita­ted by the sixth Councell generall, in the cause of Maca­rius [Page 352]another Patriarke of Antioch, as the Emperor Con­stantine Pogonate reportes in these wordsIn 6. Sy­nod. Act. 18.: Macarius B. of Antioch, and his adhereurs, haue bene deposed by the consent of the whole Councell, and reserued to the discretion of the most holy Pope.

It is therfore euident, that both these Councells acknow­ledged the giuing of the last and definitiue sentence against those Patriarkes, to belong to the Pope: which is also con­firmed by the words of Iuuenall B. of Hierusalem vttered in presence of the whole Councell of Ephesus:To. 4. c. 4. apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 794. It is fit (said he) that Iohn the right reuerend B. of Antioch, honoring this great, holy, and Oecumenicall Councell, haue recourse hither, to iusti­fy himselfe, of what is obiected against him, and that he honor, and obey the Apostolike throne of great Rome; especially since the custome of Apostolike tradition and practise is, that the seat of Amioch be per­petually ruled, and iudged by that of Rome.

I appeale to the reader, whether these Councells did not acknowledge the supreme power of the B. of Rome, in re­seruing to him the last sentence in the causes of these two great Patriarkes. What then may we thinke of you, that haue the boldnesse to out-face so manifest a truth?

SECT. III. Of the ordination of the Bishops of Cyprus, treated in the Councell of Ephesus.

BVt there remaines one, which youPag. 116. call, A principall obiection, and it is, that wheras Reginus, Zenon and E­uagrius Bishops of Cyprus had by a petition presented to the Councell of Ephesus made complaint of the Patriarke of AntiochTo. 2. Append. 1. c. 4., That contrary to the ancient custome practised from the tyme of the Apostles, and contrary to the Canons of Nice, he had presumed to ordeyne Bishops in that Iland; the Councell decreed, Ibid. that, no Bishop should encroath vpon the liberties of any other, nor draw vnder his subiection any Prouince, which belonged not to him from the beginning: and therfore, that if the ancient custome were not, for the Bishop of Antioch, to ordaine Bishops in Cyprus, he should not trouble the Bishops of that Iland, but leaue to them the or­dination [Page 353]of their owne Bishops. This Decree you will haue 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 Councell soeuer, is powerfull to limit his authority, nor hath force further then it is confirmed by him, as hath bene proued; as also be­cause he is not only Bishop of the Roman Dioces in parti­cular, but of the vniuersall Church. Other Bishops (sayth S. Bernard)L. 2. de Confider. c. 9., according to the Canons, are called to a part of solici­tude; he to the fullnesse of power: the power of other Bishops is confi­ned to certaine limits; his is extended also to them that haue recea­ued power ouer others. He, if there because can shut Heauen to a Bi­shop, and depose him from his Bishoprick. He, can erect new Bisho­pricks S. Bernar. ep. 131. where they were not? He, of Bishopes, can make Archbishops, and contrarywise of Archbishops, Bishops, if reason so dictate vnto him. Wherfore albeit as considered in the quality of a parti­cular Bishop of the Roman Dioces, he cannot ordaine Bi­shops out of that Dioces, more then other Bishops can out of theirs, yet as he is Pastor, and Bishop of the vniuersall Church, he can depose and ordaine Bishops in other Dio­ceses, as Agapet deposed Anthymus Patriarke of Constan­tinople, and ordeyned Menas in his place. And the Eccle­siasticall histories are full of examples of the same nature: which therfore conuince, that the Councell of Ephesus by that decree intended not to prescribe any limits of iurisdi­ction to the Pope, but only to command all particular Bi­shops not to entrench vpon the liberties of others: which decree Celestine Pope confirmed with all the rest of that CouncellEp. 2. ad Syn. Ephes., as no way contrary to his Vniuersall autho­rity.

SECT IV. Whether it may be gathered out of the Councell of Ephe­sus, that the authority of the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell.

YOu sayPag. 115.: If the Councell could not depose Nestorius, with­out the Popes mandate, nor durst depose Iohn Patriarke of An­tioch, [Page 354]but reserued the cause to the iudgment of the Pope, the issue must be directly this, that the Pope is absolutely aboue a generall Coun­cell. And was not this (say youPag 116. more then holdnesse in your Car­dinall (Bellarmine) to inferre this supreme authority out of this Councell? O egregious imposture! Bellarmine only relateth what passed in the Councell, namely that those Fathers durst not pronounce a definitiue, and vltimate sentence a­gainst the two Patriarkes, but reserued it to Celestine Pope, as to the supreme Iudge of all Bishops. Your guilty con­science telling you, that the issue therof directly must be, that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell, you make that inference out of the Councell against your selfe, and falsly father it on Bellarmine: for though els where he defend, that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell, yet neither there, nor here he makes any such inference out of this Councell of Ephesus. And no lesse imposterous is your alleaging the Councells of Constance, and Basil, against that Doctrine of Bellar­mine: for the Councell of Basil is a damned Conuenticle: and that of Constance, when it defined a Councell to be a­boue the Pope, was not a generall Councell, nor speaketh of him that is certainly known to be true Pope, but of three Popes in tyme of Schisme, when it was doubtfull which of them, or indeed whether any of them, were true Pope. Nor was that decree euer confirmed, but expresly condem­ned by the Councells of Florence, and Lateran, as (you know) BiniusTo. 1. Not. ad Con­cil. Constan. pag. 1662. and BellarmineL. 2. de Conc. c. 17. haue obserued.

But to proue that the Pope is not aboue a Councell you vrgePag. 116. out of Stapleton, that the contrary was neuer expresly decreed in any Councell. But in this you are as false, as in the rest: for you cite Stapleton in his thirteenth booke, De principijs doctrinalibus, wheras in that worke, he hath but twelue bookes in all. But be the proposition his, or whose you please, and be it that no Councell hath expresly defined that the Pope is aboue a Councell, doth it therfore follow, that the Doctrine is not true? Is nothing true, but what is defined in Councells? Who seeth not how inconsequent this your consequence is?

SECT. 1. That Leo Pope called the Councell of Chalcedon by his Authority, and presided in it by his Legates.

OVT of the famous Councell of Chalce­don (one of the foure which S. Grego­ryL. 1. ep. 24. reuerenced as the 4. Ghospells) the supreme authority of the B. of Rome ouer the whole Church, is proued many wayes, 1. Because this Councell was cal­led by his authority: If it please your Ho­linesse (sayth Martian the Emperor to Leo Pope)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 meete at a set place, where your Holinesse shall please to appoint, and by their wisdome declare those things which may be profitable for Christian Religion, and the Ca­tholike fayth, as your Holinesse, according to the Ecclesiasticall rules, shall define. And Pulcheria the Empresse writing to the same PopeExtat epist. ibid.: Your Reuerence vouchsafe to signify, according as you haue ordeyned, that all the Bishops of the East, of Thracia, and Il­lyria, may come together into one Citty, and by your authority deter­mine there in a holy Councell, what the Christian fayth and your Pie­ty require, concerning the Catholike profession, and the Bishops which [Page 356]haue bone excommunicated. And the Bishops of the second Maesia in their Epistle to Leo the EmperorApud Bi [...]. to. 2. pag. 154.: Ma [...]y holy Bi­shops were assembled in the Citty of Chalcedon, by the commandment of Leo B. of Rome, who is truly the Head of all Bishops. And Gela­sius Pope 40. yeares after the Councell of ChalcedonDe Ana­them. vincu­lo.: The See Apostolike delegated the Councell of Chalcedon to be held for the common fayth, and the Catholike and Apostolike truth. And a­gaineIbid.: The Pope alone ordeyned, that by his authority the Coun­cell of Chalcedon should be held.

2. And, as by his authority he called this Councell, so by his Legates he presided in it. My Brethren (sayth he) spea­king of this CouncellEp. 94. presided in my steed in the Orientall Sy­nod. And writing to the Councell it selfeEp. 47.: Your brotherhood is to conceaue, that in these my brethren Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops, Bonifacius and Basill Priests, which are sent by the See Apo­stolike, 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 Empresse he saythEp. 5 [...].: that by those his brethren he sent to the Councell instructions in writing, what forme they ought to obserue in their iudgment. And finally the Councell it selfe acknow­ledged, that the Pope presided in it: You (say they to Leo)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 faythfull 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 bene lately committed in the second false Councell of Ephesus. Who seeth not, that the whole Councell in these words acknowledged the Pope to be their Superior, and themselues to be his subiects, since they professe that, he ru­led ouer them, at the head doth ouer the members.

SECT. II. That the Councell of Chalcedon by the authority of Leo Pope deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus, and re­stored Theodoret.

THe supreme authority of the Pope is yet further pro­ued out of the Councell of Chalcedon: For Flauia­nus [Page 357]Patriarke of Constantinople, hauing reckoned vp the enormities of Eutyches, requested Leo Pope to confirme the sentence of condemnation, which in a Coūcell at Con­stantinople he had pronounced against him: Moued then (saith heIn ep. praeambul. Concil. Chal­ced. most holy Father with all these attempts of Eutyches, & with those thinges which haue bene done, and are done against vs, and against the holy Church, worke confidently according to your courage, as it belongs to the Priesthood: and making the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches, your owne, Vouchsafe to confirme by your writings, the condemnation which hath bene regu­larty made against him. Leo according to this petition of Fla­uianus condemned Eutyches and depriued him of his dig­nity. Dioscorus (sayth the Councell of Chalcedon writing to LeoRelat. ad Leon. by the decrees of his tyranny hath declared Eutyches inno­cent, and restored to him the dignity, wherof he was depriued by your Holinesse. What els is this, but to say, that albeit Eutiches had bene condemned by Flauianus his owne Bishop, and law­full Iudge, yet afterwards, when Flauianus by Eutyches his negotiation being deposed in the false Councell of Ephe­sus, appealed to Leo Pope, and Leo declaring him inno­cent, deposed Eutyches; the Councell of Chalcedon im­braced this sentence of Leo, and attributed to him the finall deposition of Eutyches, as to the supreme Iudge, that had power to reiudge the iudgments of other Bishops? Which power Valentinian the third writing to Theodosius ac­knowledged, and declared in this very cause of Flauianus: We ought (sayth heIn ep. praeamb. Conc. Chalced. to preserue inuiolable in our dayes, the dignity of particular reuerence to the blessed Apostle Peter, that the holy Bishop of Rome, to whom antiquity hath attributed the Priest­hood aboue all, may haue place to iudge in matters of fayth, and of Bi­shops &c. For therfore according to the custome of Councells, the Bi­shop of Constantinople (Flauianus) appealed to him in the conten­tion which is risen about points of fayth.

The same power was like wise acknowledged by the Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of Theodoret Bishop of Cyre, who being deposed by the second Councell of Ephesus, appealed to Leo, and was restored by him, and therupon admitted to take his place in the Councell of [Page 358]Chalcedon: Let the right Reuerend Bishop Theodores come in (say the Emperors officers)Conc. Chalc. act. 1. that he may haue part in the Synod. because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Risho­prick, and the most sacred and religious Emperor hath ordayned, that he assist in the holy Councell.

Now, that the Emperor ordayned not this, as challen­ging any authority ouer Bishops, but only as one, that by his officers assisted at the Councell, to execute the Popes decrees, and to see peace, and good order kept, you haue heard the Councell testifySect. prae­ced.; and he himselfe declared the same, saying to Pope LeoIn ep. praeamb. Concil. Chalced.: Our desire is, that peace be resto­red to the Churches, by this Councell celebrated vnder your authority. The authority then is in the Pope, not in the Emperor.

And when the cause of Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexan­dria came to be examined, the Councell inquiring of the Popes Legates, what charge they had against him, Lu­centius one of them answearedAct. 1. & Euagr. l. 2. c. 18.: Dioscorus must yeld an ac­count of his Iudgement, because hauing no right to do the office of a Iudge, he attempted it, and presumed to hold a Synod without the authority of the See Apostolike; a thing, which nether was, nor cold euer lawfully be done. And Paschasinus another of the Legats:Act. 1. Wee haue here the commandes of the blessed and Apostolike Pre­late of the City of Rome, which is the Head of all Churches, wherby his Apostolate hath vouchsafed to command, that Dioscorus Archbi­shop of Alexandria sit not in the Councell, but yet that he be admitted to be heard. Wherupon the Councell commanded him not to sit as a Iudge, among the Bishops, but to stand in the middest, as a person accused, to answeare for himselfe.Euag. l. 2. c. 4. And the Councell hauing heard his whole cause, con­demned him, requesting the Popes Legates, to pronounce the sentence of condemnation against himAct. 3.: We beseech your Holinesse who haue the place, and primacy of the most holy Pope Leo, to pronounce the sentence against him. Wherupon the Le­gates Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Bonifacius pronoun­ced it in these wordsIbid. Therefore Leo the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome, hath by vs, 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 Catholike [Page 359]Church, and the foundation of the right fayth) deposed Dioscorus from the Episcopall dignity, and depriued him of all Sacerdotall function. To this sentence all the Bishops subscribed.

And it is to be noted, that wheras many most enor­mous crimes of Dioscorus are there rehearsedIbid., yet that which the Councell iudged 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 Councell exaggerating to Leo, saydRelat. ad Leon.: And after, and aboue all these things, he hath extended his phrensy euen against him, to whom the guard of the Vine hath bene committed by our Sauiour, that is to say, against your Apostolike Holinesse, and hath dictated an Excommunication against you, that seeke to vnite speedily the body of the Church. In which words the Councell plainly professeth, that the custody and charge of the whole Church (signified vnder the name of a Vine) was giuen to the Pope by our Sauiour; and that he, be­cause he is Head of the Church, laboreth to vnite the body thereof: which also they professe by acknowledgingIbid., that he ruled ouer them, as the Head doth ouer the members: and therfore beseeching him to confirme their decrees with his authority, they addeIbid.: We pray you to honor our iudgment with your decrees; and that as in what concernes the Weale, we haue held correspondence to our Head; so your Soueraignty wold fulfill vnto your Children what is fit and conuenient.

These testimonies so cleare, and pregnant, cannot but conuince the vnderstanding of any impartiall reader, that the Councell of Chalcedon beleeued the vniuersall autho­rity and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome, whom therefore the same Councell often callethAct. 1.2.3, Bishop of the vniuersall Church.

SECT. III. Whether the title of Vniuersall Bishop, which the Coun­cell of Chalcedon gaue to the Pope, argue in him no more, but a generall care of the good of the Church, such as belonges to euery Bishop, and to euery Christian.

OF all the proofes hereunto alleaged you take no no­tice, two only excepted, namely, of the title of Vni­nersall Bishop, and of the metaphor of a Vine, by which the Councell expresseth the vniuersall Church, sayingIn relat. ad Leon., that the custody therof is by Christ our Sauiour committed to the Pope. These two you call, Two postes to support the ruinous Monarchy of the B. of Rome. And your answeare to them, herePag. 117.118. and afterwards againePag. 236., is, that these attributes import no vni­uersall power of iurisdiction in the Pope, but of prouidence and care, which euery Bishop shold haue in wishing, and to his power endeauo­ring the vniuersall good of the whole Church. But if the words of the Councell import no more, it will follow that the cu­stody of the vniuersall Church (that is the gouerment ther­of) was by Christ committed not only to euery Bishop, but also to euery Christian man, and woman, who should wish, and to their power procure the vniuersall good of the whole Church.

But you obiectPag. 116.117. & 236. that Eleutherius Pope writing to the Bishops of France, sayth: The vniuersall Church of Christ is committed to you, that you may labor for all men: and that according to Binius his exposition, the meaning of Eleutherius is, that for as much as heretikes oppugne the Catholike and vniuersall Church, is belongeth to euery Bishop to haue an vniuersall care to defend, and support it. And this (say you) is a true answere indeed. But you speake vntruly, and interprete falsly: for Binius hath no such word as Vniuersall care: nor doth he speake of Bishops only, but sayth, that a care & solicitude of defending the vniuersall Church against heretikes belongeth not only to Bishops, but to euery Christian, for as much as we are commanded by God (Eccl. c. 4.) to [Page 361]fight fortruth, and iustice vntill death. How do these words of Binius proue that the Pope hath not, or that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledged him not, to haue authority, and iurisdiction ouer the vniuersall Church, but only a charitable care of her good, as S. Paul had, and as euery Bishop, and euery Christian man, and woman, according to their power are bound to haue? for did not that Councel giue to Pope Leo, the title of Vniuersall Archbishop and Patri­arke, or (as you set it downe)Pag. 235. of Bishop of the vniuersall Church? but, these words (say youIbid. were not the words of the Councell, but of two Deacons, writing to the Councell, and of Pas­chasinus the Popes Legate. False: for it was giuen to himAct. 3. in foure different petitions, of Theodorus, and Ischyrion, Deacons of Alexandria; of Athanasius a Priest of the same City; and of Sophronius: And the Councell approuing thereof, commanded theyr petitions to be registred in the Acts. Moreouer the same title was giuen him by Pascha­sinus, who though he were his legate, was a Reuerend Bi­shop; as also by Martian the Emperor, the Councell no way excepting therat. And did not S. Gregory, and after him, the Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas, testify, that the whole Councell of Chalcedon, with the following Fathers, gaue the same title to Leo Pope? And did not Leo (a man of admi­rable sanctity & learning) instyle himselfe Bishop of the vni­uersall Church? And did not the Regulars of Constantino­ple, and of Syria, and the Bishops of the Patriarkships of Antioch, and Hierusalem, giue the same tytle to Agape­tus Pope, in the Councell of Constantinople vnder MenasSee all this proued aboue Chap. 15. sect. 3.? Againe did not the Councell of Chalcedon acknow­ledge in Leo power to restore Theodoret to his Bishoprick of Cyre bordering vpon Persia, from which he had bene deposed in the second Councell of EphesusAct. [...].? Did it not acknowledge in him authority to depose Dioscorus the greatest Patriarch of the EastAct. 3.? Did not all those Fathers, being the representatiue body of the Vniuersall Church, professeIn relat. ad Leon., that Leo Pope did preside & rule ouer them, as the Head ouer the members? Is this Authority, common to euery Bi­shop? Or did Eleutherius, or the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge any such thing?

But he that will see, how imposterously you wrest the testimony of Eleutherius against the vniuersall power and iurisdiction of the B. of Rome, and against the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon, let him read the epistle, and he shall finde, that Eleutherius a litle before the words, which you obiect, declareth, that althought it be lawfull to exa­mine the accusations and crimes obiected against Bishops, either before their Metropolitans, or before the Bishops of their owne Prouince; yet that it is not lawfull to end them there, for as much as it hath bene decreed by the Apostles, & their Suc­cessors, that the finall decision of Bishops causes, is to be referred to the See Apostolike, and no others substituted in their places vntill their iudgments be ended at Rome. Can there be a more full expres­sion of the vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church, then to professe him to be the sole supreme Iudge of all Bishops? Or can there be a greater imposture, then to obiect this epistle of Eleutherius for the contrary?

SECT. IV. Whether the Councell of Chalcedon did giue to the B. of Constantinople priuiledges equall with the B. of Rome.

YOu obiect heerePag. 118., and often repeate, that the Fa­thers of Chalcedon, did giue priuiledges to the Patriarke of Con­stantinople equall with the Church of Rome. Answeare. The Fa­thers of Chalcedon in absence of the Popes Legates, & of the Patriarke of Alexandria, and of all the Bishopes of Aegypt, at the suggestion of Anatolius Patriarke of Con­stantinople renewed the decree of the 150. Fathers made in the first generall Councell of that City, which was, that, the B. of Constantinople shold haue the second place of honor, after the B. of Rome. And to this decree was added, that, he should haue equall priuiledges with the B. of Rome after him. But this ad­dition to the Canon, of equall priuiledges, was surreptitiously made, by the vsurpation of Anatolius, to augment his po­wer: for the Fathers of Chalcedon neuer owned it, as it appeares in this, that when they beseeched Leo Pope to [Page 363]confirme their decree, they made to him no mention of E­quall priuiledges, but only saidIn relat. ad Leon., We haue confirmed the rule of the 150. Fathers assembled at Constantinople, which ordeyned that after your most holy and Apostolike See, that of Constantinople should haue the second place of honor; which is to say, that as the B. of Rome had the Primacy absolutely ouer all the Patriarkes: so the B. of Constantinople should haue it after him, ouer all the other Patriarkes. So this Canon is reported by Eua­grius: It was decreed (sayth he)L. 2. c. 4. fin. that the See of new Rome by reason she held the second place after the ancient Rome, should haue the primacy before the other Sees. In which sense, and in no o­ther, SocratesL. 5. c. 8. testifieth this decree to haue bene made in the Councell of Constantinople, which was the source of all this pretence. And Iustinian the Emperor speaking of both these Councells, saythNoue [...]. 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 haue the second place after the See Apostolike of old Rome, and be preferred before all the other Sees. And long after that time the Emperor Basilius the yonger, and Eustathius Patriarke of ConstantinopleGlaber Rodulph. hist. l. 4. c. 1. de­sired, that it might be lawfull for them to obteyne with the consent of the Pope, that the Church of Constantinople might be called Vni­uersall; in the compasse therof, as the Pope of Rome, was in the com­passe of the whole world.

By this appeares, that although the Fathers of those two Councells, contrary to the decrees of Nice, endeauored by this Canon, to make the B. of Constantinople the first, and chiefest Patriarke of the East, and to conferre on him, after, & vnder the Pope, an vniuersal iurisdiction ouer the other Patriarkes; yet they neuer intended therby to put any limi­tation to the Vniuersall Iurisdiction of the Pope, ouer the whole Church; nor any way to exempt themselues, or the Patriarkes of Constantinople, from his subiection and obe­dience.

Which is also further proued. 1. By the testimonies of Zo­naras, and Nilus, both of them Greeke Schismatikes, and e­nemies to the Roman Church. Zonaras saythIn Conc. Constantin. 1. c. 3. that, wher­as the Councell of Constantinople ordeyned that the Bishop of that [Page 364]Citty should be the second after the Pope of Rome, some thinke, that the Preposition (after) importeth not inferiority, and submission, but only posteriority of tyme: and in proofe of this their opinion, they make vse of the 28. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon, which ordaynes, that new Rome shold be honored with the same ecclesiasticall preroga­tiues, as old Rome; and should be preferred in honor, before all the o­ther Churches, being the second after her. But this (sayth he) is refu­ted by the 130. Nouell of Iustinian, inserted into the third title of the fifth booke of the Basilikes▪ which giues the Canon to be otherwise vn­derstood. And therfore he concludeth sayingIbid.: From hence it appeares manifestly that the Preposition (after) signifies submission, and inferiority. And Nilus B. of ThessalonicaDe prima­tu P [...]pae l. 1.: We are not separated from peace, for attributing to our selues the primacy, nor for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome: for we neuer contested for primacy with the Roman Church.

2. The same is proued: 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 BishoprickSee aboue sect. praeced.; in confessingIn relat. ad Leon., themsel­ues 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 fauour of the B. of Constantinople: We haue (say they)Ibid. confirmed the decree of the 150. Fathers, confiding, that the beame Apostolike raigning amidst you, and you by your ordinary gouerment spreading it to the Church of Constantinople, you may cause it to shine into these partes, because you are wont without enuy, to enrich those of your linage, with the participation of your goods. Againe, if we speake of Anatolius in particular, who to augment his owne power, was the proiecter of this decree, how can it be thought, that he did not acknowledge him­selfe to be a spirituall subiect of the Pope? he I say, who be­ing made Patriarke of Constantinople by Dioscorus, in the false Councell of Ephesus, had no right to that See, but on­ly by the confirmation of Leo Pope, which afterwards he obteyned: in regard wherof Leo writing to Martian the Emperor against this attempt of Anatolius, saidEp. 54.: It shold haue sufficed him, that by the help of your Piety, and by the consent of my fauor, he hath obteined the Bishoprick of so great a Citty. And [Page 365]what els did Anatolius himselfe signify, when speaking of the Acts of the second Councell of Ephesus, in which Ma­ximus was chosen Bishop of Antioch, he saidCone. Chalced. Act. 10.: My ver­dict is, that none of the things ordeyned in the pretended Councell of Ephesus remaine firme, but that which was done for Maximus B. of great Antioch; for as much as the most holy Archbishop of Rome Leo, receauing him into his communion, hath iudged that he is to rule the Church of Antioch.

3. Because the Fathers of Chalcedon knowing that without the Popes confirmation, their decree could be of no force, had recourse to Leo, beseeching him to confirme it. We beseech you (say theyIn relat. ad Leon. to honor our decrees, with your iudgment: and that as we haue held correspondence with our Head for matters of weale, so your Soueraingty will yeld 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 who­ly annulled, and abrogated their decree. The Piety of your fayth being ioyned with vs, (sayth he to Pulcheria the Empe­resseEp. 55. we annull the plots of the Bishops, repugnant to the rules of the holy Canons established at Nice: and by vertue of the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter, we wholly abrogate them by a generall sentence. Another Epistle of the same tenor, he addressed to the whole Councell of ChalcedonEp. 61.: And to Anatolius himselfe he likewise writEp. 53.: Neuer may my conscience consent, that so depraued a couetousnesse be furthered by my fauor, but rather that it be suppressed by me, & by them that allow not the proud, but consent with the humble.

Wherfore this Canon first made in the Councell of Constantinople, and afterwards renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon, was neuer confirmed, but still resisted, by the See Apostolike; and therfore hath alwayes remained inua­lid. That (sayth Gelasius)De A­nathem. vin­culo. which the See Apostolike consen­ted not to, the Emperor imposed it not, nor Anatolius vsurped it, but all was put into the hands of the See Apostolike: and therfore what the See Apostolike confirmed of the Councell of Chalcedon, hath remai­ned valid; and what that See hath reiected, could neuer obteyne any force: and she hath annulled that only, which the Synodicall assembly adiudged to be vsurped against order. It resteth therfore, that albeit [Page 366]this decree haue many other nullities, yet this one of the want of con­firmation from the See Apostolike, abundantly conuinceth the inuali­dity therof, as hath bene already proued.

And because Anatolius knew, that if it were once vn­derstood, that this Canon was resisted, and condemned by the See Apostolike, it would be condemned by the iudg­ment of all Catholikes in the world, he craftily suppressed the letters of condemnation, as Leo in his answere to the Emperor Martian testifiethEp. 59.: I writ to your Glory, and to the B. of Constantinople letters, which euidently shewed, that I approued those things, which had bene defined in the Councell of Chalcedon, concerning the Catholike fayth. But because, by the same letters I re­proued those things, which by occasion of the Synod had bene vnlaw­fully attempted, he (Anatolius) rather chose to conceale my ap­plause, then to publish his owne ambition. And to Pulcheria the EmpresseEp. 60.: Wheras the most religious Emperor hath willed me to write letters to all the Bishops, which assisted at the Councell of Chal­cedon, to confirme what was there defined concerning the rule of fayth I haue willingly performed it, lest the deceipt full dissimulation of some might breed any doubt of my sentence; although by meanes of the B. of Constantinople, to whom I had largely testified my ioy, what I had written might haue come to the knowledge of all, if he had not rather chosen to conceale my contentment, then to publish the rebuke of his owne ambition.

Wherfore it is euident, that as this Decree, when it was first made in the Councell of Constantinople, remayned inualid, for want of Confirmation from the See Aposto­likeSee aboue Chap. 17. sect. 5. & 6.; so for the same want, it tooke no effect, when it was renewed in the Councell of Chalcedon; in so much, that Anatolius was enforced to desist from his clayme, and excuse the attempt he had made, laying the blame on o­thers, as it is cleare out of these words of Leo to himEp. 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 Counsell of thy Clergy, that, which could not be attempted without thy allowance &c. But (deare Brother) I am glad, that thy Charity protesteth thou art now displeased with that, which euen then ought [Page 367]not to haue pleased thee. The profession of thy loue, 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 reue­rend a surety.

This recantation of Anatolius sheweth, that his attempt of hauing the second place after the Pope, and enioying the like priuiledges after him, was vnlawfull, and proceeded merely from his ambition.

SECT. V. Falsifications and vntruthes of Doctor Morton, discouered; and his Arguments answeared.

VVHat you produce in defence of this Canon, are either falsifications, vntruthes, or friuolous ca­uills: for first you falsify AzorPag. 118.. His words are: The Ca­nons and decrees of Councells which are either of fayth or of the law of God, or of nature the Pope can neither annull, nor alter: but if the decrees and Canons be of those things which belong to human right, he may annull them, or alter them in whole, or in part: And this (sayth he) is the common opinion of Diuines, and Canonists. You very honestly mangle his words, not mentioning the first part of them in which he sayth, The Pope can neither annull, nor alter the decrees of Councells which are of matters of fayth, or of things commanded by the law of God, or nature. And wheras he addes, that, the Pope can annull, or alter the Decrees of Councells, which are of human right, you in your english leaue out those words (which are of human right) to persuade your Reader, that Azor sayth, and that our Diuines and Canonistes with common consent allow, the Pope power to change the Decrees of fayth, and annull the precepts of God, and of nature; whereas he speaketh only of lawes, that concerne Ecclesiasticall discipline, which according to diuers occa­sions, and circumstances, may be altered, for the good of the Church. If this be not an imposture, what is?

2. You obiectPag. 12.1 [...]9.; The Fathers of Chalcedon thought that the Church of Rome got the primacy, not by diuine, but by humane right, to wit, because Rome was the chiefe Imp [...]riall seat. Ans­were. [Page 368]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, wherwith Christ ho­nored him, when he made him the foundation of his ChurchMath. 16.18., and the Pastor of his flockIoan. 21. vers. 15.16.17.. And so much the Fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged, when they cal­led the Popes Epistle, The speach of the See of S. Peter In allo­quut. ad Im­perat., and when they said to LeoIn relat, ad Leon.: Dioscorus hath extended his phrensy against him, to whom the custody of the Vine (which is the Catho­like Church) was committed by our Sauiour, that is to say, against your Apostolike Holinesse. The same truth the Mileuitan Coun­cell, in which S. Augustine was Secretary, had professed not long before, acknowledging the Popes authority to be of diuine right, when speaking to Innocentius, they saidAug. ep. 92., that, his authority was taken from the authority of the holy Scrip­tures. And Gelasius with a Councell of 70. BishopsIn decreto de lib. Apo­cryph.: The Roman Church hath not bene preferred before other Churches by the constitutions of Synods, but hath obtained the primacy, by the voyce of our Lord, and Sauiour in the Ghospell. And as the same Gelasius rightly obseruethEp. ad Episc. Dar­dan., Milan, Rauenna, Sirmium, Treuers, and Nicomedia, were for a long tyme seates of the Empire, and yet the Fathers neuer thought, that any Primacy was therfore due to the Bishops of those Cities.

Neuerthelesse, 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 moued S. Peter to place his See at Rome, rather then in any other Citty, was the dignity of Rome; To the end (sayth S. Leo)Serm. 1. de Apost. Pet. & Paul. that the light of truth, which was reuealed for the saluation 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 speake, when they sayAct. 15.. Rome got the Primacy, because it was the chiefe seate of the Empire. And both these causes are compre­hended by the Emperors Theodosius, and Valentinian, in their Law made a litle before the Councell of Chalcedon, in these wordsNouel. Theodos. tit. 24.: Three things haue established the primacy of the See Apostolike; the merit of S. Peter, who is Prince of the Episco­pall society; the dignity of the City; and the Synodicall authority.

3. You obiectPag. 118.: The Fathers of Chalcedon gaue priuiledges to the Patriarkes of Constantinople, equall to the Church of Rome. This we deny: for in the Councell of Chalcedon, there was no mention made of equal priuiledges; this clause was afterwards added by Anatolius, or by the Clerkes of Con­stantinopleSee this proued aboue in this Chap. sect. 4.: and to this S. Gregory seemeth to relate, when he saythL. 5. ep. 14.: The Councell of Chalcedon in one place hath bene falsified by the Grecians. And the Fathes of Chalcedon ne­uer intended by this Canon, to giue the Patriarkes of Con­stantinople any priuiledge of exemption from their obedi­ence, and subiection to the Pope, but only to grant them precedency before the other Patriarkes of the East, as hath bene prouedIn 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 diuers others, which he writ to the Emperor Martian, to Pulcheria the Empresse, to Anato­lius himselfe, and to diuers other Bishops, of this subiect, he speake against Anatolius, for his ambitious attempt; yet in none of them doth he say, or insinuate, that those Fa­thers gaue to Anatolius, or that Anatolius himselfe euer a­spired to equality of priuiledges with the B. of Rome, but only reprehended him for wronging the Patriarkes of A­lexandria, and Antioch, in procuring himselfe to be pre­serred before them.

The same is yet further proued, because when Rome was fallen into the hands of the Gothes, and Wandals, the Patriarkes of Constantinople making vse of the tyme, and setting this Canon on foote againe, procured the Em­peror Zeno to establish by a law, that the Patriarke of Cō ­stantinople shold haue the precedency before the other Pa­triarkes. And the like they obtayned from Iustinian after the recouery of Rome, when he ordaynedNouel. 131., that the Ar­chbishop of Constantinople shold haue the second place after the holy See Apostolike, and be preferred before all the other See.

Lastly the same is proued by the subiection, which the Patriarkes of Constantinople acknowledged to the Pope, after the Councell of Chalcedon, and by the authority, which he exercised ouer them: for not long after that tyme, [Page 370]when Acacius B. of Constantinople, an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon, had fallen into the faction of here­tikes, the Churches of the Patriarkeship of Constantinople had recourse to Symmachus Pope, as to their Pastor, & as Superior to their Patriarke. Seeing your Children perish (sayd theyEp. Eccles. Orient. ad Symach. in vo­lum. Ortho­dox. impress. Bafil., in the preuarication of our Father Acacius, delay not, or rather, to speake with the Prophet, stumber not, but make hast to de­liuer vs. And when the same Acacius, for his adhering to Peter Moggus, an hereticall inuasor of the See of Alexan­dria, was deposed by Felix Pope, though he stood out, as long as he liued, contemning the Popes sentence sent vnto him to Constantinople, yet the Emperor Iustine, 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 recitall in the sa­cred mysteries: Wee haue giuen order (sayth Iustine to Hor­misdas Pope,Epist. ad Hormisd. that the Reuerend Church of Constantinople, and many others, accomplish your desire, in razing out the names of those whom you haue commanded to be taken away from the sacred records. And in conformity to this, Iohn Patriarke of Con­stantinople writing to the same Hormisdas, saidEpist. ad Hormisd.: I ana­thematize Acacius somtime 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 Catholike Church, that is to say, that agree not in all things with the See Apostolike. And Theodorus A­nagnostes reportethAd calc. hist. Eccles. Theodor. ex edit. Robert. Stopha., that when Anastasius the Emperor vrged Macedonius Patriarke of Constantinople, to abro­gate the Councell of Chalcedon, he answeared, he could not do it, without a generall Councell, in which the B. of Rome must be president. And when Anthymus B. of Trebizond inuaded the See of Constantinople, Agapetus Pope being arriued thither, deposed him euen in the City of Constantinople it selfe, and in the sight of Iustinian the Emperor, and excom­municated the Empresse Theodora, that protected him, and with his owne hands ordained Menas in his place: the truth of all which, is auerred by Iustinian himselfeNouel. 42, by Marcellinus ComesIn Chron., by LiberatusBreuiar. c. 12., and Victor of TunesIn Chron. edit. per Io­seph. Sc [...]lig.. And did not Menas Patriarke of Constantino­ple [Page 371]make open profession, of obeying the See Apostolike in all thinges In Conc. Constan. sub Me [...]. Act. 4.? And when Iohn the first Pope of that name, was arriued at Constantinople, Iustine the Emperor inui­ting him to sit in a seat by Epiphanius Patriarke of that Ci­ty, that they might seeme both to be of equall dignity, Iohn refused to sit, vntill according to the prerogatiue of his See, a throne was prepared for him aboue EpiphaniusNicoph. l. 17. c. 9.: which passing in the City of Constantinople it selfe, and in Epi­phanius his owne Church, and that many yeares after this decree of the Councell of Chalcedon was made, euidently sheweth, that it neuer tooke effect; since neither Epipha­nius, nor any of the other Patriarkes here named, liuing af­ter the Councell of Chalcedon, claymed any right of E­quall Priuiledges therby, but all of them remained subiect to the Pope, as before the Councell they had bene. And that which purreth this out of al doubt, is, that albeit the Pa­triarkes of Constantinople at length obtained that prece­dency before the other Patriarkes of the East, which in the Councells of Constantinople, and Chalcedon they labo­red for, yet neuerthelesse, euen then, they still acknowled­ged themselues subiect to the Pope: witnesse S. Gregory, who writing to Iohn B. of Syracusa, saythL. 7. ep. [...]4.: Who doubts, but that the See of Constantinople is subiect to the See Apostolike, which both our Lord the most religious Emperor, and our brother, Bi­shop of the same City, do continually protest?

But wheras we say, that Leo neuer confirmed this de­cree of the Councell, but only such Canons and decrees, as concerned matters of sayth, This answeare (say you)Pag. 121. pro­ueth you faithlesse in all your defence: for if he therfore opposed the de­cree of that Synod, which oppugned the Papall primacy, and domi­nion, because it was no matter of fayth, he therby plainly confesseth your Article, which maintayneth the dominion of the Roman Church, not to be at all an article of fayth. But, Syr, you wholly mistake your marke: for this decree was no way against the prima­cy of the Pope, as hath bene prouedIn this Chap. sect. 2.: Nor did Leo refuse to confirme it because it oppugned his primacy, but because by vertue therof, the Patriarke of Constantinople iniustly, and against the Canons of the Nicen Councell, sought to [Page 372]make himselfe superior to the other Patriarkes of the East, whose rights the Pope, as supreme Gouernor of the vniuer­sall Church, was bound to maintayne. Yea this decree was so farre from oppugning his primacy, that from it may be drawne a strong Argument in proofe therof: for why els, was the decree sent to him to be confirmed, but because the Councell 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 vsurpation of Anatolius, after the departure of the Iudges, of the Senators, and of the Popes Legates. You answearePag. 121., that the Popes Legates were absent, because they would not be present. Why do you not say the same of the Iudges, and the Senators? You might with as much truth. But for the Popes Legats, LiberatusBr [...]u. c. 13. beares witnes against you, that they knew not of any such decree, vntill the next day after it was made. And therfore, wheras you wish vsPag. 121., to tell you, if we can, where there cold be found more impudent boldnesse in any, then appeared in the Popes Legates, who offered to face downe 400. Bishops in a Councell, with a manifest vn­truth, obiecting circumuention in framing the Act? We finde no impudence at all in the Popes Legates, but we find it in a very high degree in your selfe, who haue the face to deny circumuention in an Act, made by the vsurpation of Ana­tolius, to augment his owne power, espying his tyme, when there was no Patriarke of Alexandria, and all the Bishops of Aegypt, who had most reason to oppose it, were absent, being excluded by his meanes vnder pretence, that it was not lawfull for them to signe the decrees of Coun­cells, without the will and command of the Patriarkes; & in absence of the Popes Legates, of the Emperors officers, and of the greatest part of the Iudges, which were the Bi­shops that assisted at the Councell.

You sayPag. 122., that 430. Bishops concurred to the making of this decree. But you cannot be excused from ignorance, or fraud: for albeit Marcellinus ComesIn Chron., LiberatusBreu. c. [...]3., PhotiusDe 7. Sy­nod. c. 4. and Leo PopeEp. 5 [...]. beare witnesse, that 630. Bi­shops assisted at the Councell, yet of all that number, none [Page 373]concurred to the Act, nor signed it, but those of the Pa­triarkship of Antioch, and of the prouinces neere Constan­tinople, which were few more then 200. as the Acts them­selues testifyApud Bi [...]. tom. 2. pag. 134. 135.; which alone is a sufficient proofe, that the decree was not Canonically made, but by surreption and fraud.

What Aetius spake in defence therof, is not to be regar­ded: for he being an Archdeacon of Constantinople, & an abbettor of Anatolius his clayme, vttered diuers manifest vntruthes in fauor of this decree: as 1. that the Popes Lega­tes had notice of it before it was made. 2. That the Fathers yelded the primacy to the Pope, because Rome was the seate of the Empire. 3. The 150. Fathers in the Councell of Constantinople, granted to the Bishop of that City priui­ledges equall with the Pope; wheras they make no men­tion at all of equall priuiledges, but absolutely place him after the PopeCan. 3.. 4. and that the same Councell had adiud­ged to the Patriarkes of Constantinople, the ordination of the Metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thracia; wheras it ordaines directly the contraryCan. 2., namely, that the Bishops of Asia, should gouerne the affaires of the Dioces of Asia; & the Bishops of Pontus, the affayres of the Dioces of Pon­tus; and that the Bishops of Thracia (that is to say of Con­stantinople) should gouerne the affaires of thracia only: which decree is in like manner reported by SocratesL. 5. c. 8.. And when in the Councell of Chalcedon it selfeAct. 11., there was speach of hauing a new Bishop of Ephesus ordayned in place of Bassianus, and Stephen, both of them inuasors of that See, the Clerkes of Constantinople pretending, that this new Bishop ought to be ordeyned by the Patriarke of Constantinople, according to the Canon of 150. Fathers in the first generall Councell of that City, the Bishops of Asia minor prostrating themselues before the Councell, protested against it, crying out, that, it was contrary to the Ca­nons, and that of 37. Bishops of Ephesus, which had liued since S. Ti­mothy, vntill that tyme, all of them had bene ordayned at Ephosus, Bassianus only excepted▪ who comming in vnlawfully, was by Vio­lence ordeined at Constantinople, which caused great tumultes, and [Page 374]many murders in the City of Ephesus: & that the like wold now fall out againe, if their Metropolitan were ordeined out of the prouince. Wherupon the Bishops of the Councell cryed outIbid.; Let the Canons stand; let the Bishop be ordeyned in the prouince.

This protestation of the Asian Bishops sheweth, that when afterwards they subscribed to the contrary, and be­ing asked, said, they did it willingly, they were partly wroght to that answeare by Anatolius, and the Clerkes of Con­stantinople abusing the fauor of the Senate, and partly mo­ued by a false relation of Eusebius B. of Dorilaeum, a prin­cipall abbettor of Anatolius his clayme, who testified, that the decree was approued by the Pope: I haue (sayth heAct. [...]6. voluntarily subscribed this Canon, because I haue read it at Rome to the most holy Pope, and he approued it. And therupon it was, that the Fathers of the Councell said to Leo PopeIn relat. ad Leon.: We haue taken the boldnesse to confirme it, as a thing begun by your Holinesse. And yet neuerthelesse this testimony of Eusebius, was full of falshood and fraud, as Bonifacius one of the Popes Le­gates conuinced out of the instructions giuen to him and the other Legates in writingAct. 16.; one of them being, that, they should not suffer the Canons of the holy Fathers to be violated by any rashnesse: and that if any trusting in the power of their City, shold offer to vsurpe any thing contrary to the dignity of his person, they should represse them, as iustice requireth. Which in like manner Leo himselfe testified to Maximus Patriarke of Antioch Ep. 62.: ‘If they say that the brethren which I send in my steed to the Synod haue done any thing more then what con­cernes fayth, that shall be of no force, because they were sent by the See Apostolike, only to root out heresies, and defend the fayth.’

SECT. I. Doctor Mortons ignorance, and contradictions concerning this Councell.

IN your discourse of the fifth Generall Councell, contradictions, ignorance, & vntruthes march by troopes: for 1.Pag. 122. here you suppose the Councell of Con­stantinople vnder Menas, Archbishop of that Citty, to be the fifth generall: and afterwards you directly affirme the samePag. 289. marg. lit. 0., when speaking of the Councell vnder Menas, and alleaging the Synodicall relation made out of the Epistle of Pope Agapetus extant in the first action therof, you call it, Concilium secundum Constantinopolitanum, quod erat quintum generale: The second Councell of Constantinople, which was the fifth generall. And againe twice morePag. 347. lin. 14. & pa. 348. lin. 11. you repeate, that this Councell vnder Menas was a generall Councell. And yet in another place contradicting your selfe you say no lesse expresly,Pag. 238. lin. 11. that, it was not a generall Councell. It was then a generall Councell, and it was not a generall Councell. Reconcile these two, & eris mihi magnus Apollo.

2. You acknowledge.Pag. 238. & 347., that this Councell vnder Menas, was held in the inter-regnum, or vacancy between the death of Pope Agapetus and the election of his succes­sor the yeare 536. and yet not without contradiction you proue out of Baronius and BiniusPag. [...]2. in tis. sect. 6. & pag. 123. lit. m., that the fifth gene­rall Councell was held the yeare 553. which was neither in the vacancy after Agapetus his death, nor in the tyme of Siluerius his successor, but in the 14. yeare of Vigilius, full 17. yeares after the other vnder Menas. And as these two Councells differed in tyme, so they did in matter: for in that vnder Menas was handled the execution of the se­cond sentence, which Agapetus Pope before his death pro­nounced against Anthymus: but in the fifth generall, was discussed the cause of the Three Chapters. Is it not then great ignorance in you, to confound these two Councells, the one being particular consisting of 50. Bishops only, & the other generall of more then 165. the one held vnder Menas the yeare 536, and the other vnder Vigilius Pope the yeare 553, and to frame Arguments out of them both, as out of one and the same Councell?

3. You sayPag. 189. marg. lit. o., that the Councell vnder Menas, was the second Councell of Constantinople: and yet you had said be­forePag. 235. marg. lit. s., that it was, the fifth Councell of Constantinople; neither the one, nor the other being true: for betweene this, and the first generall Councell of Constantinople, there were held eleuen or twelue other Councells vnder diuers Pa­triarkes of that City, as you may read in BaroniusApud Spond. Ind. verb. Constan­tinop. Concil..

4. To proue this Councell vnder Menas to be a gene­rall Councell you alleagePag. 347. Binius who sayth directly the contrary, to wit, that it consisted of such Bishops only, as were neere 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 BaroniusAnno 536. and Bel­larmineL. 1. de Conc. c. 5. & l. 2. de Pont. c. 13., by ZonarasIn vita Iustinian., and NicephorusLib. 17. c. 9..

SECT. II. Doctor Mortons ignorance further discouered, and his falsifying of Binius.

COming to the relation of what passed in the fifth Ge­nerall Councell, you sayPag. 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 therfore your setting them downe 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 immediatly you frame against the authority of the Pope, sayingIbid. This argueth the no-dominion of the Pope ouer that Councell, which will take vpon them to examine that cause, which the Pope before had condemned. But these your words besides falshood, containe excessiue 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 Councell had no hand: for it was definitiue, and absolutely perfected, and put in execution. Menas being ordeined in Anthymus his place by Agapetus his owne hands, before his death. But because Anthymus was not only an vsurper of the See of Constantinople, but also guilty of heresy, Agapetus being solicited by the Eastern Bishops, ordained, that wheras v­pon the sentence of his deposition from the See of Con­stantinople, his owne See of Trebizond had bene reserued vnto him; if he did not cleare himselfe from the crime of he­resy, he should also be deposed from that See, and withall excommunicated, and depriued of all Sacerdotall title, and of the very name of a Catholike. But because Agapetus dyed, before the tyme which he gaue Anthymus to purpe himselfe from the imputation of heresy. Menas the Pa­triarke after his death assembled a Councell, not to re-exa­mine, [Page 378]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 preuented by death, could not finish.

All this is cleare out of the petition of the Regulars of Syria, reported in the Councell it selfe, when speaking of the first sentence of Agapetus, they sayIn Conc. sub Mena. Act. 1.: God sent into this Citty Agapet, truly, Agapet, that is, truly beloued of God and man, Pope of old Rome, for the deposition of Anthymus, and of the aforesayd heretikes, as heretofore he sent great Peter to the Romans, for the de­struction of Sim [...]n the Magician. This reuerend person then, knowing by the requests of many of ours, the things iniustly attempted vpon the Churches, and knowing them by sight, would not so much as admit into his presence Anthymus, transgressor of the Canons, but iustly de­posed him from the Episcopall See of this Citty. Loe here the first sentence absolutely finished by Agapet before his death. And then speaking of the second sentence, they addeIbid.: Afterwards the Bishops of Palestine assembled in this Citty, and o­thers of the East, and deputies of others, and we did againe present petitions touching Anthymus, and the other heretikes, and demanded that Anthymus should certify his beliefe by writ to the See Apostolike, and should purge himselfe from all hereticall errors; & in this case, re­turne to the Church of Trebizond: or if he would not do it, that he should be finally condemned, and deposed from all Sacerdotall digni­ty, and action. And a litle afterIbid.: These our iust requests, the same most holy personage (Agapet) preuenting, and seeing that An­thymus had fayled to appeare, condemned him with the aforesaid he­retikes, and despoiled him of all office, and dignity Sacerdotall, and of all title Orthodoxall, euen till the pennance of his errors.

The same is declared by all the Fathers of that Coun­cell, who in their sentence pronounced against Anthymus, speaking of his first deposition, sayAct. 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 adde:Ibid. But because that euen in doctrine, Anthymus was charged with many accusations, and that many petitions were preferred against, [Page 379]him, by diuers reuerend personages, to the most religious Emperor, and the most blessed Pope; the same most blessed Pope, after much paine taken with a Fatherly care to regaine his soule &c. pronounced a sentence in writing against him, full of Clemency, and seemly holy­nesse, granting him tyme of repentance; and ordayned, that vntill he had changed his opinion, and satisfyed the doctrines canonically defi­ned by the Fathers, be should neither haue the title of a Catholike, nor of a Priest.

This sheweth that the Councell intermedled 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 subiect to reuocation, if he should appeare, and purge himselfe from heresy, the Councell taking the cause where the Pope left it, and according to the order giuen by him, cited Anthy­mus thrice to appeare; and because he appeared not, execu­ted the Popes sentence on him, deposing him from the Bi­shopricke of Trebizond, and depriuing him of the title of a Priest, and the name of a Catholike. We (say they)Act. 4. in sentent. cont. Anthym. fol­lowing those things, which haue bene rightly examined by the most blessed Pope, ordayne, that he as an vnprofitable and rotten member be cast out of the body of the holy Churches of God, and depriued of the Bishopricke of Trebizond, and depriued of all sacred dignity, and action, and (according to the sentence of the most holy Pope) stript euen of the name of a Catholike.

Who now seeth not, how ignorantly, and vntruly you haue saidPag. 122., that, The cause of Anthymus, which the Pope had condemned, was afterwards ventilated in the Councell 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 themselues to put in exe­cution the sentence, which Agapet had pronounced, and being preuented by death, could not see executed. All which is so farre from making against the iurisdiction of the Pope ouer the Bishops of the East, that it is a strong proofe therof.

And that it may better appeare, how vnaduised you are [Page 380]to vrge this history against the authority of the Roman Church, it is to be noted, that Anthymus an Eutychian he­retike, not contenting himselfe with his owne Bishopricke of Trebizond, by the fauor of Iustinian (who as yet knew not, that he was an heretike) and chiefly by the craft of Theodora the Empresse, an Eutychian, and for that cause a great fauorer of Anthymus, intruded himselfe to the See of Constantinople. But Agapet Pope cōming thither, depo­sed him, and with his owne hands ordayned Menas in his place; which was an admirable effect of the power of S. Peter in his Successor: for at that tyme Constantinople was the seate of Iustinian, and the Head of the Empire; wheras Rome was oppressed and made a slaue vnder the tiranny of Gothes, a barbarous and Arian people. The Church of Constantinople was most florishing, and glo­rious; and that of Rome greatly depressed, and afflicted. Iu­stinian the Emperor wa [...] v [...]ctorious, and triumphant; and contrarily the Pope, brought to such straytes, that Theodat an Arian King of the Gothes, threatned to ruinate the Ro­man Church, vnlesse he would goe to Constantinople, & solicite the Emperor for peace, and procure him to call his armies out o [...] Italy: which v [...]ge therfore Agapet could not refuse, though he were so poore, that for the perfor­mance therof, he was inforced to pawne the sacred Ves­sells of his Church: wheras on the other side, Anthymus being exalted by the Emperor and Empresse, from the Bishoptick of Treb [...]zond, to the Patriarkeship of Con­stantinople, was very powrefull in meanes, and highly fo­uored by them both. And yet neuerthelesse, and that the Empresse threatned Agapet if he deposed Anthymus, and promised him great rewards if he would leaue him in the See of Constantinople, the holy Pope soon after his ariuall, being a stranger, and without support, deposed him, casting him out of that See, euen in the very Imperiall Citty, in the presence of the Emperor that fauoured him; and excom­municated Theodora the Empresse that obstinatly main­tained him; and with his owne hands ordained Menas a Priest of Constantinople in his place, and pardoned Peter [Page 381]Patriarke of Hierusalem, and other Bishops of the East, that had communicated with him.

All this is accordingly reported by Marcellinus ComesIn Chron., LiberatusBreu. c. 12., Victor of TunesIn Chron. edit. per Ios. Scal. ad calc. Chron. Euseb., and Iustinian him­selfeNou. 42.: and is so cleare an euidence for the supreme au­thority of the B. of Rome, that it admitteth no colour of answeare.

SECT. III. Of the matter treated in the fifth generall Councell.

THe matter disputed in this Councell was about cer­taine writings of Theodorus Mopsuestinus. Ibas, and Theodoret, commonly called, Tria capitula, The three Chap­ters. Before the Councell, Vigilius Pope with the Bishops of the West, defended the Three Chapters. which the Easterne Bishops opposed: and what both of them did, was vpon pious considerations, in defence of the Councell of Chal­cedon.

The Bishops of the East assembled in a Councell at Constantinople, condemned the Three Chapters. But Vigi­lius knowing, that the Westerne Bishops stood in opposi­tion to their sentence, refused to confirme it, hoping by that meanes. like a prudent and solicitous Pastor, to worke both partes to an accord, and establish peace in the Church. But finding the Emperor, and the Easterne Bishops violent in the prosecution of their decree, and that the Bishops of Ve­nice, and the regions adioyning, as also those of Ireland, fol­lowing his opinion, & relying on his authority, had con­demned this Councell of Constantinople, and that the Church therby was in danger to be rent in sunder with Schisme: and on the other syde considering, that the subiect of that Contention, was no matter of fayth, and neither the one part, nor the other any way repugnant to the Coun­cell of Chalcedon (as S. Gregory hath notedL. 3. ep. 37., but a thing of it selfe indifferent, he altered his opinion, and yelded to confirme this decree, purchasing to himselfe that commen­dation, which S. AugustineEp. 162. giues to the most famous Go­uernors [Page 382]of Gods people both in the old & new Testament, which is, that, They tolerate for the good of vnity, that which they hate for the loue of equity, and imitating the example of S. Leo the great, who testifies of himselfeEp. 14. that, for the loue of peace he yelded to confirme the ordination of Maximus B. of Antioch, which Anatolius Patriarke of Constantinople without any example, & against the Canons, had presum­ptuously vsurped to himselfe.

Nor can Vigilius herein be argued of leuity: for if he al­tered his mind, he did it vpon iust causes, for the auoyding of Schisme; and following the example of S. Paul, who hauing first giuen his voyce for the abolishing of circum­cisionAct. 15.11., afterwards vpon iust cause circumcised TimothyAct. 16.3.: and yet againe reprehended Peter, that by his dissimu­lation, he induced the Gentiles to circumcision, and other Iewish ceremoniesGal. 2.11. & 14..

You to proue the no-necessity of subiection to the Pope, obiect the standing out of the Easterne Bishops against Vi­giliusPag 123. 124.. But you might by the like Argument proue, that subiects are not bound to obey their Prince, because some of them stand out in rebellion against him.

And as litle to the purpose is your telling vsPag 123. fin., that those Bishops condemned all them, that defended the Three Chapters: for contrarily we tell you, that the Bishops of the West in their Councell at Aquileia, condemned all those Bishops, and their Councell at Constantinople: and had more right to do it, then the Easterne Bishops to condemne them: for they did it in defence of the Popes authority, whose opinion they followed. Your vrgingPag. 123. the perse­cution which Iustinian raised against Vigilius, to bring him to confirme the decree of the Easterne Bishops, maketh wholly against you: for why did both he, and the Bishops themselues vrge Vigilius so [...]uch, to confirme their decree, but because they knew, that no decree of any Councell can be of force, vnlesse it be approued by the See Aposto­likeSee this proued aboue Chap. 17. sect. 6.?

Finally the Popes authority [...] effectually proued out of this Councell, for as much as by vertue of Vigilius his con­firmation, [Page 383]it hath obtained the force of a lawfull Councell, and deserued the title of the fifth generall; wheras without his confirmation it would not haue bene receaued by the Church more then that of Ariminum, or the second of E­phesus, which the See Apostolike hath reiected. And the same is confirmed by Eutichius Patriarke of Constantino­ple, who though he prefided in this Councell, yet ack­nowledged the right of presiding not to belong to him­selfe, but to Vigilius, when inuiting him to the Councell, he saydEp. ad Vigil. in quinta Syn. Collat. 1.: Our desire is, to haue the Three Chapters examined, your Blessednesse presiding ouer vs.

SECT IV. Doctor Mortons glosse vpon the Word, Obedience.

TO conclude your discourse of the fifth generall Coun­cell, as vntruly, & ignorantly, as you began, you say:Pag. 124. Idle and vaine is your obiection out of that Synod. from one word Obedience, which they professed to the Catholike See, by not discerning betwene a logicall and a morall obedience: for they promised obedience to that See, in all her orthodoxe, and reasonable perswasions, but not to her peremptory commands, and conclusions: for you may obey S. Augustine by subscribing to his iudgment, without submitting to his iurisdiction. So you: where first you ignorantly make this profession of obedience to the Roman Church, to be of the fi [...]h generall Councell, and alleage Bellarmine for your author, who expresly sayth, that they are words of the Sy­nod held vnder Menas, before the fifth generall Councell. 2. Your glosse vpon the word Obedience, is idle, and false: for you wrest it to an improper signification. I deny not, but that the words of Obedience, and Command, may be taken improperly; as if when your equall or inferior requests you, to do a fauor for him, or perswades you, to your owne good, you answeare, I will obey your commands, vnderstan­ding by his Commands, his requests and persuasions. But that the B. of Rome as being gouernor of the vniuersall Church hath true power, and authority to Command, according [Page 384]to the most first and proper signification of the word, and that the greatest Bishops, & Councels haue acknowledged in themselues obligation to obey in the same sense, hath bene already prouedChap. 18. sect. 1.. False therfore is you glosse, that this Councell acknowledged not in themselues obligation to obey the B. of Rome, nor in him authority to com­mand, but only to persuade. You defend an ill cause, which vpon no other ground, but only to excuse your disobedi­ence to the See Apostolike, inforceth you to wrest the words of the Councell to an improper signification. And as your glosse vpon the word Obedience, is false; so is it re­pugnant euen to common sense: for let a generall Coun­cell be called, of all the Orthodox Bishops in the world; let them condemne an Arius, an Eutyches, or a Pelagius; if your glosse may be allowed, any of these heretikes, or any other neuer so impious, may refuse to submit himselfe, and obey their decrees, saying, He will obey them in all their Ortho­doxe and reasonable persuasions, but not in their peremptory com­mands, and conclusions, and so obey them in nothing at all. For what heretike will not say, that the decrees of a gene­rall Councell against his heresy, are not Orthodoxe, and reaso­nable persuasions, but peremptory commands, and conclusions? Cold this euasion iustify Arius his disobedience, or excuse him from heresy? No: and so neither can your glosse iustify your cause, or satisfy any man of iudgment.

And as your glosse is false, so is your dealing imposte­rous: for the words of the Councell truly alleaged by Bel­larmine (out of whom you cite them) are: Apostolicam Se­dem sequimur, & obedimus, & ipsius communicatores communicato­res habemus; & condemnatos ab ipsa & nos condemnamus We fol­low and obey the See Apostolike, and her communicants we haue for our communicants; and those that are condemned by her, we also con­demne. Why then did you say, that we obiect out of this Councell, but one word Obedience? why did you here and af­terwards againePag. 237. citing this passage out of Bellarmine, in both places, cut it of in the middst? Can any Catholike at this day professe more perfect, and exacte obedience to the See Apostolike, then to hold all them for Orthodoxe, [Page 385] and communicate with them all, that communicate with her; and to condemne all them that are condemned by her? This was the obe­dience of that Councell to the Pope; which to shift of and deceaue your reader, you mangle the words, leauing out the most effectuall part of them; because they shew, that if you had bene liuing in those primitiue tymes, that Coun­cell would haue detested, and condemned you, as it did An­thymus, and other heretikes there mentioned, for their dis­obedience to the See Apostolike, and for not communica­ting with her.

SECT. I. That it acknowledged the supreme Authority of the B. and Church of Rome.

THAT the sixth Generall Councell was called by the Authority of the B. of Rome, I haue already proued Chap. 17. sect. 1.. And that it acknowledged the vniuersall iu­risdiction of the Pope ouer the whole Church, is declared by Constantine the Emperor, who speaking to the Roman Synod held vnder Agatho, calls him, Vniuersall Father, and Vniuersall Arch-PastorSyn. 6. Act. 18.; and by the Councell it selfe Ibid. cal­ling him. Bishop of the first See, and of the vniuersall Church. And speaking of the Epistle of Agatho sent from the Roman Councell to the Emperor, they receaue 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 againe: Ibid. We assent (say they) and agree to the [Page 386]dogmaticall Epistle of our most holy Father, the soueraigne Pope A­gatho (sent to your Highnesse,) and to the suggestion of the holy Synod of 225. Fathers vnder him. And a litle after, speaking of the same Epistle, and acknowledging Agatho to be the Suc­cessor of S. Peter, they adde: The paper and inke appeared, but it was Peter that did speake by Agatho.

One of the things which Agatho spake in that Epistle Apud Bin. to. [...]. pag. 11. was, that the Roman Church hath neuer bene stayned with error, & that the whole Catholike Church, all the Councells, & all the Venerable Fathers, and all the holy Doctors haue imbraced her authority, and re­uerenced, and followed her Apostolicall Doctrine; which contrarily, the heretikes haue maliciously derogated from, and persecuted. And speaking of the same Church to the Emperor, and his two sonnes Ibid.: This your spirituall Mother the Apostolicall Church of Christ by the grace of Almighty God, shall neuer be proued to haue erred from the track of Apostolicall tradition, nor by any deprauation to haue yelded to hereticall nouelties; but as from the beginning of the Christian fayth, the receaued it pur [...] from her authors the Princes of Christes Apostles; so she remaineth vntill the end, according to the di­uine promise which our Lord and Sauiour made to the Prince of his Disciples in the Ghospells, saying: Peter, Peter, Satan hath required to sift you, as one that sifteth wheat: but I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth faile not, and thou being once conuerted, confirme thy Bre­thren. Your Clemency therfore consider, that our Lord and Sauiour of all, who hath faythfully promised that the fayth of Peter shall not faile, admonished him to confirme his brethren; which that my Apo­stolicall predecessors haue alwayes assuredly performed, is a thing noto­rious to all men. And because Theodorus Patriarke of Con­stantinople, was a Monothelite, & (as Anastasius testifieth In vita Agathon. condemned with Pyrrhus, and the rest of that Sect, in this sixth Councell, he addeth; that, Since the Bishops of Con­stantinople haue endeauored to bring hereticall Nouelties into the Church of Christ, his Apostolicall predecessors of holy memory, haue neuer ceased to exhort, and admonish them to desist from hereticall error, lest by holding one will and operation in Christ, they should oc­casion a beginning of diuision in the vnity of the Church.

SECT. II. Whether the sixth Councell condemned Honorius Pope, as an Heretike.

THese passages of the sixth Councell 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 quarrell against Honorius B. of Rome, & that with no small lack of syncerity: for wheras you obiect out of Bellarmine, that in this sixth Councell, as also in the sea­uenth, and eight, Honorius was condemned as a Mono­thelite, Bellarmine contrarily proueth out of Honorius his expresse words, that he was no way guilty of that he­resy, but alwayes a Catholike, holding with the Roman Church two wils and operations in Christ. And he confir­meth the same with the testimony of S. Maximus Martyr, the greatest Diuine of that age, and that liued in Honorius his tyme. And Maximus himselfe in a famous disputation which he had with Pyrrhus Patriarke of Constantinople, alleageth as witnesse of this truth Honorius his owne Se­cretary, that writ those epistles dictated from his mouth, and was then still liuing. Wherfore Bellarmine denyeth that the sixth Councel damned Honorius, as an Hereticke; and further proueth it, because Agatho in his first epistle to Constantine the Emperor, which was read in the Coun­cell, and not only read, but approued, 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 euer guilty of heresy, but that they haue alwayes made resistance to heretikes, & that the Pope, as Pope, cannot decree any thing contrary to fayth. And from thence he inferreth, that the Councell did not iudge Honorius to be an heretike, nor condemne him as such: els by receauing and reuerencing Agathos Epistle, as the words of S. Peter, and as dictated by the holy Ghost, the Coun­cell should contradict it selfe, and condemne both S. Pe­ter, [Page 388]and the holy Ghost of a lye, in affirming that none of Agatho's predecessors was euer guilty of heresy. And the truth hereof he confirmeth by the testimony of Nicolas the first, who in his epistle to Michael the Emperor, auoucheth, that, none of his predecessors was euer stayned with the least spot, or blemish of heresy, which he wold not euen for very shame haue affirmed so resolutely, if Honorius in the publike assēbly of a generall Councell had bene anathematized as an heretike.

Wherfore Bellarmine rightly inferreth, that Honorius was not condemned by the sixth Councell, but his name inserted among those heretikes whom the Councell con­demned, by the Greekes, enemies to the Church of Rome. And so it is testified by Theophanes Isaurus a Greeke histo­rian, and out of him by Anastasius Bibliothecarius: which also he confirmeth, because it was the frequent and almost ordinary custome of the Greekes, to corrupt, and falsify Bookes in hatred of the Roman Church, and in fauor of their owne errors. S. Leo complainesEp. 83. that they had cor­rupted his Epistle to Flauianus Patriarke of Constantino­ple. S. GregoryL. 5. ep. 14. ad Narsem., that they had falsified the Councell of Chalcedon, and he suspected the like of the Councell of Ephesus. And where in his DialoguesL. 2. c. 38. he hath, Paracli­tus à Patre semper procedit, & filio, they in their copies leaue out, & filio, and insteed thereof, say, & in filio manet; a thing which Ioannes DiaconusVita S. Greg. c. 75. obserueth, testifiing that Za­charias Pope hauing translated that worke of S. Gregory faythfully, and published it in the East, the Greekes razed out the name of the Sonne, in fauor of their heresy, that the holy Ghost proceeds not from him, but from the Father a­lone. Againe Nicolas the first remitteth Michaell the Em­peror to the Epistle of Adrian, if (sayth he) it be not falsified after the manner of the Graecians, but kept by the Church of Con­stantinople, as it was sent by the See Apostolike. And he had rea­son to say so: for what he alleageth to Photius, out of A­drians Epistle to Tharasius, is not to be found in that Epi­stle, as it is read in the eight Synod. And finally this very sixth Councell discouered, that the Greekes had falsified the fifth Councell generall, fathering on Pope Vigilius, and [Page 389]Menas Patriarke of Constantinople, certaine quaternions of their owne.

If then they haue falsified the writings of the Fathers of the third, the fourth, the fifth, and eight generall Coun­cells; what maruell if they haue done the like to the sixth, and seauenth, defaining Honorius? and especially, since a little after the sixth Councell, they assembled themselues againe at Constantinople, by their owne authority, and made the Trullan Canons, in hatred of the Roman Church.

To this I adde, that in the Lateran Councell 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 graue men and impartiall, would not haue left vn­censured, if he had bene guilty of the same heresy; as nei­ther would Paulus Diaconus, Theophanes Cerameus, Photius, and Zonaras in their Catalogues of the heretikes condemned in the sixth Councell: especially Photius, and Zonaras being professed enemies to the Roman Church. And finally Emmanuel Calleca, a Grecian, with all the Latin historiansSee Cocc. to 1. l. 7. arc, 13. and Bell. l. 4. de Pont. c. 11. commend Honorius for a Catholike and holy Prelate.

These proofes, most of them being brought by Bellar­mine, and so vnanswerably conuincing, that Honorius neither was an heretike, nor condemned by the sixth, or seauenth Councell; 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 decea­ued therin? Good God (say you)Pag. 125. the rare modesty of this man, who will haue vs belieue, that one Bellarmine liuing now 1000. yeares since that matter was in agitation, should iudge better by his coniecture, of the circumstances of a mater of fact, then could 639. Bishops in their publike Synods (iam flagrante crimine) when as yet the cause was fresh, their witnesses liuing, and all circumstances, which are the perfect intelligencers, visibly before their eyes. So you. And Bellarmine may truly say: Good God, the strange [Page 390]conscience of Doctor Morton, that will speake so vntruly! for doth bellarmine bring no other proofes, but his owne con­iecture? Doth he not produce the testimonies of Honorius his Secretary, and of S. Maximus Martyr, who were liuing at that tyme, of Martin the first with a Councell of 105. Bi­shops, of Iohn the fourth, of Nicolas the first, of Theopha­nes Isaurus, of Emmanuel Calleca, and of all the Latine Fathers, that Honorius neuer assented to the Monothelites, but (euen in those his very Epistles which are obiected) de­fended two wills, and operations in Christ, with all the Catholikes of the world? And doth he not proue the same, by the expresse testimony of Agatho Pope, affirming that, none of his predecessors were euer stayned with heresy? and out of the sixth Councell it selfe receauing this testimony of Aga­tho, as the words of S. Peter, and as an oracle of the Holy Ghost? Againe, doth he in all this say, that 639. Bishops were deceaued? Nay doth he not proue 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 falsly inserted in their Councells by the Greekes, according to their ordinary custome of cor­rupting Councells, and other bookes in hatred to the See of Rome? Good God then, the seared conscience of Doctor Morton, who can conceale all this, and lay hold on a few words, which Bellarmine addeth, to wit, that, if any man be so obstinat, that all this cannot satisfy him, he may receaue another solution from Turrecremata, which is, that the Fathers of the sixth Synod condemned Honorius, but out of false information, and ther­fore erred therin, as any Councell may in matter of fact.

The reason why you omit all the rest of Bellarmines doctrine, & catch at this solution of Turrecremata, is, to in­ferre that Popes may be heretikes, & that not only as priuat Doctors (which some Catholikes grant) but in their pu­blike persons, as Popes, because, those Fathers condemning Ho­norius in their publike Councell did iudge him according to his pu­blike person. These your wordsPag 126. containe a ridiculous fal­lacy: for when we say, The Pope cannot erre, as Pope, or (which is all one) as a publike person, or ex Cathedra, the [Page 391]sense is, that he cannot either in a Councell, or by himselfe ordayne any hereticall doctrine to be receaued by the Church. Nor could you be ignorant of this: for as Canus (whon ye alleage) granteth, that Popes according to their priuat persons may be heretikes, and that peraduenture one or two examples may be giuen therof, so in that very placeL. 6. c. 8. pag. 214. he addeth, that no example can be giuen of any Pope, that though he fell into heresy, did euer decree the same for the whole Church, which is the thing you ought to haue disproued, to shew, that either the sixth, or any other Coun­cell iudged the Pope according to his publike person. And lastly, as for Honorius in particular, BellarmineL. 4. de Pont. c. 11. rightly sheweth, that Canus was in a double error, concerning him, whose opinion therfore is to be reiected.

SECT. I. That these two Councells acknowledged the supreme Authority of the Bishop, and Church of Rome.

THAT the seauenth, and eight Generall Councells belieued the B. of Rome to be the Head, and Gouernor of the Vniuersal Church, is a truth not to be denied. In the second Action of the seauenth Synod, was read, and approued the Epistle of A­drian Pope to Tharasius, in which spea­king of S. Peters See, he sayth: Whose seate obtayning 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 Schismati­call Bishops, returning to the Catholike Church, were to make, is expressed in these wordsApud Bin. to. 3. pag. 923. & Can. l. 6. c. 6. pag. 200.: The begiuning of salua­tion is, to conserue, the rule of right fayth, and no way to swarue from the tradition of our Fore-fathers, because the words of our Lord can­not fayle saying: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. And the proofes of deeds haue made good these words; for as much, as in the See Apostolike the Catholike religion is alwayes conserued inuiolable. We therfore desiring not to be separated from the fayth and doctrine of this Sea and following in all things, the constitutions of the Fathers, and chiefly of the holy Prelates of the See Apostolike, anathematize all heresies &c. And a litle after. Wherfore following the See Apo­stolike in all things, and obseruing all her constitutions, we hope to de­serue to liue in one communion which the See Apostolike 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 Catholike Church, that is to say, which agree not to the See Apostolike.

What you thinke Doctor Morton, I know not: but sure I am, that if you who deny the Roman Church to be the Head, and gouernesse of all Churches, you that liue out of her Communion, you that refuse to obey her constitutions, you that professe not to follow her doctrine, had liued in tyme of the seauenth and eight Synods, they would haue anathematized you, and condemned your doctrine, as he­reticall. And this is the reason, why you conceale these, & many other passages of those Councells, in which the same truth is deliuered, and many other points of your Prote­stant Doctrine condemned.

SECT. II. Doctor Mortons ignorance, concerning the eight Generall Councell.

IN your eight Chapter, in the title of the eight Section, you sayPag. 127. The beliefe of the Article, Viz. The Catholike Ro­man [Page 393]Church, without subiection wherunto there is no saluation, dam­neth the eight Councell, which you call generall, consisting of 383. Bi­shops, in the yeare 870. This is your title; in proofe wherof, you cite BiniusTom. 3. p. 143. in your margent, but ignorantly, and falsly: for the Councell which Binius there setteth downe, is not the eight generall, held the yeare 870. vnder Basilius the Emperor; and Adrian the second Pope of that name, but a particular Synod, consisting of certaine Greeke Bishops as­sembled the yeare 692. by the industry of Calinicus Pa­triarke of Constantinople, in the tyme of Sergius Pope, & Iustinian the yonger, in his pallace called Trullum, & hath neuer bene esteemed a lawfull Councell, but alwayes re­proued as a false, and erraticall assembly, as Binius prouethTo. 3. pag. 154. 155., and I shall presently declareSect. seq..

Againe you say; The eight generall Councell consisted of 383: Bishops, and giue Binius for your Author: But you are mi­staken, & wrong Binius: for heTom. 3. pag. 910. proueth out of Nicetas, and Anastasius who was present at the eight Councell, that it consisted only of 102. Bishops. Nor will it serue you for an excuse, that Bellarmine sayth, it consisted of 383. Bi­shops: for you bring not him for your author, but Binius. who affirmeth, and proueth the contrary. And in what sense Bellarmine speaketh, you might haue learned, if you had obserued, what Binius noteth out of Anastasius, na­mely, that many other Bishops agreed to this Synod, though they were not present at it.

But let vs go on: What was done (say you)Pag. 127. in this fourth Synod of Constantinople, you may vnderstand from your owne men. Here I must request you to call to mind, that els where you sayPag. 235. marg. lit. [...]., the Councell vnder Menas was the fifth Councel of Con­stantinople. How then can the eight general Councel, which you say was held the yeare 870. be the fourth Councell of Constantinople, since in this other place alleaged, you af­firme the Councell vnder Menas held the yeare 553. to be the fifth Councell of Constantinople? for therby you ig­norantly make the fifth Councell of Constantinople, to haue bene held aboue 300. yeare, before the fourth.

SECT. III. Whether the eight generall Councell condemned the Saturday fast, allowed by the Roman Church.

YOu tell vsPag. 1 [...]7. that, we may vnderstand from our Binius, that these Bishops (of the eight generall Councell) condemned a custome of the saboth fast in lent, then vsed in the Church of Rome: and therupon, made they a Canon inhibiting the Church of Rome, from keeping that custome any longer. And you addeIbid.: This Canon (sayth your Surius) is not receaued, 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 conceaue, but that the Ro­man Church did in those tymes fast the Sundayes in Lent? for as by the Saboth day Protestants, especially the vulgar, vnderstand no other day but Sunday, so by the Saboth fast, what will they vnderstand, but the Sunday fast, which was neuer vsed, nor allowed in the Roman Church, but con­demned in the Councell of Gangra, as an hereticall obser­uation of the EustathiansSee Spond. anno 319. n. 9..

The fast which this Canon inhibiteth is the Saturday fast, which, as then it was, so, notwithstanding this Canon, is still vsed by the Roman Church in Lent, and not prohi­bited out of Lent.

Nor was that Canon made by the eight generall Coū ­cell, to whom you ignorantly ascribe it, but by the Trullan Synod, as Binius, and Surius testify; whom therfore you abuse, in fathering on them your owne ignorant mistake of the Trullan Synod, for the eight generall Councell. And so much the more, because both of them, with all Ca­tholike Diuines, 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 reproued, and condemned by him, notwithstanding the barbarous violence of Soldiers, and other meanes vsed by the Empe­tor, [Page 395]to extort a confirmation from him, and his successors, as Venerable BedeL D [...] sex aetat, in iusti­nian. iuniore. who liued at that tyme, Paulus Diaco­nusL. 6. e. 4. and other historians testify, and you may read in BaroniusAnno 692, BellarmineL. 1. de, BiniusTom. 3. pag. 152., and CanusL. 5. de loc. c. vlt.; who rightly obserue, that as not by the Pope, so neither by any of the Patriarkes of the East, nor by any authority of antiquity it hath bene receaued, as a true Councell, but held to be (and so BedeLoco cis. calls it) Erratica Synodus, An erring Sy­nod; in so much, that the Greeke Historians, Theophanes, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, and others, thought best to bu­ry it in silence, neuer reckoning it among the Councells, nor making any mention at all of it. And with great rea­son: for how Almighty God punished both the wicked Patriarke Calinicus, and the Emperor, who pleaseth may read in BaroniusAnno 691..

All which being true, as it is, it must follow, that you shew great ignorance, or els lack of Conscience, in attribu­ting to the eight generall Councell a decree of this im­pious Conuenticle, and obiecting it against a religious cu­stome of the Saturday fast in Lent, piously obserued by the Roman Church, from the Apostles tyme. If it be an abuse, why did not the seauen first Oecumenicall Councels take notice of it? Do not the Greeke authors with one voyce cry out, that in thinges of this nature which are not repug­nant to fayth, or good manners, the variety of ancient cu­stomes vsed in diuers Churches is to be obserued? And did not S. Hierome, being consulted about this very custome of the Saturday fast, long before the Trullan Synod, ans­weareEp. 28., Let euery countrey abound in their owne sense, and reue­rence the precepts of their Fore-fathers, as Apostolicall lawes? And did not S. AmbroseSpond. anno 384. n. 6. in this very particular, aduise Moni­ca S. Augustines Mother, to obserue the custome of what­soeuer place she was in? And do not both he, and S. Augu­stineApud S. Aug. ep. 86. professedly proue against you, and such as you are, that wheras the Easterne Church from the tyme of the A­postles fasted not, but feasted on Saturdayes, contrary to the custome of the Westerne Church, both of them did it, vpon good and pious considerations, declared by the ancient Fa­thers [Page 396] Apud Baro. an. 692.? And doth not S. AugustineLoco cit. shew, that variety to be a singular ornament to the Church? And do not the Councells of AgathaC. 22., and EliberisC. 26., subscribe to that custome of the Roman, & other Westerne Churches? What authority then, had those Trullan Bishops to make them­selues Iudges of the Roman Church, and of all the Chur­ches of the West, ouer whom they had no authority, as your selfe well knoweth?

And hereby is discouered your folly, that not contenting your selfe with proposing heere this Argument so imperti­nent, and friuolous, you repeate it afterwards againe say­ingPag. 220. 221. that, S. Augustine approuing the custome of the Easterne Church, wounds the Papacy, and signifies that the Roman Church had not then any peremptory authority to determine all causes: for the Roman Church then did, and still doth allowe variety of Customes in diuers Churches, though sometimes contrary to her owne, when they are not repugnant to fayth or good manners. Such was the Easterne custome of not ob­seruing the Saturday-fast, which therfore she allowed. How then doth S. Augustine wound the Papacy, in al­lowing the Oriental [...]s to obserue their custome, since the Roman Church agreeth with him, in allowing the same? To proue out of S. Augustine that the Roman Church had not then authority to determine all Ecclesiasticall causes, you should haue shewed, that he held endlesse, and indeter­minable any cause, which she had once determined; or that he allowed, what she had once condemned: which whiles you do not, you spend your breath in vaine.

Finally, wheras you askePag. 127. Whether the Church of Rome would at this day swallow, and disgest such an hoat morsell, as the Trull an decree was, you insinuate, that then she could, and did swallow that morsell: which how false it is, you haue heard; since neither Sergius Pope, nor any of his successors, could euer be brought to confirme that deceee, or the Sy­nod that made it; which alone sheweth the transcendent authority of the Roman Church in those dayes; for want of whose allowance, and confirmation, that Synod was then, and euer since hath bene reproued, as an impious Assem­bly: [Page 397]whose decrees therfore you are ill aduised to obiect in fauor of your cause, against the Roman Church.