Anti-Mortonus or An apology in defence of the Church of Rome. Against the grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham. Whereto is added in the chapter XXXIII. An answere to his late sermon printed, and preached before His Maiesty in the cathedrall church of the same citty..

CHAP. XXVII. Appeales to Rome, proued out of the African Councell, which was the sixth of Carthage.

SECT I. The state of the Question.

APIARIVS, an African Priest, of the Citty of Sicca, being of a lewd & scan∣dalous life, was excommunicated by Vrbanus B. of the same City. He tra∣uelled twice to Rome, and making his complaints to Zozimus Pope, appealed to his iudgmēt. Zozimus sent him back into Africa, wishing the African Bishops to examine his cause diligently. And for as much as not only Apiarius, but (as it appeareth out of two Epistle of the African Bishops to Boniface, and Celestine, successors to Zozimus) some Bishops also had appealed vnto him out of Africa, and the African Bishops complained therof, he sent vnto thē three Legates, Faustinus B. of Potentia, Philip, and Asellus Priests; and with them, the Canons made in the Coun∣cell of Nice concerning appeales to Rome. The Africans not finding those Canons in their copies of the Nicen Councell, sent Deputies into the East, to procure authen∣ticall copies from Cyril Patriarke of Alexandria, and Atti∣cus of Constantinople. But when they came, their copies were found to containe no more then 20. which is the nū∣ber

exstant in our Latin editions, and in which there is no mention of appeales to Rome.

This obiection hath bene often vrged by Protestants, and as often answeared by vs: and particularly by the most eminent Cardinals Baronius(l) 1.1, Bellarmine(m) 1.2, and Pe∣ron(n) 1.3. In them you may read the solution: It will be sufficient for me to giue the Reader out of them, and other Authors, a touch of your vnsyncere dealing, wherby he may also come to vnderstand what the issue of this contro∣uersy was.

First therfore Bellarmine, Peron(o) 1.4, and Brereley(p) 1.5 shew, that the ancient Fathers and Councels, and in par∣ticular the Africans themselues, whom this matter most concerned, highly commend those three Popes, Zozi∣mus, Boniface, and Celestine, with whom this contro∣uersy was, and grace them with titles of great reuerence & honor, calling Zozimus, The most blessed Pope Zozimus; Zo∣zimus of venerable memory: that they call Boniface, The venerable Bishop of the Roman Church; The most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome; The holy and blessed Pope; The Reuerend Pope Boniface; Boniface of holy memory; The most blessed and our honorable brother, Boniface; and that S. Augustine dedicated to him one of his principall workes. And finally that they qualify Celestine with these titles: Our most beloued Lord, and honorable brother, Celestine; Celestine of blessed memory; & that the famous Coun∣cell of Ephesus cals him, New S. Peter.

This sheweth the impudency of your Centurists, who (as Peron, and Bellarmine aduertise(q) 1.6, vpon occasion of this African Controuersy, traduce almost all the Popes of those times, inuerting and peruerting their names, by cal∣ling Innocent, Nocent; Boniface, Maleface; Celestine, Infernall; and the most holy and learned Pope S. Leo the great, A roaring Lyon, and a hellish Wolfe. To this impudency of the Centurists you adde your Vote, whiles in your late sermon before his Maiesty at Durham, speaking of Vrbane the se∣cond, you say(r) 1.7 Pope Vrbane called by the nick name of Turbane. So indeed he is nicknamed by your selfe: but that he was euer so nicknamed by any one els, I thinke you cannot

shew. And to make your selfe more like to the Centurists, in this your Grand imposture, you brand Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, with the black marke of Falsaries, charg∣ing them with forgery of a false Canon of Nice: which censure you might haue spared, if you had considered, that the African Fathers themselues (with whom this contro∣uersy was) were so farre from laying any such aspersion on them, that contrarily, they honored them with titles of great reuerence, as you haue heard. And how vniustly you charge them with forging a Canon of Nice, may ap∣peare by the testimonies of antiquity, wherby I haue pro∣ued(s) 1.8 that the Canons of appeales to Rome, which Zozi∣mus sent to the Africans, were true Canons of the Nicen Councell. But because afterwards(t) 1.9 you make a digressi∣on, to proue, that the Nicen Canons were no more but 20. you shall heare receaue your answeare before hand.

SECT. II. That the Nicen Canons were more then 20. in number: and that the Canons concerning appeales to Rome, were true Canons of the Nicen Councell.

YOur words are(u) 1.10: Your authors instance in multitudes of particular points, as being handled in the Councell of Nice, which they call Canons of that Councell; but erring, for want of that paire of spectacles (for so we may call a distinction) which their owne Ie∣suit Pisanus reacheth vnto them, who distinguisheth thus. The things (sayth he) handled in the Councell of Nice, were partly Constituti∣ons, or Acts belonging to doctrines, and partly Canons, which con∣cerne Ecclesiasticall Policy. So now all the examples, which your ob∣iectors haue collected out of the testimonies of Fathers and Councels, as though they had bene Canons, are easily answeared by the former distinction, to proue them to haue bene Diatyposes, Constitutions, Acts only, not Canons, as your Iesuit Turrian doth also manifest: which we grant, and oppose against all your instances. So you, not without wilfull imposture: for though Pisanus obserue that in the Councell of Nice, there were not only Canons,

but Diatyposes, or Constitutions, yet he is so farre from saying, that the Nicen Canons were but 20. in number, that be∣sides the 20. vulgarly acknowledged, he setteth downe(x) 1.11 other 24. taken out of the second Epistle of Iulius to the Arians, in which that holy Pope reprehendeth them seue∣rely for their proceeding against Athanasius and other Ca∣tholike Bishops, whom in their Councell at Antioch they had iniustly condemned, infringing the Canons of the Nicen Councell, which command (sayth he) that no Councells be held, praeter sententiam, without the allowance of the B. of Rome. And this Canon out of the said Epistle of Iulius is in like manner reported by the Sardican Councell, by Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Nicephorus, and other ancient au∣thors, Whose testimonies Pisanus(y) 1.12 setteth downe at large.

2. And no lesse effectuall are the words he alleageth of(z) 1.13 Iohn that famous Orator of the Latins in the Councell of Florence: for when Marcus the Greeke disputant impu∣ted to the holy Pope Zozimus the same crime of forging a false Canon of the Nicen Councell, which you now do, & in proofe therof alleaged that the Nicen Canons were but 20. in number, Iohn in his owne name, and in the name of all the Latins answeared, that the most ancient Epistles of Iulius, and Liberius Popes, which Iulian Cardinall of S. Sabina had shewed to the Grecians, in that Councell, did euince, that Athanasius being persecuted and condem∣ned by the Arians, writ to Felix, Marcus, Iulius, and Libe∣rius, all of them successiuely Bishops of Rome, for a true copy of the Actes of Nice, all that were in the East being corrupted by the Arians, and that their answere was, They would not send the originall Actes, which being written in Greeke and Latin, & subscribed by the Nicen Fathers, and sealed with their seales, were kept by the B. of Rome with great Veneration; but that they would send him co∣pied out seuerally those Canons, which were for his pur∣pose. Moreouer he shewed, that when Athanasius appealed from the Councell of Antioch, to the See of Rome, & the Arians reproached it vnto him, as a thing vnlawfull, Libe∣rius

promised to send him copied out the Nicen decree, for the lawfullnesse of appealing to Rome: and that Iulius in his Epistle sharply rebuked the Arians, for presuming to call a Councell, without the authority of the See Aposto∣like, shewing to them out of a decreee of the Councell of Nice, that, no Synod was to be held without the authority of the B. of Rome.

3. And in proofe of the same verity, he alleageth out of Isidore the testimonies of the Councell of Constantino∣ple, of Marcus, Stephanus, and Innocentius Popes, of A∣thanasius, and the Bishops of Aegypt, of Theophilus Pa∣triarke of Alexandria, and other Orientalls, of Marianus Scotus, Iuo Carnotensis, and Gratian; giuing vs therby spe∣ctacles to see your imposterous dealing, who are not asha∣med to produce his authority for your number of the 20. Nicen Canons, where he professedly proueth the contra∣ry. Yea in that very place which you cite, thogh he distin∣guish the decrees of that Councell which you cite, into Ca∣nons, & Constitutions; yet he presently addeth that Onu∣phrius reportes the Nicen Canons to be 84. in number; but that out of Athanasius, we know them, not to be aboue 70. or 80. at the most: and that the number of 84. reckoned by Onuphrius peraduenture belongs to the Constitutions. So Pisanus. Can you then be excused from a wilfull falsifica∣tion in cutting of his words, and alleaging him for your 20. Canons; in that very place, where he addeth immediatly out of S. Athanasius, and proueth afterwards out of so ma∣ny ancient and learned writers, that they were many more?

But leauing him, and returning to Iulius, he in his third Epistle which S. Athanasius hath inserted into his second Apology, intimating to the Arians the right of the B. of Rome to haue the hearing and finall dicision of the causes of Bishops, sayth: Are you ignorant that the custome is, that we be first written vnto, that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things? If therfore any suspicion were conceaued against the Bishops there, it ought to haue bene referred hither to our Church. And therupon he denounceth to them, that in condemning A∣thanasius

without expecting his sentence, they had done contra canones, against the Canons, namely of the Nicen Coun∣cell, which he setteth downe in his second Epistle to them: and that aswell Athanasius, as other Catholike Bishops whom they had condemned, in appealing from their Councell to him, as he in repealing their Actes, in resto∣ring the Appellants to their seates, and in summoning their aduersaries to Rome, had done, quod Ecclesiastici Canonis est, according to the Canons of the Church.

If therfore the holy Popes Iulius, Felix, Marcus, and Liberius, that liued soone after the Councell of Nice; if S. Athanasius that was personally present; if Iohn the learned Orator of the Latines, speaking in all their names in the councell of Florence; if Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Nicephorus and many other ancient writers deserue to be credited; and if they knew how to call things by their pro∣per names, there were in the Nicen Councell more then 20. Canons properly so called: which is also acknowled∣ged by your Protestant brethren(a) 1.14 Oecolampadius (who chargeth the Latin copies of the 20. Canons as defectiue) Caluin, M. Iuell, and M. Bilson, mentioning a Canon of the Nicen Councell concerning the Sacrament; and lastly by Doctor Whitgift(b) 1.15 prouing out of the second Coun∣cell of Arles, S. Hierome, and other approued authors, di∣uers Canons, which are not to be found in those 20.

The testimonies which you obiect for the contrary, vrge not: Not that of Pope Stephen, for though he say that in the Roman Church there are 20. Chapters of the Nicen councell, yet he immediatly addeth, that, it is vncertaine by what negli∣gence the rest are wanting: which words you wittingly leaue out, mangling the sentence, that so he may seeme to fauor your opinion of the 20. Canons. Theodoret and Nicepho∣rus speake only of 20. Canons, or lawes made pro confor∣mandis moribus, for ordering or reforming of manners; wher∣as notwithstanding (as Pisanus out of their owne words hath obserued) els where they acknowledg that the A∣rians in condemning Athanasius had infringed the Nicen Canons; and that Athanasius in appealing to him, had done according to the same Canons.

Wherfore it the two Patriarkes Cyrill, and Atticus knew not of more then 20. Nicen Canons, it was because the A∣rians hauing cast out the Catholike Bishops, and possessed their seates, (as we read in Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Nicephorus(c) 1.16, had corrupted the Canons of that Councell; and suppressed those which declared their pro∣ceedings to be vnlawfull, & contrary to the Nicen Canons. And howsoeuer those Patriarkes thought, you cannot de∣ny that your 20. Canons were not the only, nor all the true Canons of Nice, vnlesse you will grant the Canons of Ruffinus (which you allow) to be corrupt and false: for (as Osiander confesseth(d) 1.17, those 20. of Ruffinus differ ordine & rebus, both in order and matter, from the others, which Cyrill & Atticus sent out of the East. And the same is yet made more euident out of the Councell of Florence, affir∣ming(e) 1.18, that by the testimonies of many ancient, and ho∣ly Fathers, the African Councell it selfe did know those Canons which they receaued out of the East, to be corrupt, and false. It resteth therfore that neither they, nor the other of Ruffinus comprehend all the true Canons of Nice, but that there were others, declaring the primacy of the Ro∣man Church, her authority to call, & confirme Councells, and in particular her right of appeales, as Pisanus hath proued, whom therfore you abusiuely alleage for the con∣trary.

Nor is your dealing better with Turrianus: for albeit he grant that, as in the Councell of Chalcedon, so likewise in that of Nice, beside Canons, there were among the Actes, other Decrees or Constitutions, and that of this number are the seuerall Decrees which you set downe out of him; yet with what conscience do you conceale the rest? for in the words immediatly preceding, he sayth: In illis Actis &c. In those Actes was also contayned that Canon of Appeales, which Zozi∣mus Pope in the sixt Councell of Carthage, witnesseth to be of the Ni∣cen Councell; and which after the Nicen Councell, was renewed in the Councell of Sardica C. 7. And is not this very point here in question? Our dispute is not verball, whether the decree of Appeales to Rome made in the Councell of Nice, were

a Canon properly so called, or, a Constitution. Words of this kind are by the best authors vsed promiscuously. The canons of Councells are somtimes called Canones; somtimes Capitula; somtimes Leges; somtimes Decreta; somtimes Cōstitutiones. The reall difficulty betweene vs is, whether appeales to Rome were decreed in the Councell of Nice by any either Canon properly so called, or by any Law, or, Constitution. That they were decreed, hath bene proued, and that not only ancient writers giue it the name of a Canon, but enen Pisanus, and Turrianus, those very two, whome you produce for the contrary.

I conclude therfore, that as this your discourse is a digres∣sion from the truth, so it is from the purpose; and a trifling shift, to put of the reall difficulty, by reducing it to a que∣stion de nomine. And that which most sheweth your folly, is, that by trifling, you wholly ouerthrow your cause: for you grant(f) 1.19 all the examples, which our Authors collect out of the Fathers and Councells, as though they had bene Canons of the Nicen Councell, to be Constitutions of the same Councell, though not Ca∣nons; which is to grant, that in the Nicen Councell there was a Constitution wherby Appeales to Rome were de∣creed: for this is one of the examples, which our Authors collect out of the Epistles of Iulius, out of Socrates, Sozo∣men, Theodoret, Nicephorus▪ and other ancient writers. And this alone is sufficient to shew, that as you deny the same without ground, so you conclude your digression falsly, saying(g) 1.20: that the decree which the Popes alleaged for ap∣peales, is not to be found at all, either among the Canons, or the Con∣stitutions of the Councell of Nice.

SECT. III. Whether if there had bene no Canon for appeales to Rome in the Councell of Nice, it had bene forgery in Pope Zozimus, to alleage a Canon of the Sardican Councell, for a Canon of Nice.

SOme Catholike writers coniecture that the Canons of appealing to Rome, which Pope Zozimus directed to

the Africans, were Canons of the Councell of Sardica, but sent by him vnder the title of Nicen Canons. You say(h) 1.21: These Canons of Sardi••a mun be iudged fictions; and that it is suffi∣ciently proued to be a fal••hood, that any such Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica. I cannot but meruaile at so great bold∣nesse: for, that those Canons were extant in the Councell of Sardica, is a truth proued, not only by all editions of the Councells, and all Catholike writers, but auerred by the Magdeburgians, by Osiander, Peter Martyr, and Iohn Caluin(i) 1.22. It is true, that Caluin accuseth Zozimus of hai∣nous impudency, and fraud, in citing the Councell of Sar∣dica, for that of Nice. But his accusation hath no other ground then his hatred to the See of Rome: for were it true (as it is not) that the Canons which Zozimus sent, were not of the Councell of Nice, but of Sardica, and that he had sent them as Canons of Nice, it had not bene fraud or for∣gery in him; as it was not in S. Mathew(k) 1.23 to cite Hieremy for Zachary, because it was the same Spirit of God that spake in both those Prophets: And so likewise the Coun∣cell of Sardica was of no lesse authority, then that of Nice. Againe, the Councell of Sardica consisted in great part, of the same Fathers, that the Nicen Councell did, and was an explication and confirmation therof. Wherfore the Sardi∣can Canons might not vnfitly beare the name of Nicen Canons, as the Constantinopolitan Creed, because it is an explication and confirmation of the Nicen, beares the name of the Nicen Creed. Moreouer the ancient Fathers numbring the Councells, after that of Nice, euer reckon immediatly the first of Constantinople, which they do v∣pon no other ground then because they repute the Coun∣cell of Sardica, to be an Appendix of the Councell of Nice, and therfore as all one with it.

For these reasons, Zozimus might without any forgery or falshood, haue cited the Canons of the Councell of Sardica, vnder the title of Nicen Canons, as it is the cu∣stome of the Greekes, to cite the Trullan Canons vnder the title of the Canons of the sixth generall Councell, be∣cause they pretend the Trullan Councell to be an Apen∣dix,

and supplement of the sixth Councell generall. And so in like manner S. Gregory of Tours(l) 1.24 citing a Canon of the Councall of Grangres, without either fraud or forge∣ry, calls it a Canon of the Nicen Councell, because the Councell of Gangres was a branch, and slip of the Councell of Nice.

Finally, and if these Canons were not indeed of the Councell of Nice, but of Sardica, how can Zozimus be thought to haue vsed any fraud or forgery, in alleaging them, as the Councell of Nice, since it had bene more ad∣uantagious for his purpose, against the Africans, to haue al∣leaged them, as Canons of the Councell of Sardica? for as much as the fifth generall Councell beareth witnesse(m) 1.25, that in the Councell of Nice, there was no other B. of Afri∣ca, but only Cecilian Archbishop of Carthage; wheras in the Councell of Sardica, were present and subscribed 30. A∣frican Bishops, who are all named in particular by S. A∣thanasius(n) 1.26; which might haue bene a great motiue to the Africans, to submit to those Canons, as being approued, and signed by so many Bishops of their owne nation.

But the truth is, that albeit the Africans had notice of a Councell held at Sardica, yet (as Peron learnedly proueth)(o) 1.27, the Donatists had suppressed in Africa the copies of the true Councell of Sardica; and those which the Africans had in the tyme of S. Augustine, and the sixth Councell of Car∣thage, were copies of the Anti-councell which Sozomen mentioneth(p) 1.28 held by the Arians at Philippopolis, neere to Sardica, which they (to gaine credit to it, and to their cause) called The Councell of Sardica, and published it in A∣frica vnder that name. And this is the reason, why S. Augu∣stine professeth(q) 1.29 that he knew no other Councell of Sar∣dica, but that of the Arians, in which S. Athanasius was condemned; wheras the true Councell of Sardica iustified S. Athanasius, and confirmed the Councell of Nice.

This true Councell of Sardica you acknowledge to haue bene a generall Councell of the whole Church(r) 1.30. This the Cen∣turists haue copied out, and inserted into their fourth Cen∣tury. And this it is, in which as well they, as also Caluin,

Peter Martyr, and Osiander acknowledge the Canons for appealing to Rome, to haue ben made: wherof if the Afri∣can Fathers had notice, they would not haue replied to Pope Celestine(s) 1.31: We find it not to haue bene determined by the Fathers in any Synod, that Legates should be sent from your Holi∣nesse, to order matters heere: for it is expresly decreed in the Councell of Sardica(t) 1.32 that, if it shall seeme good to the B. of Rome, he may send Legates to iudge the causes of Appellants in their owne Prouinces.

This sheweth, how vntruly you deny, that in the Coun∣cell of Sardica, were extant any Canons for Appeales to Rome. And since your owne brethren acknowledge them, with what conscience do you iustify the Africans in their deniall of them? or blame the Pope for defending his right against them? especially since you confesse(u) 1.33, that the A∣fricans were subiect to the Pope, as to their Patriarke.

SECT. IV. Vntruthes and falsifications of Doctor Morton discoue∣red, and his Obiections answeared.

FIrst you obiect(x) 1.34, that 217. African Bishops (S▪ Augustine being a principall one) shew, that the Popes claime of Appeales, had no patronage from the Councell of Nice, but rather, that there was in that Councell another Canon to controle it, and that maketh much against such appeales, by determining, that Popes being so far remote from Africk, could not be so competent iudges in such causes: Except (say they) some will thinke, that God will inspire one singular man with iustice, and deny that grace to innumerable persons as∣sembled togeather in a Synod. These words, Syr, are not of the Councell of Nice, but of the African Fathers in their Epi∣stle to Celestine Pope. Is it not then a mere delusion to ob∣iect them, as a Canon of the Nicen Councell, to controle appeales to Rome? They speake not of matters of fayth: for the same Fathers a little before had sent to Innocentius Pope, to confirme with his authority, the sentence of Con∣demnation, which they had pronounced against Pelagius

and Celestius, in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuis▪ acknowledging(y) 1.35 that. God did guide him in his consultations of fayth, and therfore hoping that those Heretikes would more easily yield to his authority, drawne from the authority of the holy Scriptu∣res, then to the authority of their Councells. Wherfore in the words obiected, they speake only of particular and per∣sonall causes of fact, ciuill and criminall, in which (as those Fathers declare) witnesses were to interuene, that could not without much difficulty passe the seas, for the debility of sexe, or of age, or other impediments: In regard wherof, they requested the Pope, not to be facill in admitting ap∣peales of that nature.

2. You obiect(z) 1.36: If it were granted, that the Canons for appeales were to be found in the Councell of Sardica, yet the Popes Monarchy would stil stand vpon but humane authority: for the grant of appeales made in that Synod to Iulius Pope, was but vpon fauor, & not vpon duty; not an old custome, but a new constitution: If it please you (say they) so much to honor the memory of Peter, let vs write to Iulius B. of Rome &c. And againe: If you all be pleased &c. From these words you inferre, that the grāt of appeales to Rome is no more but ad placitum; and that, if the Pope for his preten∣sion, could haue drawne a two edged sword, ex iure diuino, he would not haue fought with this wodden dagger of humane Constitution. This wodden Argument you thinke to be of such moment, that for want of better, you repeate it afterwards againe(a) 1.37. Your reasō I know not: for the very words which you ob∣iect, shew, that the Councell of Sardica did not ground ap∣peales to Rome vpon humane Constitution, but vpon di∣uine right: for what is it, to honor in the Pope, the memory of Peter, but to acknowledge him to be S. Peters Successor, and consequently Head of the Church? And therfore what in their Canon they expresse in these words, That we may honor the memory of Peter, let it be written to Iulius B. of Rome &c. they declare in their Epistle to the same Iulius, saying: It is very good, and fit, that from all Prouinces the Bishops haue reference to their head, that is to the See of the Apostle Peter. Wherfore as the dignity of Head of the Church had belonged to the See of S. Peter from all antiquity, by diuine institution (as the A∣frican

Fathers in the Councel of Mileuis haue declared(b) 1.38, professing the Popes authority to be taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures) so likewise had the right of Appeales impli∣citly conteined in that dignity. And on this right was grounded the custome of appealing to Rome from all an∣tiquity, as it appeareth out of the Epistle of Iulius Pope(c) 1.39 written to the Arians before the Councell of Sardica: Are you ignorant (sayth he) that the custome is, that we be first written to, that from hence may proceed the iust decision of things? and ther∣fore if there were any suspicion conceaued against the Bishops there, you should haue written to vs. And by this right it is, that Atha∣nasius, Paul, and other Bishops of the East being driuen from their seates by the Arians, appealed to Iulius Pope be∣fore the Councell of Sardica, and he restored to each of them their Churches, by the prerogatiue of his See, and because the charge of all belonged to him(d) 1.40. Wherfore the Councell of Sardica did not then first institute appeales to Rome, as you pre∣tend, but only reduce into a written law, that, which had belonged to the See of Rome by diuine right, and had bene formerly practised by custome only. And this written Law it is, which Osius proposed to be made, saying: If is please your Charity, that we honor the memory of Peter &c. In which sense Nicolas the first truly said(e) 1.41: The priuiledges of the Ro∣man See were giuen by Christ our Lord, celebrated and honored by the Councels, but not giuen by them. And before him Gelasius an African, and scholler to S. Augustine, with a Councell of 70. Bishops:(f) 1.42 The holy Roman Church hath not bene preferred before others, by any constitutions of Synods, but hath obtained the primacy by the voyce of our Lord and Sauiour in the Ghospell, saying; Thou art Peter &c. And the same truth had bene professed long before that tyme, by Iulius Pope in his first Epistle to the Easterne Bishops, in the cause of Athanasius(g) 1.43.

Nor is it new for a Councell, to make a written decree for the presetuation and obseruance of that, which former∣ly had bene practised in the Church by custome only: why els did the first Councell of Constantinople speaking of the ordination of Bishops by their Metropolitans, say(h) 1.44. It is (as you know) a law, both grounded on custome, and on the deci∣sion of the Councell of Nice?

The example of a King wherwith you conclude this point, is against your selfe: for although she dignity of a King include a supreme right of appeales to be made vnto him, yet it is no derogation to his Royall dignity, to haue a written law enacted in Parliament for the preseruation of that right, against all such, as shall either iniustly deny the same, or at least, shall thinke the practise of them to be in∣conuenient.

3. You say(i) 1.45: Antiquity hath denied, that any Canon for ap∣peales was to be found in the Councell of Sardica. This is an vn∣truth sufficiently refuted by what hath bene said(k) 1.46, and by your owne Confession, pretending that the right of Ap∣peales is not by diuine institution, but by humane, because the decree which the Councell of Sardica made in fauor of them, was a humane constitution. But that you may not seeme ••o speake without ground, you falsify Salmeron(l) 1.47: He speaking of the reseruation of cases in the inward court of conscience, that is, in the Sacrament of pennance, sayth(m) 1.48: In S. Cyprians tyme, non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Ponti∣fici reseruati, No peculiar cases of conscience were reserued to the Pope: You to make him speake of the contentions Court, & to deny, that any Appeales were anciently reserued to the Pope, peruert his words, thus: Tempore Cypriani non erant ca∣sus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis: In the tyme of Cy∣prian, there were no peculiar cases reserued to the conscience of the Pope; or as you english, In the dayes of S. Cyprian there was no re∣seruation of any such cases (namely of appeales) in vse; for of them you speake. Answere now: Is it all one to say, non erant casus peculiares conscientiae ipsi Pontifici reseruati, as Salmeron sayth; & to say, non erant casus peculiares reseruati conscientiae Pontificis, as you say? No: there cannot be a more wilfull fal∣sification. For 1. you misplace Salmerons words. 2. You turne Pontifici into Pontificis. And 3 you put conscientiae, into the construction of the datiue case, which Salmeron hath in the genitiue. How can this iuggling be excused?

4. You say(n) 1.49: The African Fathers in the end, descended to a flat and peremptory resolution in opposition of the Papall claime of appeales. This is a flat and peremptory vntruth: for the Afri∣cans

neuer contested with the Pope, about appeales in mat∣ters of fayth, but acknowledged that they ought to referre them to him, as appeareth out of the practise of the Coun∣cells of Carthage and Mileuis, which sent their decrees of fayth to Innocentius Pope, to be confirmed by his authori∣ty(o) 1.50. Their contestation was about Appeales of the infe∣rior Clergy, in ciuill and criminall causes. Of them they writ to Zozimus Pope. but he being dead before the ariuall of their letters, they writ againe to Boniface his Successor, acknowledging that they had receaued from him, Mandata & literas, Commandments and letters, which, what was it else but to professe him to be their Superior? And withall they represented to Boniface, the great troubles, which the late appeales out of Africa to Rome had brought vpon them: & that therfore great caution ought to be vsed, lest other such, or worse should happen. And because they had not found in their copies of the Nicen Councell those Canons con∣cerning appeales, which Zozimus had sent in the instru∣ction of his Legates, they required tyme to send into the East, for authenticall copies of the Nicen Canons: but in the meane tyme, they obserued the commandment of Zozi∣mus, restoring Apiarius to the communion, & to his Priest∣hood. Apiarius (say they to Boniface(p) 1.51 crauing pardon hath bene restored to the communion. And againe(q) 1.52: It hath pleased vs, that Apiarius should retire from the Church of Sicca, retayning the honor of his degree. And in their Epistle to Celestine: Apiarius had bene formerly restored to his Priesthood.

Nor did they shew their obedience only in restoring Apiarus: but moreouer in attending the comming of the Easterne Copies of the Nicen Councell, they promised with great humility, and with all respect protested, to ob∣serue from point to point, all that was contained in the in∣struction of the Popes Legates. For Daniel, Notary of the Councell, hauing read the first article, which was, that Bi∣shops may appeale to the Pope, Alipius said(r) 1.53: We protest to obserue these things, vntill the coming of the perfect copies. And the second article being read, which was, That the causes of Priests, and inferior Clerkes were to be finally determined

by the Bishop of their owne Prouince. S. Augustine said(s) 1.54: We protest also to obserue this article sauing a more diligent in∣quiry of the Councell of Nice. And the whole Councell spea∣king of both these articles, to Boniface Pope, said(t) 1.55: These thinges which in the fore-said instruction haue bene alleaged vnto vs, of the appeales of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church, and of the causes of Clerkes to be ended by the Bishops of their owne Pro∣uinces, We protest to obserue, vntill the proofe of the Nicen Councell: And we trust in the will of God, that your Holinesse also will helpe vs in it.

By this it appeares, that the Canons of Appeales to Rome sent by Zozimus were admitted, and the practise of them in Africa allowed by the whole Councell, vntill the comming of the Nicen copies out of the East: which shew∣eth that their contestation was not about the Popes right of appeales (els they would haue forbidden them absolute∣ly, euen in that interim) but about the expediency of them, and the manner of prosecuting them by Legates, and executors sent from Rome. Which is yet further confirmed by these their words to Pope Celestine(u) 1.56: Wherfore premi∣sing the office of due salutation, we beseech you affectionatly, that here∣after you will not so easily admit to your eares, those that come from these partes, nor vestore to the communion such, as haue bene excom∣municated by vs. And a litle after: To the end that they, who in their owne Prouince haue bene depriued of the communion, may not seeme to be hastily, and otherwise then is fit, restored to the commu∣nion by your Holynesse. These words are another remonstrance of their acknowledgment of the Popes power ouer them, and of their subiection to him: for they say not to Celestine, that he had not authority to restore the Communion to those that had bene excommunicated by them, but humbly beseech him not to do it easily, and without mature delibe∣ration; but rather, that he will send them back into Africa, to be iudged vpon the place, where their causes might be discussed more exactly, and the truth more certainely knowne by the attestation of witnesses, which could not without much difficulty and charges passe to Rome.

And wheras the Councell of Sardica(x) 1.57 hath decreed

that, if a Bishop appeale to Rome, and the Pope esteeme is iust that the examination of his cause be renowed, it shalbe in the Popes power, if he please, to send Legates from Rome, to ioyne with the Bishops of the same prouince from whom the appeale is made, that by them the cause may be tried, and iudged a new, the Africans denied not this power of the B. of Rome; nor any way excepted against the sending back of the Appellāts into Africa, to haue their causes tried againe by the Bishops of their owne prouince, but only beseeched him, that he would be pleased not to send Legates, who by prosecuting the causes of Appellants too violently; did somtimes giue occasion of complaint. Wherfore beseeching Pope Celestine, they say:(y) 1.58 That you wil not send your Clerkes executors, to all that demand them, nor per∣mit that we may seeme to introduce the smoaky pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which propounds the light of simplicity, and the day of humility to them, that desire to see God. The motiue which the Africans had to make this petition, was the insolent ca∣riage of Antony B. of Fussala in Numidia, who (as S. Au∣gustine reporteth(z) 1.59 for his enormous crimes being depri∣ued of his Bishoprick, by procurement of the inhabitants of Fussala, and left with the bare title of Bishop, fraudulently got testimoniall letters of his innocency, from the Primate of Numidia, at the very time of this sixth Councell of Car∣thage, and appealed to Boniface Pope; who answeared with great caution, that, he should be restored si nulla in eius nar∣ratione surreptio intercessisset; if there were no surreption in the rela∣tion of his cause. Boniface dying and Celestine succeeding, they of Fussala prosecuted their suite earnestly against him. And he contrarily threatned, that Celestine would send Clerkes executors, and (if need were) souldiers to restore him to his Bishoprick. He threatned them (sayth S. Augu∣stine(a) 1.60 with secular power, as if they were to come to execute the iudgments of the See Apostolike, so that the miserable inhabitants be∣ing Christians, and Catholikes, feared more grieuous vsage from a Catholike Bishop then they did (when they were heretikes) from the lawes of the Emperors.

This was the cause, why S. Augustine, and this sixth Councell of Carthage beseeched Celestine not to grant

Clerkes executors to all Appellants. And this conuinceth you of an vntruth in saying(b) 1.61 that, the African Fathers call that Papall presumption (of Appeales) a smoaky secular arrogan∣cy, which they will not indure: for it is not the Popes clayme of appeales that they qualify with the name of typhe, or smoaky secular arrogancy, but partly the vexation and insolence of Apiarius, and other Priests, despising and shaking off the yoake of Episcopall discipline; and partly the force & mi∣litary Violence which the executors, sent from Rome, did somtimes vse in executing the iudgments of the See Apo∣stolike. For speaking to Boniface Pope of the insolency of Apiarius, they say(c) 1.62: But we hope by the help of Gods mercy, that your Holinesse gouerning in the Roman See, we shall no longer suffer this typhe. And because the executors did somtimes make vse of secular forces, they beseech Celestine(d) 1.63, not to grant Clerkes executors to all that demand thē, lest the typhe of the world be introduced into the Church. Which is agreeable to the decree of the Councell of Ephesus, forbidding Iohn Patriarke of An∣tioch to make vse of any military power to hinder the Bi∣shops of Cyprus from electing to themselues an Archbi∣shop without his consent, lest (sayth the Councell) vnder pretence of executing sacred things, the typhe of secular power be introduced into the Church. And in the same sense the Author(*) 1.64 of S. Fulgentius his life said, that Ful∣gentius commanded nothing with the typhe of secular do∣minion.

And no lesse vntruly(e) 1.65 you make the Africans say in their Epistle to Celestine, that, they will not indure the Papal presumtion of appeales, there being no such thing to be read in that Epistle. For what they speake, of not induring, hath no relation to Appeales, but to the crimes of Apiarius. As for the wretched Apiarius (say they) he hauing bene already cast out of the Church of Christ, for his infamous crimes, by our bro∣ther Faustinus, we are no more in care; for as much as by the meanes of the approbation, and moderation of your Holinesse, Africa will no longer indure him.

5. You say(f) 1.66: This Councell denounced excommunication to all, that thinke it lawfull to appeale beyond the seas. This is an∣other

vntruth: for the Councell speakes not of Bishops, but of Priests, and inferior Clerkes only: & so much you con∣tradicting your selfe, had acknowledged a little before, set∣ting downe the very words of the Councell thus(g) 1.67: If any Priest shall thinke, that he ought to appeale beyond the sea (meaning to Rome) let him not be receaued any longer into the communion of the Church of Africke.

You reply(h) 1.68, that this answeare is a sophistry confuted by the consequence of the Councell: for if inferior Clergy were prohibited, much more was the same prouision made in behalfe of Bishops. This consequence we deny as false sophistry: for albeit they pro∣posed this, among their requests to Pope Celestine, yet they made no decree, nor prouision therof: nor (if they had) cold it haue bene of force, as being directly contradictory to the Canons of the two famous Councels of Nice, and Sardica(i) 1.69; and also to the beliefe of S. Augustine saying,(k) 1.70 that, Cecilian might haue appealed beyond the sea, because he was not of the number of Priests, or other inferior Clerkes, but of Bi∣shops. And moreouer he represented to Celestine Pope(l) 1.71, that wheras Antony B. of Fussala (being depriued of his Bishoprick by the Bishops of Africa, and left only with the bare title of Bishop) had appealed to Boniface his prede∣cessor, he would be pleased to confirme the sentence of the Bishops of Africa, because (sayth he) there had bene many like sentences in Africa, euen the See Apostolike pronouncing the iudgmēt, or confirming the iudgment of others, as of Priscus, Victor, and Law∣rence, Bishops of the Cesarian Prouince.

SECT. V. Whether this Controuersy of Appeales, wrought in the Africans, any separation of Communion from the Roman Church?

TO make your argument more plausible, you say(m) 1.72 that by reason of this controuersy, between the Afri∣cans, and the Bishops of Rome, Aurelius B. of Carthage, & his fellow Bishops of Africk (with whom S. Augustine did consent) were

for the space of an hundred yeares separated frō the Church of Rome. Of all the vntruths vttered in this your discourse of the sixt Councell of Carthage, this is the greatest, which therfore you haue reserued to the last place: Finis coronat opus.

For that the African Fathers, euen of this sixth Coun∣cell of Charthage, during the very tyme of this controuer∣sy, remained still vnited to the See of Rome, is proued: 1. By the clause of their Epistle written to Pope Celestine in the end of this controuersy(n) 1.73: Our Lord keepe your Holi∣nesse many yeares, praying for vs, Lord and Brother; which were the very worlds of peace and communion vsed in Formed letters, that were neuer giuen to any but to Catholikes of the same communion(o) 1.74. 2. Out of S. Augustine, who in the current of this difference writing to Boniface Pope, & dedicating one of his chiefest workes vnto him sayd(p) 1.75. Thou disdainest not, thou who art not high minded, though thou pre∣sidest higher, to be a friend of the humble. 3. Out of the testimony which Pope Celestine gaue of S. Augustine after his death(q) 1.76: Augustine a man of holy memory, for his lyfe & merits, we haue had alwaies in our communion: nor hath the rumor of any sinister sus∣picion, euer so much as touched him: which Epistle of Celestine to the French, is alleaged by Pettus Diaconus(r) 1.77, and by Prosper(s) 1.78 to iustify S. Augustines doctrine against the Pe∣lagians.

4. And the same Prosper(t) 1.79 calles Aurelius Archbishop of Carthage (vnder whom the African Councell was held) after his death. A Father, and Bishop of worthy memory, and a Citizen of the heauenly country; which praise he would not haue giuen him, if he had died out of the communion of the Roman Church: for Prosper in that very booke(u) 1.80 sayth, that, a Christian communicating with that Church, is a Catholike, but if he be separated from it, he is an heretike, and Antichrist. 5. Capreolus immediat successor to Aurelius, writing to the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Ephesus(x) 1.81: Wee pray you to resist all nouelties, with such constancy, as the authority of the See Apostolike, and the seuerity of the Prelates assembled in one, may not seeme to permit, that the doctrine of those, whom the Church hath long since condemned, come to be borne againe. 6. Eu∣genius

another successor to Aurelius, being pressed by the Lieutenāt of Hunericus Lord of Africa, to enter into a pu∣blike disputation with the Arians, answeared(y) 1.82; He would not do it, without writing to his fellow Bishops, and chiefly to the Ro∣man Church, which is the Head of all Churches. 7. S. Fulgentius sayth(z) 1.83: Which the Roman Church, which is the head of the world, holdesh and teacheth, and with her the whole Christian world doth, both without hesitation belieue to iustice, and also doubts not to confesse to saluation. And when the same Sainct was going to the wildrnesse of Thebais in Aegypt to fast(a) 1.84, he desi∣sted from his intent, when comming to Sicily, he vnderstood from Eulalius B. of Syracusa, that those Countries were separated from the communion of the Roman Church, lest desiring a more per∣fect life, he should runne hazard of loosing the true fayth. And in∣steed of gong into Aegypt, he went in pilgrimage to Rome, to visit the Sepulchers of the holy Apostles Peter, & Paul. 8. The African Bishops consulted S. Leo the great in their doubts of fayth; and S. Leo writ to them a famous decretall Epistle(b) 1.85. 9. Almost all the African Bishops 220. in num∣ber being banished into Sardinia by Thrasimundus the A∣rian King, Symmachus Pope relieued & maintained them at his owne charges(c) 1.86, which he would not haue done, if they had bene separated from his communion. 10. Posses∣sor a famous African Bishop writ to Hormisdas Pope(d) 1.87: It is fit and expedient that we haue recourse to the Heard, as often as the health of the members is treated of: for who hath greater solicitude of his subiects, or from whom is more to be required the stability of fayth that is wauering, then from the President of that seate, whose first Gouernor heard from Christ. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I will build my Church? 11. Victor Bishop of Vtica reporteth(e) 1.88 that the Arians in Africa did call the Catholikes, Romans (as you now call vs, Romanists) which they did vpon no o∣ther ground, then because the African Catholikes were of the Roman Communion. 12. And that the possession which the Bishop of Rome were in, of appeales out of A∣frica, was not interrupted by the sixt Conncell of Car∣thage, is prou••d out of Ferrandus, a Deacon of that Church(f) 1.89, which liued soone after that tyme, & hath re∣gistred

in his collection of Canons, this, as the fifth, & sixth Canon of the Councell of Sardica, That a condemned Bishop may, if he will, appeale to the See Apostolike, and that during the ap∣peale no other can be ordained in his place.

By these, and many other euidences (which may be produced) it is manifest, that by this Controuersy of Ap∣peales the Africans were not separated from the commu∣nion of the Roman Church, and that therfore to affirme (as you do) that they remained in the state of separation for the space of 100. yeares, vntill the tyme of Boniface the second, is a notorious vntruth: for all the examples here al∣leaged, are of African Bishops, that liued within the com∣pass of 100. yeares, after the sixth Councell of Carthage.

Against this truth, confirmed by so many euident and vndeniable proofes, that the African Church was not (in the dayes of Aurelius Primate of Africa, and S. Augustine) seuered by Schisme from the Roman Church; you vrge the Epistle of Boniface the second, wherein he testifieth, that the A∣frican Church was in his dayes reconciled vnto them Roman. In the Body of your Councells (say(g) 1.90 you) there is(h) 1.91 extant the Epistle of Boniface the second, wherein about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth, that Aurelius with his fellow-Bishops of Africa (with whome S. Augustine did consent) had by the instigation of Satan (for so the Epistle speaketh) been sepa∣rated from the Church of Rome, vntill now, after an hun∣dred yeares space, Eulalius (Bishop of Carthage) acknowled∣ging his offence, seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome. Thus farre the Epistle of your Pope. Do you belicue this Epistle, concerning the Excommunication of the Chur∣ches of Africk? Then had you best stand aside a while, for scare of knocks. For behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan, angry fellowes, that lay about them. 1. Bellarmine(i) 1.92; I greatly suspect (sayth he) that this Epistle is counterfait. 2. It is full of fraud, sayth(k) 1.93 Binius. 3. Which (sayth Baronius) some wicked Impostor hath fayned &c. Do not you belieue this Epi∣stle of Boniface to be true? Then harken to your(l) 1.94 Lindan: This E∣pistle (sayth he) is not supposititious, but true &c. Thus you. And then finding in Baronius, that during those hūdred yeares,

there were whole troopes, and armias of African Martyrs, and holy Confessors, you triumph, and bid vs take(m) 1.95 this your Syllo∣gisme to ruminate vpon:

No true Christian Martyrs dye out of the state of Saluation:

Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye, out of Obedience to the Ro∣man Church.

Ergo, Diuers dying, out of Obedience to the Roman Church, dye not out of the state of Saluation.

Thus you dispute in your fancy victoriously, as hauing by this your discourse, and Syllogisme, knock't the Ro∣man Church on the heal. I shall first discouer the weake∣nesse and vanity of your Syllogisme; then shew the multi∣plicity of your falsities and fraudes, supposed and cunnin∣gly contriued into your relation of the Story; lastly lay o∣pen the reasons why that Epistle may be suspected, yea re∣iected as being Counterfait.

In your Sollogisme, I grant the Maior Proposition. That no true Martyr dyeth out of the state of Saluation. In your Minor, or Assumption, Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of obe∣dience to the Roman Church, I distinguish sundry Kinds of Disobediences. First there is disobedience Heretical, which re∣sists the doctrines & decrees of Fayth, deliuered by the Ca∣tholike Roman Church; yea denieth the prime article of Christian vnity, the headship and supreme authority of her Bi∣shop. In the state of this Disobedience there can be no true Martyrdome, no hope of Saluation. Secondly, there is Disobe∣dience Schismatical, which belieuing firmely the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and acknowledging the Supreme authority of her Bishop, excepts against the present Bi∣shop and Pastor, as not being true Pope, and cleaueth to one opposite vnto him: men dying in the state of this Diso∣bedience, cannot possibly be true Martyrs, nor be saued. Thirdly there is Disobedience moral, in matter of good life & manners, against precepts enacted by the Church, for the better auoyding & punishing of ill behauiour. Now in the state of this kind of Disobedience men may be saued: for the disobeying of these kind of orders and commands, may proceed either from contumacy and contempt, or from errour

and ignorance. If out of contempt, then is it damnable, so that none dying therin can be Martyrs, or goe to heauen. But with Disobedience of the second kind caused by ignorance, Sal∣uation and Martyrdome may stand: for their ignorance may be inuincible, or else probable, and grounded vpon good seeming reasons. Or if it be vincible and faulty, yet may it be abo∣lished by their contrition for all their sinnes, or falce Marty∣rij. by the sickle of Martyrdome done away.

This supposed, I say, the Disobedience of the African Bi∣shops was not Heretical; because in all matters of sayth they were conforme to the Church of Rome, and by manifold practise shewed, that about doubts, and controuersies of this kind, they held it necessary to haue recourse to(n) 1.96 the Pastorall Chayre. and care of Peter. to the(o) 1.97 Roote, and matrice of the Catholike Church; to the Rocke which the(p) 1.98 proud gates of Hell do neuer ouercome; to the maine indeficient fountaine, which with the streames of wholesome doctrine watereth all Christians ouer the whole world. The ancient rules (say they (the foure Primates of A∣frike)(q) 1.99 haue ordayned, that whatsoeuer is treated in Prouinces di∣stant and farre of, should not be deemed to be ended, vntill first it were come to the knowledge of the See Apostolike, to the en that the sen∣tente, which should be found iust, might be confirmed by the authority of the same See; and that from thence all other Churches, as streames flowing from their mother source, might take the beginning of their preaching, and the Sacraments of Saluation.

Their Disobedience then could not be Heretical: nor was it Schismatical, because they acknowledged the Pope, euen that Pope with whome they did disagree, to be their Pa∣stor and Superior, whose(r) 1.100 lawfull Commaunds they were bound to obey; & that all Maior causes, all matters & controuersies aboue Iurisdiction of greater moment, to wit, such as concerne sayth, and the life, and gouernment of Bishops, are to be referred vnto him, and to be finally and infallibly decided by him.

Neither, thirdly, was their Disobedience ioyned with contumacy and contempt; because though they refused to de∣ferre vnto the Appeales which Priest, & infertour Clergymen might make to the Pope: yet they do it with great humility

and respect, and by way of submissiue intreaty, in their(s) 1.101 letter to Pope Celeftine: Praefato debitae Salutationis officio, im∣pendio deprecamur, vt deinceps ad aures vestrashinc venientes, non fa∣cilius admittatis: The behoofe of due Salutation or Reuerence being premised, we humbly beseech you, that those which come from hence (with their Appeales) you will not admit them vnto audience ouer-easily. Therefore their disobedience was out of ignorance; for they did not doubt, but the Pope had power to com∣mand the Bishops of Africa, to yield vnto the Appeales, that were made vnto him; but they esteemed the practise of that power not to be (in those circumstances) for the good of the Church of Africa. They saw, by appealing to Rome. that dissolute and vnruly Clergymen, would cause much vexation vnto the Bishops their lawfull Iudges, prolonge the cause, differre the sentence, and many times escape de∣serued punishment; which impunity might easily grow in∣to liberty, and audacity, and extreme disorder. Wherefore the power giuen of Christ to his Church, and Vicar on earth being giuen(t) 1.102 for edifying, not for destroying, they were persuaded, that the Pope could not prudently command them to deferre vnto such Appeales; and if he did that they should not be bound to obey therein.

You demand(u) 1.103, whether the Pope of Rome, whom we entitle Monarch of the Church Catholike, and Bishop of Bishops would accept it as a matter of subiection for Protestants, with S. Augustine and those other African Bishops; to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishop; and not to yield to his demands in point of Iurisdiction vpon any pretence of Diuine Law, but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell? I answere. The African Bishops deny the title of Prince of Bishops, to any Arch-bishop or Primate within Africke, but not to the Ro∣man Bishop; yea they entitle him in expresse termes(x) 1.104 Bishop of Bishops, the Holy Father of Fathers the soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops and Pastors; they call his Authority, the Prince∣dome of the Apostolike Chayre, euer vigent in the Roman Church; they acknowledge that they are bound to obey all his iust commandes; that all Christians may, and must Ap∣peale to him about Controuersies of Religion and the Ca∣tholike

Fayth;* 1.105 yea Bishops also in criminal causes from the condēnation giuen against them by their fellow-Bishops. But that the Pope should admit the Appeales so easely of euery African Priest and Clergyman. hereof they doubt whe∣ther it be expedient for the African Church. Now Bishops may be sometimes excused, if they do not obey the Pope in matters that are extremely burthensome, and hard; special∣ly when they haue probable reasons, that it is not prudent∣ly commanded, nor will proue for the good of soules. But Protestants, you are disobedient vnto the See of Peter, and the Soueraigne Bishop of all Bishops in points of Iurisdiction, al∣lowed vnto him by ancient Councells. Your disobedience is ioyned with Contumacy, contempt, contumely, and base language. You deny Appeales vnto him in matters, and doubts about Christian Fayth. Wherefore you want that dutifull subiection to Peters chayre, without which none can be of the number of Christ his sheepe, nor consequently be saued: yea you are guilty of that damnable disobedience whereof S. Leo sayth(y) 1.106; Whosoeuer shall deny vnto him (Peter, and his Successor) the Princedome of care and power; shall neuer be able to depresse his dig∣nity, but puffed vp with pride shall drowne himselfe into Hell. Your Syllogisme then is vaine, the Minor thereof being manifestly false, That the African Martyrs dyed out of obedience to the Roman Church.

I come now to your falsifies, and falsifications of the Story, and tenour of the foresaid questioned Epistle of Boni∣face the Second. Two especially are very exorbitant: first, that the Pope denounced, or thundred out(z) 1.107 excommunication against the Churchs of Africa: that these (Aurelius and S. Augustine) & all other Bishops of Africa, were excommunicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome. Which notorious fal∣shood you seeke to make good, by a notable falsification(a) 1.108, telling vs, That our Costerus, and Turrian, both Iesuites, and also M. Harding do greatly magnify our Popes, for discharging their office in excommunicating the Bishops of Afrike. You neither cite any wordes, nor quote any place of Tur∣rian, but referre vs in your margent to your Sadeel, whome we trust as litle almost as we do your selfe. You cite the

wordes of the Iesuite Costerus, Bene fecerunt Romani Pontifices &c. but you peruert them, and turne them to another mat∣ter and purpose(b) 1.109. Costerus proposeth your Protestant Ar∣gument: The Bishops of Africa in the dayes of S. Augustine, did bitterly inueigh against Pope Celestine, who after Pope Zozimus, challenged authority ouer the African Churches; and admitted the Appeales of Clergymen from their Bishops vnto him. This is the ob∣iection; vnto which he makes Answere in the wordes by you cited, Rectè, & ex officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices &c. The Roman Bishops did well, and according to their duty; and the Afri∣can Bishops were to blame, who euen then (as doth testify Boni∣face the 2.) were inclining to a defection from the Roman Church, to their owne great losse: because soone after they were conquered, and came vnder the Dominion of the Arian Wandals. Blessed Augu∣stine subscribed not vnto those bitter letters, for he did euer beare singular veneration towards the Apostolike see. Thus Costerus; af∣firming that the Pope did well in admitting the Appeales of the Clergymen made vnto him; and that herein he did discharge the office of a good Pastor: but that he did excom∣municate Aurelius, and all other Bishops of Africa, and that in so doing he did discharge his duety, this Costerus doth not say. No, nor that the Africans were Schismatically deuided from the Church of Rome; bur only that they seemed euen then to thinke vpon some such thinge. M. Harding in like manner sayth(c) 1.110; that the Churches of Africa had continued in Schisme, and withdrawne themselues from the obedience of the See Apostolike, through the entisement of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage: but that all the Churchs of Africa, or any one Church was excommunicated by the Pope, this M. Harding doth not say. So that the Excommunication of all the Churches and Bishops of Africa by the Pope, is not recorded by any Author; not by Costerus, not by Harding, not by the foresaid Epistle of Boniface the second; it is a meere fiction of your owne head. The Africans were no further separated from the Church of Rome, then they eloyned themselues from it, by their own voluntarily departure and fault. But they did not depart from the Obedience of the Roman Church, by denying the Christian fayth thereof, nor by denying the Popes

power and Iurisdiction ouer them, but only dissented in a Problematique(d) 1.111 Question, about what was fit to be done by the Pope, about the Appeales of African Clergymen of inferiour degree.

Although this falshood & falsification may seeme grosse inough, yet the second is greater. The Iesuite Salmeron (say(e) 1.112 you) and Sanders, do confidently hold, that all the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome, from the dayes of S. Cyprian vntill the time of the said Boniface the Author of the Epistle. Can any thinge be said or deuised more openly, notoriously, & palpably false then this? You say in the wordes that pre∣sently follow the aboue cited, that, You doubt not but that we stand halfe agast. Verely so it is; we stand more then halfe agast, (not, that there be different opinions among our Authors about the said Epistle of Boniface the second, but) that Prote∣stants can endure, that such notorious falsities should be so confidently vttered, and layd for grounds, and principles in your discourse, to ius••••ly their reuolt from the obedience, doctrine, and discipline of the Roman Church. But the Ie∣suit Salmeron (say you) and Sanders do confidently so hold. If this be true, we shall remayne agast at their madnesse, & thinke their writings worthy of the fire: if they do not so hold; if they affirme the contrary in plaine termes; if these wordes All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome▪ from the dayes of S. Cyprian, vntill the time of Boniface the second, which you allege in a distinct letter as verbally theirs, be supposititious and forged; how ought Protestants to re∣maine agast? What course ought they to take with your writings?

Sanders then, to begin with him, doth not say all the Bi∣shops, but the contrary in these very wordes(f) 1.113: Non ergo, (vt somniant Magdeburgenses, aut potiùs calumniantur) omnes A∣fricani Patres opposueru••t se Pontifici Romano; sed potiùs multi cu∣piebant rem adipsum referri. In the Controuersy about Ap∣pellations, all the African Bishops did not oppofe the Bishop of Rome, as the Magdeburgians dreame, or rather calumniously report; yea rather many of them desired, that the matter might be referred to the Pope. For though Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and Primate of

all Africa, may seeme to haue been somewhat crosse, and to haue affe∣cted an absolute Primacy in matters of discipline and behauiour; yet there be many signes, wherby it appeareth, that others were otherwise minded, yea that Aurelius himselfe did acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, and appealed to him in matters of fayth. Thus Sanders. Who further against your peremptory affirming, that namely S. Augustine concurred with Aurelius in this point, he produceth the wordes of Bishop Faustinus the Po∣pes Legat in the Councell of Carthage vnto Aurelius, reque∣sting him, that about Appeales made by Clergymen of inferior de∣gree vnto Bishops, his Holinesse would vouchsafe to write to Venerable Pope Boniface, remitting the matter to his deliberation, and conclu∣sion ficut Sanctus Augustinus statuere dignatus est, as Holy Au∣gustine hath been pleased to determine by his suffrage. By which wordes sayth Sanders, it is apparent, that S. Augustine would haue had the matter, of Appeales, referred to the Pope, and ordered as he should thinke best. So that where∣as you cite Sanders saying, All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome, his true wordes import the direct contradictory; Non omnes Episcopi Africani, All the Bishops of A∣frike did not oppose the Roman Bishop. You also alleage him de visibili Monarch. pag. 368. n. 411. where he hath nothing to your purpose, but only alleageth the wordes of Eulalias of Carthage his recantation, We anathematize all those that proudly lift vp their neckes against the Holy Roman and Apostolical Church. From these wordes can you gather your dismal assertion that, All the African Bishops from the dayes of Cyprian vntill Boni∣face the second, that is, for three hundred yeares, were excommu∣nicated by the Pope, and seuered from the Communion of the Ro∣man Church?

The Iesuite Salmeron sayth no more, then(g) 1.114 that in the dayes of S. Cyprian, the African Bishops began to be seuered from the Roman Church; and that in the dayes of Pope In∣nocent, and Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, they were bitter and displeased against the Church of Rome. But he doth not say, that all the African Bishops were so; nor that they with∣drew their Communion and obedience from the Roman Church. Yea in the dayes of S. Cyprian, though he, and fou∣rescore

African Bishops were displeased with Pope Stephen; because he did strongely and constantly oppose their im∣pious doctrine of Anabaptisme; yet they neuer proceeded to make a Schisme, and separation from the Roman Church. Contrariwise the very same fourescore Bishops who had made a decree for Anabaptisme, met together againe, as S. Hierome doth testify(h) 1.115 and repealed their decree, which might haue caused their separation from the Romā Church: So false is it, that all the Bishops of Africa from the dayes of S. Cy∣prian vntill the time of Boniface the second were seuered from the Church of Rome, that euen those very Bishops of those dayes were not seuered.

By the Epistle of Boniface the second (grant it be true) no more is proued then, that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, super∣bir•• cepit, was somewhat arrogant and proud against the Pope; and that Eulalius of Carthage did (against the exam∣ple of his other Predecessors) imitate Aurelius therin; as he doth testify saying in the said Epistle of Boniface, that he felt himselfe, Peccatis Aurelij praegrauatum, ouer-burthened with the sinnes of Aurelius. But that all the Christians of A∣frica, namely those many Martyrs that suffered persecution vnder the Arian Wandalls, were tainted with this bitternes of distast and Schismaticall dis-vnion against the Roman Bishop, is a fable by your selfe newly coyned, and vented abroad.

Now to the third point proposed, although the Epistle of Boniface do not iustify your slander against all the Bishops & Martyrs of Africa, that they were excommunicated by the Pope, and out of the communion of the Roman Church; yet there be many Arguments that may seeme to euince, that the same is counterfeit, the relation thereof being inco∣herent. First you(i) 1.116 say, that the reunion of the Church of Africa to the Church of Rome, happened about the yeare 606. and in the time of Boniface the second. These thinges hange not togeather, and consequently are false: for Boniface the second dyed in the yeare 531. that is almost an hundred yeares before the yeare 606. Secondly the said Epistle of Boniface the Second affirmes, that Eulalius his reconcilia∣tion

with the Church of Rome was performed in the daies of Iustine the Emperour, &(k) 1.117 that this Emperour writ letters to the said Boniface about it. Now Iustine the Emperour was dead three or foure yeares before Romiface the Second was chosen Pope. Thirdly the Epistle of Boniface is written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria. But the Bishop of Alexandria, in the dayes of Boniface the second was not named Eulalius, but Timothaeus, an Heretike, and an Aduersary of the Roman Church. You saw this difficulty, and to auoyd it, feare not to do against the command of the Holy Ghost(m) 1.118 Ne cor∣rumpaes Tituli inscriptionem. For the Title of that Epistle in Su∣rius being Epistola eiusdem (Bonifacij) ad Eulalium Alexandri∣num Episcopum,(n) 1.119 you change it, and make it to be, Epistola Bonifacij ad Alexandrum Episcopum, the Epistle of Boniface to Bi∣shop Alexander; nor do you tell vs of what Church or See this your Alexander was Bishop. Fourthly in the time of Boniface the secōd, Gilimer the Arian Wandal was King of Africa, during whose reigne, there was no Catholike Bishop in Carthage,(o) 1.120 nor in any Church of Africa, but only Arians. Finally your Apostata-Bishop of Spalato, Antonius de Dominis, in his(p) 1.121 London-writings, which he published vnder your nose, & with your so great approbation and applause, doth so lay a∣bout him, against the Epistle of Boniface; that you who are so stiffe a defender therof had best to stand aside for feare of knocks. In the Controuersy about Appellations (sayth he)(q) 1.122 the Commu∣nion between Africa and Rome was neuer broken, as Baronius and Binius do proue very well▪ The reconciliation, or recantation made by the Church of Carthage vnto Boniface the Second. which some one hath faigned(r) 1.123 is a meere Imposture, as the said Authors demon∣strate.

Thus he. May you not number this man among the Chil∣dren of the Tribe of Dan, and angry fellowes, who doth so perem∣ptorily auerre the Epistle of Boniface to be a meere forgery, and a grand Imposture, with greater reason, then you haue done Bel∣larmine, for only saying, I suspect it is counterfeit? In fine, these Arguments abundantly shew, that this Epistle of Boniface may be questioned and reiected; and yet all the other Epi∣stles of ancient Popes set downe in the Body of our Coun∣cells

cells subsist firme, against which the like implicancies and incoherencies cannot be vrged. As for Bishop Lindan, he speaketh against them, who discard this Epistle voluntari∣ly, and without euident proofes, saying, that they might as∣well infringe the credit of any ancient history: which his inference is of no force against them, who refuse it as counterfeit, not voluntarily, but constrained by the pregnant incompossi∣bilities thereof, with other knowne vndeniable truthes.

Notes

• (l) 1.1

  Anno 419.
• (m) 1.2

  L. 2. de Pontif. c. 25.
• (n) 1.3

  Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49.
• (o) 1.4

  Loc. cit.
• (p) 1.5

  Prot. A∣pol. tract. 1. sect. 7. Sub∣diu. 2. n. 3.
• (q) 1.6

  Loc. cit.
• (r) 1.7

  Pag. 29.
• (s) 1.8

  Chap. 16. & 26.
• (t) 1.9

  Pag. 301. & seqq.
• (u) 1.10

  Pag. 302.
• (x) 1.11

  Apud Bin. pa. 348.
• (y) 1.12

  L. 3. in Conc. Nicen. apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 349. 350.
• (z) 1.13

  Ibid. pag. 347.
• (a) 1.14

  Brereley Prot. Apol. Tract. 1. sect. 7. subdiu. 2.
• (b) 1.15

  Brereley ibid.
• (c) 1.16

  Brereley ibid.
• (d) 1.17

  Epit. Cent. 4. pag. 122.
• (e) 1.18

  Sess. 20.
• (f) 1.19

  Pag. 302.
• (g) 1.20

  Pag. 303.
• (h) 1.21

  Pag. 145.
• (i) 1.22

  Brereley Protest. Apo∣log. tract. 1. sect. 7. subdia. ••.
• (k) 1.23

  Cap. 27.••.
• (l) 1.24

  De g••st. Fran. l. 9. c. 33.
• (m) 1.25

  Act. ••.
• (n) 1.26

  Apol. 2.
• (o) 1.27

  Repliq. l. 1. Chap. 49.
• (p) 1.28

  L. 3. c. 10.
• (q) 1.29

  Ep▪ 163. & Con••. Cres••on. l. 3. c. 34.
• (r) 1.30

  Pag. 144. fin. 14••.
• (s) 1.31

  Ep. ad Ce∣lestin.
• (t) 1.32

  Can. 7.
• (u) 1.33

  Pag. 289. & 304.
• (x) 1.34

  Pag. 145.
• (y) 1.35

  Aug. ep. ••2.
• (z) 1.36

  Pag. 146.151.
• (a) 1.37

  Pag. 302.303.
• (b) 1.38

  Aug. ep. 92.
• (c) 1.39

  Apud Athan. A∣polog. 2.
• (d) 1.40

  Socra. l. 2. c. 12. Sozom. l. ••. c. 7.
• (e) 1.41

  Ep. ad Mi∣chael. Imper.
• (f) 1.42

  In Decret. de Apocryph, Scriptur.
• (g) 1.43

  Extat a∣pud Bin. to. 1. pag. 399.
• (h) 1.44

  Apud Theodore••. l. 5. hist. c. 9.
• (i) 1.45

  Pag. 146.
• (k) 1.46

  Sect. 2. & 3.
• (l) 1.47

  Pag. 147.
• (m) 1.48

  In 1. part. 5. disp. 8.
• (n) 1.49

  Pag. 144.
• (o) 1.50

  See aboue Chap. 26.
• (p) 1.51

  Ep: ad Bonifac.
• (q) 1.52

  Ibid.
• (r) 1.53

  Conc. A∣fric. c. 4.
• (s) 1.54

  Ibid. c. 7.
• (t) 1.55

  Cap. 101. in Ep. ad Bonif.
• (u) 1.56

  Ep. ad Celest.
• (x) 1.57

  Can. 7.
• (y) 1.58

  Conc. Afric. c. 107
• (z) 1.59

  Ep. 261.
• (a) 1.60

  Ibid.
• (b) 1.61

  Pag. 145. fin. 151.
• (c) 1.62

  Conc. A∣fric. c. 101.
• (d) 1.63

  Ibid. c. 105.
• (*) 1.64

  Cap. 26.
• (e) 1.65

  Pag. 145. fin.
• (f) 1.66

  Pag. 155.
• (g) 1.67

  Pag. 146.
• (h) 1.68

  Pag. 155.
• (i) 1.69

  See aboue Chap. 26.
• (k) 1.70

  Ep. 162.
• (l) 1.71

  Ep. 261.
• (m) 1.72

  Pag. 148.
• (n) 1.73

  Apud Bin. to. 1. pag. 646.
• (o) 1.74

  Aug. ep. 162.163.
• (p) 1.75

  Cont. duas ep. Pelag. ad Bonifa. l. 1.
• (q) 1.76

  Ep. ad E∣pise. Galliae c. 2.
• (r) 1.77

  L. de in∣carn. & grat.
• (s) 1.78

  Cont. Col∣lat c. 42.
• (t) 1.79

  L. de pro∣miss. & pre∣dict. par. 3. c. 38.
• (u) 1.80

  Part. 4. c. 5.
• (x) 1.81

  Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. c. 9.
• (y) 1.82

  Victor Vtic. l. 2.
• (z) 1.83

  De incarn. & grat. c. 11.
• (a) 1.84

  Author vitae S. Fulg. c. 12. to. 6. Bi∣bliothec. Pat.
• (b) 1.85

  Leo ep. 87.
• (c) 1.86

  Paul. Diac. l. 17. re∣rum. Roman.
• (d) 1.87

  Ep. ad Hormisd.
• (e) 1.88

  L. 1. de per∣sequut. Van∣dal.
• (f) 1.89

  Breuiar. Can. art. 59. & 60.
• (g) 1.90

  Pag. 148.
• (h) 1.91

  Apud Suriumtom. 2. Concil. pag. 384. So you quote him falsly, for it is Tom. 1. Con∣cil. pag. 1057.
• (i) 1.92

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 25.
• (k) 1.93

  Binius Tom. 1. Conc. in hanc Epi∣stolam.
• (l) 1.94

  Lindan. Panopl. l. 4. c. 89.
• (m) 1.95

  Pag. 150.
• (n) 1.96

  Ep. Con∣cil. Mileuit. 92. inter E∣pist. August.
• (o) 1.97

  Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 10. l. 4. ep. 8.
• (p) 1.98

  August. Psal. cont. part. Donat.
• (q) 1.99

  Ep. ad Theodor. Pa∣pam, Extat in Concil. Late∣ran. 1. consult. 2. Bin. to 2. p. 1075.
• (r) 1.100

  August. Epist. 157. Iniuncta no∣bis à Venera∣bili Papa Zozimo Ec∣clesiastica ne∣cessitas.
• (s) 1.101

  Ep. ad Cae∣lestin. apud Sur. Tom. l. Coucil. pag. 520.
• (t) 1.102

  ••. Cor. 1••.10.
• (u) 1.103

  Pag. 150••
• (x) 1.104

  Aruob. in Psal. 138. Ter∣tullian. lib. de pudicit. c. 1. Stephanus Mauritaniae in Africa Episcopus Epist. ad Da∣masum.
• * 1.105

  August ep. 1••2. A posto∣litae Cathedrae principatum. Item, the foure Prima∣tes of Afrike in their Syno∣dical Epistle to Pope Theo∣dor. in Conc. Lateran. 1. Consul. 2. Bin∣tom. 2 pag. 1078. Patri Patrum & summo omnium Praesulum Pontifici Theodoro. By which is answered what you alleage pag. 46. out of the 26. Ca∣non of the Councell of Carthage.
• (y) 1.106

  Epist. 93. c. 2.
• (z) 1.107

  Pag 148. & pag. 150.
• (a) 1.108

  Pag. 149.
• (b) 1.109

  Costerus Enchirid. Controuers. de summo Pontifice pag. 159.
• (c) 1.110

  Answere to M. Iewel••s Challenge fol. 218. A.
• (d) 1.111

  An ex∣pediret ea po∣testate vti, & omnibus in locis, non sine causa dubita∣cum est. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pon∣tif. c. 25. §. Ad hoc eorum.
• (e) 1.112

  Pag. 149.
• (f) 1.113

  Sanderus de visibili Mo∣narch. pag. 330. n. 247.
• (g) 1.114

  Salmeron tom. 12. tract. 68. §. Ad Canonem.
• (h) 1.115

  Hieron. Dialog. cont. Lucifer. Illi ipsi Epis∣copi qui Re∣baptizandos haereticos cum Cypriano statuerunt, ad antiquam consuetudi∣nem reu••luti, nouum emis••∣re decretum.
• (i) 1.116

  Pag. 148. The Epistle of Boniface the second, wher∣in about the yeare 606. the same Pope complaineth &c.
• (k) 1.117

  Iustini elementissimi Principis O∣rientis sacra∣rum litera∣rum exem∣plaria ad vo•• destinauimus.
• (m) 1.118

  Vide ti∣tulum Psalmi 58. & Augu. tract. 117. in Ioan.
• (n) 1.119

  Pag. 248. in marg. at (x).
• (o) 1.120

  See Baron. Anno 620. & seqq.
• (p) 1.121

  De Repub. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 8. n. 34.
• (q) 1.122

  Commu∣nio inter A∣fricam & Ro∣mam non est abrupta.
• (r) 1.123

  Mara est impostura.