doctrine practise of the Popes Primacie Now as cōcerning the Age next ensuing the 20. yeares after Christ in which persecution so raged as the Churches gouernment was thereby much the more obscured yet it is confessed (127) Cent 3. col 168. that Pope Stephen in this Age did threaten Excōmunicatiō to Helenus Firmilianus al others throughout Cilicia Cappadocia for rebaptizing Hereticks (128) Apocalypsis c. c. 7. p. 193 yea M. Brightman is of opinion that scarcely would anie beleeue those proud brags of the Roman Sea wherwith the Decretal Epistles abound not to haue been forged by succeding Popes and so falsely ascribed to the more ancient they are so impudent and vayne but that Firmilianus assureth they were theyr owne at least a great part of them whose names they beare for speaking of Stephen then Bishop of Rome who sayth he so braggeth of the place of his Bishoprick and contendeth himself to hold the Succession of Peter vpon whom the foundations of the Church were placed and he declareth abundantly how boasting the Bishops then were amongst the Epistles of Cyprian ep 75. The (129) Cent. 3. c. 7. col 168. Centurists confesse that Dionysius Bishop of Rome through the false accusation of some excommunicated Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria but Dionysius of Alexandria made his Apologie and refuted the errours falsely obiected vnto him as Athanasius reporteth Hereby appeareth not only the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome in excommunicating but also the obsequiousnes of the Bishop of Alexandria in not contemning but making his Apologie vnto him They (130) Cent. 3. col 84. likewise reproue S. Cyprian for teaching that There ought to be one Bishop in the Catholick Church And for his calling (131) Ibid. Peters Chayre the principal Church from whence Priestly vnitie ariseth (132) Vpon Iude p. 285. M. Trig reprehendeth S. Cyprian saying Cyprian giueth more priuiledges to the Roman Church he calleth it the chief Church from whence Priestlie vnitie began c. And to which infidelitie cannot haue accesse Wherupon M. Trig thus inferreth Here we may note what certaintie it is to build our Faith on the Fathers c And the (133) Cent. 3. col 84. And See Brightman in his Apocalypsis in c. 13. p. 343. Centurists charge him for teaching say they without anie foundation of Scripture that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of al other for the Mother and root of the Catholick Church Yea D. Morton (134) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 294. 295. professing willingly to admit S. Cyprians Iudgement as Vmpier in this controuersie is yet inforced to say Although the next sentences of S. Cyprian may seem at their first view vnto the vnexpert Reader to obserue in the Church of Rome both a grace of Impossibilitie of Erring and also a Prerogatiue of the Mother Church of al others and are therefore censured by our Centurists for speeches inconuenient Yet no man exercised and conuersant in his writings and other Fathers can be ignorant that such like speeches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification which commonly they vse by way of persuasion rather then by asseueration But what testimonie though neuer so cleer in anie matter whatsoeuer may not easily be euaded if it wil suffice to answer that it was but the language of Rhetorical Amplification or demy-lying Or for what cause should S. Cyprian and other Fathers vtter the foresayd Sayings by way of Persuasion in behalf of the Roman Churches Prerogatiues if they had thought in their owne Iudgements and Consciences that the sayd Prerogatiues had not been due vnto her So vndoubted it is that S. Cyprian and the other Fathers of his Age beleeued and acknowledged the Primacie of the Roman Church But as touching the Age next after the Apostles themselues wherof as M. Hutton (135) In his ansvver to the 2. par of the Reasons of Refusal to Subscription p. 105. obserueth but few Monuments are now remayning As then liued Pope Victor who in D. Whiteguifts (136) In his Defence c. p. 510. opinion was a godlie Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that time in great puritie And yet of him sayth D. Whitaker (137) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. FulK in his Ansvv to a counterf Cath. p. 36. with D. Fulk The first that exercised Iurisdiction vpon forraine Bishops was Victor Insomuch as he excommunicating the Bishops of Asia for not obseruing the Feast of Easter-day according to the vse of the Latin Church D. Fulk (138) Ibid. chargeth him that He passed the bounds of his authoritie Amandus Polanus )139) In Sillog Thes Theol. p. 165 accuseth him to haue shewed a Papal mind and arrogancie And M. Spark (140) Against Iohn de Albines in his Answer to the Preface And see Osiander cent 2. p. 87. 96. affirmeth that somewhat Pope-like he exceeded his bounds when he took vpon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East Beza (141) Pref. ad Princip Condensem before his Translation of the New Testament tearmeth Victor the most foolish and most ambitious Bishop of Rome And (142) Of the state of the Church p. 47 Crispinus speaking of this Age auoucheth that The Roman Bishops now became more audacious to forge new Ceremonies yea and to force vpon other Churches c. Victor in his 2. Decretal calleth himself Archbishop of the Roman and vniuersal Church D Fulk (143) Against the Rhem. Test in 2. Thess 2. sec 9. p. 659. maketh the Mysterie of iniquitie to work in Peters Sea in the times of Anicetus Victor and Cornelius In like sort D. Morton iustifyeth such Protestant Authors as (144) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 300. reprehend Victor for arrogancie and transgressing the bounds of his Iurisdiction in excommunicating the Churches of Asia c. The Centurists record that (145) Cent. 2. c. 7. col 159. Anacletus in the Epistles which heare his name in the general regiment of Churches so loyneth them togeather that to the Roman Church he attributeth Primacie and excellencie of power ouer al Churches and ouer the whole flock of the Christian People and that by the authoritie of Christ saying to Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock wil I build my Church c. The Bishop of Rome is placed first as the supreame Head of the Church who though he erre yet wil he not haue him to be iudged of others c. He sayth also that certaine Citties receaued Primates from the Blessed Apostles and from S. Clement c. He prescribeth that If greater difficulties arise or causes fal out among the Bishops and Primates themselues let them be brought to the Sea Apostolick if such Appeale be made for so the Apostles ordayned by the appoyntment of our Sauiour that the greater and harder questiōs should alwayes be brought to the Apostolick Sea vpon which Christ built his vniuersal Church Math. 16. In like sort they say of Xistus that In
that Pelagius Celestius Iulianus al of them Hereticks do see and Hilarie Gregorie Ambrose c. are blind This so worthie a Saying of S. Austin being alleaged against the Puritans by D. Bancroft he therupon inferreth (32) Suruey p. 352. 353. 351. Surely I do not perceiue why I may not without offence apply the same wordes to those men in those dayes c. Were there neuer learned men before you were taught the Principles of the Geneua Discipline c. Do you know what was in the Apostles times better then they who succeded the Apostles c. Is the light that shewed it self so manie wayes in the Ancient Fathers become such darknes that Carthwright Trauerse Fenner to whom I might as truly adde Luther Zuinglius Caluin Beza c. and such like should be thought so clearlie-sighted And shal Ireneus Tertulian Cyprian Ambrose Hierom Chrysostom Austin Gregorie Hilarie and al the rest of those whorthie men be reckned blind So cleerly doth D. Bancroft the Protestant late Primate of England acknowledge the shining light and glorie of the ancient Fathers and defend their authoritie from the imputations of Nouelists D. Morton ioyfully acknowledgeth (33) Prot. Appeal p. 33. That the ancient Fathers c. did obtayne in the Church of Christ honourable Titles as Augustin the great Mall or hammer against Hereticks Basil the light of the world Chrysostome The Doctour of the whole world Athanasius the Pillar as it were of the Church Nazianzene by a phrase of excellencie the Diuine Origen the Maister of the churches Cyprian the President of the whole world And lastly Ambrose A man called by God vnto an Apostolical Presidencie Now as for the Confidence which Catholicks place in the ancient Fathers D. Morton testifyeth for vs that (34) Ib. p 348 Neuer did the ancient Iewes more boast of their original and descent from father Abraham then do the Romanists glory in their pretended consent of ancient Fathers And though it be true that the ancient Fathers were men yet (35) Eccl. Pol. p. 115. The strength of mans Authoritie in M. Hookers iudgement is affirmatiuely such that the weightiest affaires in the world depend therupon Yea (36) Ib. p. 116. whatsoeuer we beleeue concerning saluation by Christ although the Scripture be therin the ground of our beleef yet is mans Authoritie sayth he the key that openeth the doore c. The Scripture could not teach vs these things vnles we beleeued men And wheras the sacred Scriptures do foretel sundrie things to be performed by the Church of Christ in succeeding Ages the answerable accomplishment therof in particular being matter of fact can be to vs at this day no otherwise made knowne then vpon the Credit of humane Testimonie commended to vs by Ecclesiastical Histories In which respect D. Whitaker truly teacheth that (37) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 472. Historie plainly testifyeth al that to be accomplished which the ancient Prophets haue foretold concerning the Propagation amplitude and glorie of the Church So that there is no doubt sayth he but that Ecclesiastical Historie doth strengthen the Predictions of the Prophets Now from the Premisses we may briefly remember that not only al Catholicks but euen the Primest ProtestaÌ„ts that euer were do thus willingly appeale for the decision of Controuersies in Faith and Religion to the Censure and Determination of the Church of Christ which for the first six hundred yeares was confessedly sincere holie and religious Acknowledging withal the integritie and puritie of the Roman Church during the sayd time and professing to beleeue and teach no other Faith and religion then that which was taught and beleeued by the ancient Fathers of the same Church This then supposed I wil now descend in particular to the chiefest articles of Faith disputed at this day between Catholicks and Protestants And wil only examine whether the Roman or Protestant Church is now more agreable with the confessed Faith and Religion of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church in the foresayd poynts And for the cleerest preuenting of the manifold shiftes and euasions vsed by ProtestaÌ„ts when they are vrged in this kind I wil only produce such proofe from the Primitiue Church and Fathers as is recorded and confessed by Protestants and by them disliked and reiected as agreeing with our Roman Faith and condemning Protestancie THAT THE FATHERS AND DOCTOVRS OF the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught that S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church and that the Church was founded vpon S. Peter it is Confessed by Protestants themselues CHAPTER III. BEcause the deciding of this present Controuersie of the Churches Primacie is indeed the speediest and most certaine meanes for the final dissoluing of al doubts in Religion either already begun or hereafter to arise I wil therfore more particularly and at large set downe the manifest and confessed Doctrine and practice of the Primitiue Church concerning the same And first as al gouernment whether Politick or Ecclesiastical the more it reseÌ„bleth the gouernment of this world by the Creatour therof ONE GOD or the gouernment of the Church during our Sauiours aboad vpon earth by ONE CHRIST the more it is to be approued coÌ„mended and followed so nothing is holden more Soueraigne or more needful for the procuring or preseruing of vnitie and concord in anie Bodie or Communitie then the vnitie of one Head or gouernment Monarchical Herevpon the (1) Bel. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 10. l. 2. c 12. Catholick Church doth beleeue and teach That S. Peter was ordayned by Christ the Supreme Ecclesiastical Head not only ouer the rest of the Apostles but euen ouer the whole Church And that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him in the same Power and Authoritie The direct (2) Luther l de Potestate Papae in assertione Art 25. Calu. l. 4 Instit c 6. Morton in his Appeale l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 11. Negatiue wherof is not only taught by the Protestant-Church but withal it further beleeueth maintayneth that the Bâ—shop of Rome in steed of being the true Successour of S. Peter and the Vicar of Christ is the true Antichrist or Man of Sinne wherof so much is foretold in the sacred Scriptures To discouer now the Faith and practise of the Primitiue Church and to begin with the confessed Primacie of S. Peter And first that for the preseruing of vnitie and preuenting of Schismes he was appoynted by Christ the Supreme Head of that slender Bodie or litle Church of the twelue Apostles Wheras S. Hierom l. 1. cont Iouinianum teacheth that Amongst the Twelue one is chosen that a Head appoynted the occasion of Schisme should be taken away From hence (3) In his Examination c. against the Plea of the Innocent p. 106. 107. D. Couel hauing spoken of the necessitie of One aboue the rest to suppresse the seed of dissention thus argueth most strongly If this were the Principal
And that (48) Ib. p. 550. Popes namely Innocent Leo Gelasius Vigilius Gregorie taught that the Fathers by the Sentence of God decreed that whatsoeuer was done in Prouinces far of should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the Sea of Rome And this they say al churches took their beginning from the Roman that al Bishops had their honour from Peter And herewith he confesseth that in those times Popes (49) Ibid. p. 540. were learned and Catholicks and were (50) Ibid. p. 552. 554. 555. sued vnto by S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Austin and the African Bishops sought vnto them for their aduise and counsel for their authoritie and credit To come to S. Leo for whom (51) of the Church l. 5. p. 284. D. Field speaking of this verie poynt profereth thus largely Surely if they can shew that Leo sayth anie such thing as the former Popes are taught to say we wil most willingly listen to them for we acknowledge Leo to haue been a most worthie Bishop and the things that go vnder his name to be his indubitate workes And M. Mason (52) Consecration of Engli Bishops p. 115. tearmeth him Pope Leo a holie and learned Pope Now for D. Fields and al other Protestants further satisfaction in this poynt I wil but only recite what other Protestant Writers acknowledge and censure of that most worthie Bishop Leo. (53) In Confess Geneu c. 7. sect 12. Beza affirmeth that It is manifest that Leo in his Epistles doth cleerly breath-forth the arrogancie of the Antichristian Roman Sea (54) In his Conference vvith Hart. p. 50. D. Raynolds writeth I do freely professe that I mislike those haughtie speaches in Leo and I think that the Mysterie of iniquitie so wrought through his so ambitious aduancing Peter that c. (55) De Conciliis contra Bellarm p. 37. D. Whitakers censure is As for Leo the First I litle care he was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdome And yet this notwithstanding the same (56) Ibid. p. 34. D. Whitaker acknowledgeth that Leo was a learned and godly Bishop but yet sayth he ouer ambitious The (57) Cent. 5. col 1013. Centurists report how that Theodoret a Greek Father being deposed by the Second Councel of Ephesus did make his appeale to Pope Leo and that thereupon the most godlie Leo restored to Theodoret his Bishoprick They likewise (58) Cent. 5. col 778. confesse that Leo confirmed Maximus Bishop of Antiochia in his Bishoprick and established to Proâ—erius Bishop of Alexandria the ancient rights of that Sea according to the Canons and Priuiledges as is shewed in the 68. and 69. Epistle of Leo. And they affirme (59) Cent. 5. col 779. that the Popes of those times took vnto themselues power to excommunicate other Archbishops and Churches So Leo excommunicated the Eastern Bishops and Foelix Acacius Gelasius condemned Acatius and Peter sending letters into the East And that (60) Cent. 5. col 780. They endeauoured to challenge that Authoritie ouer Archbishops that if they did anie thing they should be thought to do it by Authoritie of the Roman Bishop as though they were his seruants and slaues So Leo Epist 84. sheweth that the Bishops of Thessalonica alwayes supplyed the place of the Apostolick sea and he admonished Anastasius then their Bishop that in remote Prouinces in some sort he should visit himself and decree nothing but what he knew would be approued by him Also They (61) Cent. 5. col 779. dared to exact of Archbishops that if there were anie thing they could not determine by their owne Iudgments they should referre it to them So Leo epist 84. prescribeth this law to the Bishop of Thessalonica In like sort they (62) Cent. 5. col 781. assumed to themselues power to cal General Councels as appeareth in the 93. epist of Leo c. And they reiected as vnlawful such Synods as were assembled without their Authoritie c. Leo sent Paschasius Bishop of Sicilie to be President in the Councel of Chalcedon And (63) Col. 782 The Fathers often for honour sake desired theyr Decrees to be confirmed by them So the Councel of Chalcedon writeth to Leo we desire that thou wilt honour our Iudgement with thy Decrees and as we desirous of good haue agreed so thy Height or greatnes may fulfil in thy sonnes what is fitting And yet D. Raynolds confesseth of this Councel (64) Conf. p. 563. that it 67 was a companie of 630. Bishops sound in Religion and Zealous of the glorie of God affirming further that the sayd Councel (68) Ib. p. 562 named Pope Leo their Head and that he was President of the Councel But to conclude this of Leo wherin for D. Fields further satisfaction I haue been the larger it is playnly confessed by the Centurists (69) Cent. 5. col 12. 62. that Leo verie paynfully goeth about to proue that singular preheminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence rose the Primacie of the Roman Church For which verie cause D. Morton chargeth S. Leo to haue been (70) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 283. 285. Peremptorie c. and ambitious As for Pope Leo (71) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 294. 295. sayth he he was so peremptorie that for his presumption he found in his time some Brotherlie checks To proceed Prosper de ingratis c. 2. affirming Rome to be the seat of Peter and the Head of Pastoral Honour ouer the world is censured for the same by (72) Resp ad Bellar. par 1. p. 594. Danaeus to be the Popes flatterer In like sort Vincentius aduersus Haer. is charged (73) Ibid. p. 313. by him to haue plainly flattered the Pope of Rome when he tearmed S. Faelix and S. Iulius Bishops of Rome to be the Head of the world and S. Cyprian and S. Amhrose the Sides But to passe to others the (74) Cent. 5. col 778. Centurists affirme that Gelasius in his epistle to Faustus doth impudently lye affirming that it is established in the Canons that Appeales of the whole Church should be brought to the Examen of the Roman Sea and from her in no place Appeale should be made And agayne (75) Cent. 5. col 780. Gelasius in his epistle to the Dardanians affirmeth that he hath giuen the charge of the Church of Alexandria to Acacius of Constantinople and therefore that he ought to relate al things vnto him Yea (76) Cent. 5. col 779. they further confesse that Gelasius in the Tome of Excommunications denyeth that Peter of Alexandria Bishop of the second Sea can be absolued by anie then the Bishop of the first Sea to wit the Roman As also (77) Cent. 5. col 1274. M. Symondes vpoÌ„ the Reuel c. 5. p. 58. Gelasius held that Councels are subiect to the Pope and that al should appeale to him but none from him They (78) Cent. 5.
Leo Foelix Gelasius the Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon of Africk and the 6. of Carthage of Sardis Sixtus Innocentius Siricius Sozimus Damasus Iulius Stephen Denis Cyprian Victor Anicetus Cornelius Ireneus Papias Peter and the other Apostles The Protestants producing and reprouing the foresayd Fathers are the Centurie-writers Danaeus Caluin Bucer Philippus Nicolai Peter Martyr Carion Bullinger Melancthon Osiander Friccius Beza Crispinus Tilenus Frigiuilleus Gauuius Bibliander Amandus Polanus Hamelmannus Illyricus Lubbertus Sarauia Napper Mornay Whitguift Carthwright Whitaker Fulk Bilson Trige Rainolds Brightman Bale Symonides Bunnie Spark Midleton Fox Morton and Field euerie one wherof do cite and reproue some Father or Councel before mentioned concerning some branch of the Bishop of Romes Primacie It is confessed by Protestants that the Primitiue Church of Christ beleeued the Bookes of Tobie Iudith Esther Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and two first of Machabees to be truly Canonical Scriptures CHAPTER V. AS it is vndoubted by al that the true Scriptures Prophetical and Apostolical are most sacred diuine and of infallible authoritie so it remayneth stil in Controuersie which Bookes be the sayd Prophetical Apostolical and Canonical Scriptures for as the (1) Concil Carthag 3. Can. 47. Trid. sess 4. Catholick Church hath defyned the Bookes of Esther Iudith Tobie two of the Machabees Wisdome and Ecclesiasticus to be sacred Canonical and of infallible authoritie so are al the sayd Bookes reiected by Protestants (2) Luth. Zuingl Praef. Bibl. a se CoÌ„uers Calu. Inst l. 1. c. 12. §. 8. l. 2. c. 5. §. 18. l. 3. c. 5. §. 8. as merely apocryphal and only human Now to decide this so waightie a Controuersie by the Primitiue Church Wheras in the Third Carthage Councel wherat S. Austin and sundrie other Fathers and Bishops were present and subscribed it is expresly defined that (3) Can. 47 Nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scriptures besides Canonical Scriptures And the Canonical Scriptures are Genesis Exodus c. fiue bookes of Salomon c. Tobie Iudith Hester two bookes of Esdras two bookes of Machabees c. Wheras also the same Canon of Scriptures is made and numbred particulerly by S. Austin (4) De Doct. Christi l. 2. c. 8 Innoc. ep ad Exup c. 7. Gel. To. 1. Concil in Decret cum 70. Ep. Isid l 6. Etymol c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit cler Cassiod l. 2. diuinarum Lect. himself as also by Innocentius Gelasius and other ancient Writers the truth hereof is so manifest that the same is confessed by sundrie Protestant Writers and the same Councel and Fathers in steed of better answere seuerely reprehended for the same Hiperius (5) Meth. Theol. l. 1. p. 46. auoucheth that In the Third Carthage Councel there are added to the Canon c. Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus two bookes of Machabees Tobie Iudith c. Al which bookes in the same order numbreth Augustin Innocentius Gelasius for which he at large afterwards reiecteth their iudgement In like sort (6) de Princip Christ Dogm l. 1. c. 4. p. 8. Lubbertus I grant sayth he certaine of these bookes to be admitted by the Carthaginians but I deny that therfore they are the Word of God for no Councels haue that Authoritie But to be brief the Third Carthage Councel is acknowledged and reproued for this verie doctrine by D. Raynolds (7) Conclus annex to his Conf p 699 700. Zan de Sacr. p. 32. 33. Hosp hist Sacram. p. 1. p. 160. Trelc loc com p. 15. Hoe Tract Tripart Theol. p. 46. Park ag Symb. part 2. p 60. Field of the Church p. 246. 247. Zanchius Hospinian Trelcatius Mathias Hoe M. Parker and D. Field And so likewise is S. Austin and other ancient Fathers herein acknowledged and reiected by Hospinian 8) Hist sacr part 1. p. 161. Hip. Meth. Theol. p. 46. Zanch. de sacra-Scrip p. 32. 33. Field of the Church p. 246. Hâ—perius Zanchius D. Field But Brentius auoucheth more in general that (9) Apol. Confess Wittemb See Bucers Scripta Angl p. 7â—3 There are some of the ancient Fathers who receiue sayth he these Apocryphal Bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures And in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledged as Canonical I am not ignorant what was done but I demand whether it was rightly and Canonically done Lastly D. Couel not only most plainly confesseth S. Austins like Iudgement had of the Booke of Wisdome but withal further affirmeth (11) Ib. p 87 of al these Bookes that If Ruffinus be not deceaued they were approued as partes of the Old Testawent by the Apostles So cleer it is that this foresayd Bookes were confessedly beleeued to be Canonical by the Primitiue Church Adde hereunto that (12) Of the Church p. 245. 246. Hut 2. part of his Answ p 176. D. Field M. Hutton both of them teaching that some of the ancient Iewes receiued the foresayd Bookes for truly Canonical though others of them did not beleeue and receaue the same accordingly yet are the sayd Iewes therfore expresly reproued by Protestants themselues Bibliander tearming it The rashnes of the Iewes in which his censure he is approued by the Protestant Sceltco in his booke of the Second coming of Christ Englished by M. Rogers (13) fol. 6. for the supposed worth therof D. Bancroft (14) p. 60. in the verie Conference before his Maiestie reiecteth the obiections of the Iewes made against these Bookes tearming them The old cauils of the Iewes renewed by Hierom who was the first that gaue them the name of Apocrypha which opinion vpon Ruffiâ—us his challenge he after a sort disclaymed Yea D. Bancroft is so ful with Catholicks in Defence of the sayd Bookes as that other of his owne Brethren charge him further to say (15) The 2. parte of the Ministers Def. p. 108. that The Apocrypha were giuen by inspiration from God which is al one as to affirme them to be truly diuine and Canonical And as concerning the booke Ecclesiasticus it is defended to be truly Canonical by the Protestant Writers (16) Ep. ad Volanum Lascicius and Parker of which later D. Willet (17) LoÌ„doro mastix p. 69 sayth How audacious is this fellow that contrarie to the determination of this Church of England dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture 10) Against Burges p. 76 77. Furthermore seing it is expresly taught and defended by sundrie Protestants that this waightiest Controuersie of discerning true Scripture from forged can not be decided by the (18) Hook Ecol Pol. l. 1 p. 86. Scriptures themselues neither by Testimonie (19) Whit. cont Staplet p. 370. 357. Hook vbi sup p 147. of the Spirit but (20) Hook ib. p. 146. 116. Aretiu Exam p. 24. by the authoritie of Gods Church Hence it necessarily followeth that the Church of Christ hauing decided and determined this foresayd Controuersie and
ridiculously that reason truth compelleth vs to dissent from them And agayne (55) In omnes Pauli Epist in Hebr. 7. p. 924. How much the more do I admire so manie old Doctours of the Church to be possessed with this opinion that they wil persist in the oblation of Bread wine for thus they say Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech but Melchisedech offred bread wine therefore the Sacrifice of Bread and wine agreeth to the Sacrifice of Christ D. Fulk (56) Against Hoskins c. p 100. admitteth that It is granted that Cyprian thought the bread wine brought forth by Melchisedech to be a figure of the Sacrament that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ And agayne (57) Against Heskins c. p. 99. And see against Rhem. Tâ—st in Hebr. c. 7. sec 8. f. 405. Whitak cont Dur. p. 818. 819. more in general I confesse that diuers of the old Fathers were of opinion that the bread wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him that it was a figure of the Sacrament which they improperly cal a Sacrifice (58) De opificio Missae l. 1. p 28. It is not lawful sayth Chrastouius for Christian Pastours to cast away the consent harmonie of Interpretation that both for the neernes of the Apostolical Age as also for the singular agreement of al which is had in al places c. Al as it were conspiring that the Sacred oblation of Melchisedech is proposed that not only it may be thought to be offred to the Souldiers of Abraham but also an vnbloudy Sacrifice to God The ancient Iewes also were so agreable with vs herein that the Protestant Bibliander doubteth not to affirme that (59) De S. Trinitate l. 2. p. 89. with the Ancient Iewes it was a most receiued opinion that at the câ—ming of the blessed Messias al Legal Sacrifices were to cease only the Sacrifice Thoda of thankes-giuing to be celebrated c. and that to be done with bread wine (60) In his Defence c. p 473. See Parker against Symbolizing part 1. c. 2. p. 103. euen as Melchisedech King of Salem Priest c. brought forth bread and wine The Fathers also likewise much vrge the necessitie of mingling water with wine in the Chalice before oblation and consecration D. Whitguift affirmeth that Cyprian was greatly ouerseen in making it a matter so necessarie in Celebration of the Lords Supper to haue water mingled with wine which was at that time no doubt Common â—o more then to him Carthwright (61) In Whitguift Def. p. 525. acknowledgeth that In the mingling of water with wine a necessitie great mysterie was placed as may appeare both by Iustin Martyr Cyprian And M Iewel (62) In his Reply p. 34. See Schultetus in Med. Theo. p. â—70 also confesseth that Indeed S. Cyprian certain old Fathers spake of it force it much wheras not one new Protestant doth either allow or practise the same But D. Morton (63) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 142. is content to refer this new Romish Custome vnto Pope Alexander the supposed Authour thereof sayth he But may not D. Morton blush to cal it New Romish Custome and yet referre it to Pope Alexander who liued almost within a Hundred yeares after Christ Here then we may conclude that our Sacrifice of the Masse was not only allowed and vsed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church but withal acknowledged by them to be truly a Sacrifice Propitiatorie for the remission of sinnes As also that the same was truly represented by the Sacrifice of Melchisedech offring bread and wine Now the Fathers confessed and reproued by Protestants for our forsayd doctrine of Masse are S. Gregorie Gregorie Turonensis Pelagius Symmachus Leo Austin Ambrose Nyssene Cyril Arnobius Athanasius Cyprian Origen Tertulian Ireneus Alexander Clemens Anacletus Ignatius As also the Councels of Ephesus Antioch the Second and Fourth of Carthage of Constantinople of Arles the Fathers in general The Protestants acknowledging and reprouing the forsayd Fathers are the Centurists Caluin Melancthon Carion Szegedine Hospinian Chitraeus Musculus Marcus Pelargus Osiander Chrastouius Chemnitius Sebastianus Francus Zepperus Schultetus Fox Whitaker Symonides Ascham Fulk Field Whiteguift Iewel Morton It is acknowledged by Protestants that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church taught and beleeued the Power of Priests to Remission of Sinnes The necessitie of Auricular Confession The Imposition of Pennance and satisfaction to God thereby As also our Roman Doctrine of Pardons or Indulgences CHAPTER X. COncerning the Sacrament of Pennance the (1) Bellarm. de Paenitent l. 1. c. 10. l. 3. c. 2. l. 4. c. 5. Catholick Church teacheth First That God hath giuen truly and properly to Bishops and Priests as his instruments Power and Authoritie to forgiue sinne Secondly That sinners are bound to confesse their Sinnes in particular to Priests Thirdly That the sayd Priests are to impose Pennance or punishment vpon the Penitent after Confession of his Sinnes and that the Penitent in satisfaction is to performe the same by Prayer Fasting Almes-deeds and the like Now the Protestant Church hauing no true Subsistence but being a mere Negation or denial of true Religion directly (2) Instit l. 4 c. 19 §. 15 B za in CoÌ„f. fiâ—â—ci 7. art 11. denyeth al the foresayd Poynts taught and practised by the Roman Church What the Primitiue Church beleeued and practised herein I wholy referre to the plentiful Confe sions and testimonies euen of Protestant Writers And to begin with S. Gregorie Osiander (3) Cent. 6. p. 288. chargeth him that he teacheth vntruly of Pennance And the Centurists (4) Cent. 6. c. 10 p. 748. reprehend him for his opinion of Confession c. Pennance Satisfaction D. Morton acknowledgeth that S. Gregorie (5) Prot Appeale l. 1 sec 23. p. 26. indeed requireth that after man hath confessed his sinnes he should take reuenge of himself by penitential exercises c. S. Hierome tearming Pennance The second Table after Shipwrack Caluin (6) Inst l 4. c. 19. §. 17. reproueth him saying But it is the Saying of Hierome whose soeuer it is it can not be denyed but that it is plainly impious if it be expounded in their sense And as concerning the Power and Authoritie of Priests to remit sinne the denyal therof was reprehended in Acesius by the Emperour Constantin for the Centurists (7) Cent. â— col 653. report that Acesius his opinion was that al men should be exhorted to Pennance but the hope of remission of sinnes should be expected not from Priests but from God But when Acesius had sayd these things the Emperour added â— Acesius set a Ladder and clime alone to heauen This Historie is likewise confessed by Osiander (8) Cent. 4. p. 119. Chemnitius (9) Exam. part â— p. 188 part 2. p.
that he might answer it Secondly the Roman 62) Zonaras Cedrenus Paulus Diac. in vita Leonis Isauri Bishops Gregorie the Third Adrian the First and Leo the Third Excommunicated the Grecian Emperours and transferred the Empire from them to the French cheifly for that they patronised the Heresie against Images whereas the French persisted euer constant in the ancient Catholick Faith wherefore it is most improbable that Charles should write in defence of the Grecian errour against the Pope of Rome Thirdly 63) L. 1. de cultu Imaginum Ionas Aurelianensis who liued in the Raigne of Ludouicus sonne to Charles testifyeth that Claudius Taurinensis a special Patrone of the Heresie durst neuer open his mouth therein during the life of Charles Fourthly Pope 64) Paulus Aemil. l. 2. Franc. And see cent 8. c. 9. col 570. Stephen holding a Councel at Rome against the sayd Errour Charles himselfe sent 12. of the cheifest Bishops of his Kingdome to assist him therein And D. Cowper 65) Chron. 174. reporteth that certaine Bishops were sent by Adrian to Charles who held a Councel in France against the condemnation of Images Fiftly this most famous Emperour Charles was so wholy Roman Catholick as that 66) Ep. ded Hist Sacra Hospinian recordeth of him 67) Epist Hist Eccl. Cent. 8. p. 101. Crisp of the Estate of the Church p. 221. 216. Bul. in 2. Thess c. 2. p 533. Cowp Chron. f. 173. 195. Foxin Apoc. p. 436. that he not only cōmanded by publick Edicts that the verie Ceremonies Rites and Latin Masse of the Roman Church as also the Decrees Lawes and Ordinances of the Roman Bishop should be obserued through his whole Empire but himself by imprisonments and diuers kinds of punishments compelled Churches to the same The like whereof is confessed of him by Osiander Crispinus Bullinger D. Cowper and M. Fox So vnlike was he to write against the Roman Church concerning Images Sixtly Caluin himself insinuateth this Booke to be forged about Charlemaines time saying 68) Iust l. 1. c. 11. sec 14. There is extant a refuting Booke vnder the name of Charles the Great which by the words thereof we may gather to haue bene made at the same time Seauently wheras Charles was knowne to be verie skilful both in Greek Latin learned ingenious in this booke there are manie absurdities committed as where it affirmeth Constantinople to be a Citty most knowne in Bythinia whereas indeed it is in Thracia as also that at Constantinople there was a Councel celebrated in defence of the worshipping of Images whereas the sayd Councel was celebrated at Nice And that the Nicene Councel tearmed the Eucharist the Image of Christs bodie whereas directly and purposely they refute and condemne the sayd speech Eightly supposing for the time against al the premisses that it had been Charles his Booke yet nothing would it auaile but much preiudice Protestants for therein is expressely taught that the last sentence in Controuersies of Faith belongeth to the Roman Bishop And that he hath his Primacie not from Councels but from God himself It prescribeth also Exorcismes to be vsed in Baptisme Churches to be dedicated with special Rites That we are to pray for the dead and Inuocate Saincts and their Relicks to be worshipped That Chrisme and Holie-water are to be vsed That in the Eucharist there is the true Bodie of Christ and the same to be worshipped yea to be offred as a true and proper Sacrifice Al which do mainely impugne Protestant Religion And therefore if they wil haue vs to beleeue this Booke teaching that the Councel of Nice erred concerning Images let them beleeue it teaching the other Catholick poynts next recited Lastly if it could be proued that Charles himself had made this Book that he had been a perfect Protestant in al poynts yet how would it hence follow that the Roman Church had changed her Faith in the time of Charles Or what would the testimonie of a Lay-man auaile them seing according to 69) Orat. 2. de Imag. Damascen Christ committed not his Church to Kings and Emperours but to Bishops and Pastours But we haue seene sufficiently before that Charles was a Prince wholy deuoted to the Roman Church and a special Patron of Images and consequently the Booke written against them and imposed vpon him is meerly forged and of no authoritie And so likewise is no lesse forged that other vnder the name of Lewes his Sonne which for such is condēned by the Catholick Church Neither 70) Index lib. prohibit doth our Doctour affoard vs the least colour of proof for the legitimation of either of these Bookes but only sayth that they are extant as though it were rare among Hereticks to finde manie spurious adulterine Bookes And so I cōclude that seing our Ministers proofs for the Roman Churches change in these 50. yeares are al of them in seueral respects either most impertinent or most false that therefore the Roman Church during the same time did not change After 800 800. to 850. I name sayth our Cataloguer Ioannes Scotus c. who resisting the Real presence c. was therefore murdred The same time Berthram also writ against it c. Claudius Bishop of Towres resisted Images worship of Saincts and Pilgrimage Lotharius the Emperour reduced the Pope to the obedience of the Empire c. These are the examples of the Roman Change in this time But let vs examine them As concerning Scotus that he resisted the Real presence M. White proueth it only by the testimonie of Daneus who being a formal Protestant of these times his testimonie is insufficient as bearing witnesse in his owne Cause therefore al further answer were needles But yet I do acknowledge that about the same time there was one Scotus not the subtil Doctour who liued some Ages after but an other who writ something doubtfully in this poynt but his Booke was condemned in the Councel at Vercella as testifyeth Lantfrancus (a) lib. de verit Corp. Et sang Domini in Eucharistia And he is obserued to be the first in the Latin Church who writ suspiciously against the Real Presence And as for Bertram though the Booke extant vnder his name doth vse some doubteful and obscure words as Figure Spiritual and Mysterie yet at other times doth it speak as plainly Affirming the Presence of Christs Bodie vnder the veyle or couerture of Bread Yea the Centurists confesse that Bertram 71) Cent. 9. c. 4. Col. 212. in the sayd Book hath the seeds of Transubstantiation Secondly this sayd Book being set forth lately by Oecolampadius may iustly be suspected and rather in that Pantaleon 72) p. 65. in his Chronograph mentioning Bertram and his other writings forbeareth yet to mention this Booke or to charge him with this pretended opinion Thirdly Illiricus making a Catalogue of Protestant witnesses to whom our Minister for this of his is no litle beholding
insufficiencie of this desperate answer I wil make proofe of two seueral truthes First that the sayd answer hath euer been and is stil the ordinarie answer of al Hereticks thereby intending to escape not only the foulest stayne of Nouellisme or Innouation but withal to preuent al strongest arguments drawne from general Councels though neuer so lawful from ancient Doctours though neuer so learned and from Ecclesiastical Histories though neuer so true The second truth is that their so appealing to the Sacred Scriptures is the thrusting their owne throates againsts the sharpest poynts of their Enemies swords For by them I wil euidently proue the Roman Church and Religion to be the only true Church and Religion of Christ and his Apostles As also the Congregation of Protestants and their profession to be most aduerse and disagreing with the Scriptures themselues and so in itself to be nouel heretical and damnable And to omit the ordinarie custome of elder Hereticks in appealing from al other proofes to only Scripture obserued and reproued in them by the ancientest and learnedst (4) lib. De Prescript c. 15. Hieron ep ad Paulin tom 3 cont Lucifer Augu. cont Faust Manic l. 32 c. 19 l. 1. de Trinit c. 3. ep 222. Hilar. l ad Const Vincent Lyrin l. aduers haeres c. 35. Ambr. in c. vlt. ad Tit. Orig. hom 7. in Ezech. Doctours and Fathers of the Primitiue Church namely Tertulian Hierome Augustin Hilarie Vincentius Lyrinensis and others And only to obserue how the refinedst Sectaries of these our dayes with the same pretence of Scripture do dayly reuolt and rebel from their other Brethren And first concerning the Puritans agaynst the Protestants D. white guift alleaging and vrging in behalf of Metropolitanes the authoritie of the Nicene Councel (5) In his 2. Reply part 1. p. 484. M. Cartwright replyeth Touching the perfect vnitie of Substance of our Sauiour Christ with God the Father it giuing Sentence vpon the infallible Word of God is worthily to be reuerenced But if the Doctours wil haue their soundnes in that poynt to authorize the rest c. it is that which we can by no meanes assent vnto And that it may appeare how iustly we cal this Canon of the Councel touching Metropolitanes vnto the touchstone of the word of God Let it be considered c. yea the same 6) In Whiteg Def. p. 111. M. Cartwright alloweth the iudgment of his learnedst father Caluin but with this restraynt So far sayth he as we can esteeme that that which M. Caluin sayth doth agree with the Canonical Scriptures This practise is so ordinarie with the Puritans that D. Bancroft in his Suruey of pretended Discipline spendeth wholy his 27. Chapter in obseruing and reprouing the same In like sort the (7) In their Apologie p. 103. 4. 98. 99. 100. And see M. Aynsworth in his Counterpoyson p. 15. 154. Brownists of Amsterdam answering to D. Bilsons allegations from the Fathers resolutely affirme and say Let M. Bilson with these Doctours know that vnles they can approue by the word of God their Prelacie c. Al the colour they bring out of former times and writers is of no moment in this case And as for the Anabaptistes (8) Eccl. Pol. pref p. 38. M. Hooker reporteth of them that the Book of God they for the most part so admired that other disputation against their opinions then only by allegation of Scripture they would not heare for which verie poynt and errour they are reproued by (9) Tract Theol p. 171 in Psycophannichiae p. 451. And in his Instructiō aduersus Anabap p. 478. M. Caluin in these words Because sillie Christians who haue some zeale towards God can be seduced by no shew or appearance more faire then when the word of God is pretended and alleaged the Anabaptists against whom we now write haue it alwayes in their mouths and they alwayes solemnly recite it c. And agayne The Deuil himself armed himself with the word of God and girded himself with that sword to inuade and assault Christ And we find true by experience that he doth daily vse these guiles or artes by organs or instruments to depraue the truth and so to lead miserable Soules to destruction So ordinarie it is with the Anabaptists and the Diuel himself in defence of their errours euer to appeale to the only written word The same answer is likewise giuen by the Protestant Arians of these times insomuch as (10) Lib de Christi Naturae p. 222. Socinus in defence of his errour agaynst the Diuinitie of Christ answereth his Protestant Aduersarie Volanus in these wordes We propound to vs in this question none for Maister or Interpreter but only the Holie-Ghost c. we do not thinke that we are to stand to the iudgement of anie men though neuer so learned of anie Councels though in shew neuer so holie and lawfully assembled of anie visible Church though neuer so perfect and vniuersal Simlerus (11) De aeterno De◠filio l. 1. c. 2. writeth of the Arians They prouoke vs to Scriptures and because they know al Antiquitie to be against them they reiect al without exception And (12) In ep Theol. ep 15. p. 119. 120. Beza sayth to the Arian Statorius who was sometime Bezas Scholler and deare to him Oughtest thou not to remember from whom to whom thou hast reuolted But thou saist I do not depend of men but of the word of God Very wel But doth the word of God teach thee c. that he can be a Sauiour c who is not God So that our moderne Puritans Brownists Anabaptists and Arians do al of them in defence of their seueral errours being vrged by other Protestants with the authoritie of the Church Fathers and Councels euer appeale vnto the only written word But who would not thinke but that our ordinarie Protestants thus reprouing in their reuolting Brethren their contempt of the Church Fathers and Councels and their running to only Scripture would not be found faultie herein themselues And yet when their learnedst Bishops and Doctours are vrged vpon seueral occasions by our Catholick writers with the authoritie of Church Fathers and Councels none more readie then themselues to refuse disgrace and reiect the same and that euer with pretence and appeal to only Scripture A truth so euident that their forsayd rebellious Brethren do playnly acknowledge that this their course of appealing to only Scripture was taught and defended by themselues for thus say the (13) Simlerus De filio Dei in Bullingers pref there fol. 4. And in Simlerus his other Priface fol. 1. Antitrinitarians to the Tigurine Protestans You haue taught vs that nothing is to be receaued besides the Scriptures therfore we demand where it is written in the Scriptures c. Except you shew this according to your Rule we reiect and condemne those things therfore we haue learned of you to contemne the Fathers And
for Austin let vs enlarge the signification of the word Apostle and extend it to Austin and moreouer though improperly to Gregorie and Eleutherius c. whose proceedings towards the Prince were Chistian honest and orderlie They came to plant the Faith of Christ c. They came to preach obedience c. Their Ghospel was a Ghospel of peace c. They coÌ„uerted People c. They sought to build the Church c. Yea S. Austins desire to conuert the Pagans and his dutiful respect to the Prince deserue to be written in Letters of gold So worthily doth this Prostant here think of S. Eleutherius S. Gregorie and S. Austin And no lesse are his most deserued prayses blazed by M. Hollinshead recording that (22) Historie of Engl. Austin and his companie arriued at Canterburie where he made his abode by the Kings permission exercised the life of Apostles in fasting watching and prayers preaching the word of God to as manie as they could despising al worldlie pleasures as not appertayning to them c. Also Ethelbert was persuaded by the good example of S. Austin and his companie and by miracles shewed to be Baptized The like hereof is testifyed by (23) Act. Mon. p. 105. 116. M. Fox D. Bilson also acknowledgeth that (24) of Obedience p. 57. Austin and his fellowes came with Religion to God and submission to Princes Stow reporteth that (25) Chron. p. 65. S. Austin and his fellowes liued in the feare of God And D. Godwine acknowledgeth that (26) Vita August He was a Monk of great vertue calling him S. Austin But now to be satisfied what was the Faith and Religion taught by these two so holie men S. Gregorie and S. Austin or what the vniuersal and publick profession of Christians al ouer the world at those times was whether Catholick or Protestant I wil appeale to our Protestant Doctours Amongst whom writeth M. Bale that (27) Cent 1. c. 68. c. 70. Gregorie burdned the Church and Religion of God more then al with more then Iewish ceremonies He ordered the Rites of Masse commanded Masses to be sayd ouer the dead bodies of the Apostles deuised Litanies and Procession permitted the Image of the Blessed Virgin to be carryed about confirmed Pilgrimage to Images by Indulgences for the peoples Deuotions He was maintayner of Pardons granted Indulgences to those that visit Churches on certain dayes made foure Books of Dialogues for strengthning Purgatorie admitted Adoration of the Crosse and Masses for the Dead called Englishmen to Romish Rites by Austin the Monk (28) Cent. 1. fol. 3. who was sent from Gregorie to season the English Saxons with the Popish Faith And (29) Iesuit part 2. rat 5. p. 5. 627. D Humfrey affirmeth that they brought into England the whole Chaos of Popish superstition M. Harison chargeth (30) DescriptioÌ„ of Britanie before Holinsh. Chron. vol. 1. p â—7 Austin to haue conuerted the Saxons from Paganisme to no lesse hurtful superstition then they did know before making aâ— Exchange from open 〈◊〉 secret Idolatrie In so much as he (31) Ibid. p. 29. 27. concludeth in playne â—eaâ—â—es thaâ— Augustin came and brought-in Poperie In like sort (32) Apologia pro coena Domini p. 33. M. Ascham chargeth him to be The ouerthrower of true Religion and the establisher of al Popish Doctrine D. Abbots tearming S. Austin (33) Answ to D. Bishop p. 197. A black Monk affirmeth that this (34) Ibid. p. 20 Italian Monk brought new obseruations from Rome and the English receaued the same And that this (35) Ibi. p. 198 Romish Priest requireth the British Bishops to be subiect to his Romish Authoritie And this Romish Archbishop brought-in Nouelties and Superstitions and did contaminate the Faith of Christ Mellitus Laurentius Iustus al of Austins Companie and condition D. Fulk affirmeth that (36) Against Rhem. Test in 1. Cor. 4. Austin did not beget the Nation of English-men to Christ by the pure Ghospel c. but with mixture of mens Traditions And that Christian Religion which he found in the Britans he laboured to corrupt with Romish Inuentions M. Bale auoucheth that (37) Cent. 1. c. 70. Austin entred not with the Ghospel of Christian peace but with the Banner of his Apostleship with a Siluer Crosse Litanies Procession Images painted Pictures Reliques and Ritual bookes And that (38) Ib. c. 73. King Ethelbert first of al English men receiued of Gregorie the First Bishop of Rome by Austin the opinion of the Roman Religion with al inposture or deceit and dyed the One and twentith of his receaued Papisme As also that (39) Cent. 8. c. 85. Austin brought-in Popish Monkerie and besides the Popes Traditions ô Heretical mouth brought nothing but mans dung (40) Cent. 13. c. 1. Austin the Roman brought hither Romish rites without sound doctrine The King receaued Romanisme with the annexed Idolatries He brought in Monks Altars Vestments Images Masses Chalices Crosses Candlesticks Banners Holie as they cal them Vessels holie Water and Bookes of Roman Customes Their chiefest studies were about the oblations of Masses (41) Cent. 14. c. 31. Yea Austin disposed al things in England to the forme of the Synagogue of Rome and made Englishmen honourers of the Pope Finally (42) Catal. Scrip. Illust cent 14. p. 117. Austin by his interpreters taught our people the Papistical Faith Wherupon D. Fulk tearmeth our (43) Against Purgat p 333. Conuersion from Infidelitie our peruersion (44) Resp ad Bellar. p. 1. p. 780. And Danaeus calleth it The inebriation of the whore of Babilon mentioned Apoc. 17. Concerning these two last testimonies of D. Fulk and Danaeus D. Morton sayth (45) Prot. Appeal p. 60. These Apologists with more art then truth do obiect vnto vs our owne Authours calling it a peruersion and inebriation herein peruerting their direct meaning and propounding their testimonies as spoken absolutely concerning euerie particular point of Roman Faith which was only respectiuely and restraynedly intended But as this Glosse is only his voluntarie Imagination and indeed a direct peruerting of his owne Brethren so is it sufficiently confuted by so manie Protestant Doctours last cited and next following who most agreably confesse that the Faith speaking in general taught here by Austin was the Popish Faith the whole chaos of Popish Superstition Yea Poperie it self Wherfore to proceed (46) Trial of the Romish Clergie p. 377. M. Wotton auoucheth that Neither was England conuerted by your proud Monk Austin but peruerted rather And (47) Answ to a Popish Appologie f. 8. D. Fulk affirmeth that Austin an vnlearned Monk came into the Land to corrupt the sinceritie of the Faith which the Britans had receiued c. Yea S. Augustin was so wholy ours that (48) 2. Reply part 1. p 301. M. Cartwright calleth him Romish Augustin And (49) Tetrastylon Papismi p. 122. D. Willet expresly placeth Augustin and Gregorie among
col 778. And Symondes vpon the Reuel p. 57. likewise charge Pope Sixtus that In his 3. Epistle to the Eastern Bishops and 5. chapter he decreeth that against a Bishop appealing to the Sea Apostolick nothing shal be determined but what the Roman Bishop iudgeth But to omit sundrie other particular Popes (79) In his Tryal of the Popes Title p. 117. M. Bunnie confesseth that Innocentius telleth the Bishops of Macedonia that they should haue regard to the Church of Rome as to their Head and that it is wronged because they did not at first yeald to his Iudgement c. The Bishops of Rome gaue also out Decrees which they would bind al to obserue as appeareth in Siricius and Innocentius It sauoureth of too great arrogancie that Sozimus threatneth seueritie if anie despise the Apostolick authoritie So did Leo what should I seek to speak of euerie one their owne Decretals do sufficiently beare witnes Yea it is acknowledged in general (80) Cent. 5. col 778. that the Popes of this fift Age ordayned and required that in the causes of Bishops it might be lawful to appeale to them as is manifest by the Acts of the 6. Carthage Councel And (81) In his Def. p. 342. D. Whitguift auoucheth that It is certaine that then Viz. in the time of the Carthage and African Councels the Bishops of Rome began at least to clayme Superioritie ouer al Churches Now the Councel of Carthage was assembled about Anno 419. and the African Anno 423. Yea it is granted by (82) In his second Reply part 1. p. 510. VVhitguift in his Def. p 344 Sarauia de diuersis gradibus c. p. 493. M. Carthwright and other Protestant Writers that the Councel of Chalcedon whose authoritie is established to our Aduersaries by Act of Parlament Anno 1. Elisabeth c. 1. did offer the name of vniuersal Bishop to the Bishop of Rome And hence it is that the Centurists (83) Cent. 5. col 774. affirme of these ancient Roman Bishops that They had flatterers who affirmed that without permission of the Roman Bishop none might vndertake the person of a Iudge (84) Cent. 5. col 775. Who then likewise auerred that Antiquitie had attributed the Principalitie of Priesthood to the Roman Bishop aboue al. And accordingly that Turbius Asturiensis flattered Pope Leo and acknowledged his superioritie And wheras Theodoret speaking of the Roman Sea sayth That holy Sea hath the Gouernment of al the Churches of the world M. Iewel findeth no better answer hereto then to say (85) Art 4. Diu. 21. That man naturally aduanceth his power at whose hands he seeketh help As though Theodoret would giue an Antichristian Title for so Protestants account it for auarice or S. Leo would accept it for flatterie Thus much as touching those Fathers and Bishops who liued in the Fift Age after Christ and their confessed testimonies of the Iurisdiction really executed by the Popes of those times not only ouer their Neighbour Churches and Bishops in Italie but ouer remote Countries and the other greatest Archbishops and Patriarcks of the world as of Antioch Hierusalem Alexandria and Constantinople and by them then accordingly acknowledged and obeyed To come now to the Fathers that liued in the Age precedent which is the time wherin Constantin the Great liued although the Church began as then but as it were to take breath from her former long endured persecutions whereby neither her Writers were so manie nor her face of outward Gouernment so knowne as in the times succeeding Yet is there not wanting euen for that time sufficient confessed testimonie in this kind In this Age liued Pope Damasus a man for vertue and learning so highly deseruing as that (86) Decades in English on the page next before the first Decade Bullinger not only calleth him Blessed Damasus Bishop of Rome c. but withal setteth downe the Imperial Decree of the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius for the embracing of the Religion taught by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria (87) In his Def. c. p 345 M. Whiteguift confesseth that Damasus was a Vertuous Learned and Godlie Bishop (88) The Estate of the Church p. 137. And Crispinus reporteth how much he was esteemed of by Hierom Athanasius and Nazianzen This so much esteemed a Pope for learning and vertue is charged by M. Cartwright (89) In his Reply part 1. p. 502. to speak in the Dragons voice when he shameth not to write that the Bishop of Romes Sentence was aboue al other to be attended for in a synod Crispinus (90) The Estate of the Church p 137. chargeth Damasus that he was too much giuen to eleuate the Dignitie of his Sea For sayth he he begimeth his sayd Epistle to them of Constantinople In the Reuerence deare children which you owe to the Apostolick Sea you do much for your selues c. (91) Vpon the Reuel c. 5. p. 54. and See Cent. 4. col 550 M. Symondes acknowledgeth that Damasus wrote to the Councels of Africk that the Iudgement of the causes of Bishops and al other Matters of great importance may not be determined but by the authoritie of the Apostolick Sea And wheras Socrates l. 4. c. 30. reporteth that Peter Patriarch of Alexandria being thence expulsed by the Arians was vpon his iourney and request to Damasus Bishop of Rome and returne from thence which Damasus his letters restored and confirmed thereby in his Sea of Alexandria This same Historie is acknowledged by the (92) Cent. 4. col 1367. col 532. Centurists And M. Bunnie (93) In his Tryal of the Popes Title p. 117. acknowledgeth that Damasus in his 4. Epistle to Prosper and other Bishops of Numidia commandeth them that in al doubtful matters they referre themselues to him as to the Head c. Siricius taketh vpon him to threaten to pronounce Sentence against such as wil do otherwise then he would haue them So firme was Damasus in defence and execution of the Popes Primacie In this same Age liued also Pope Iulius of whō (94) In his 2. Reply par 1. p. 510. M. Carthwright writeth Iulius Bishop of Rome sayth it was decreed by the Lawes of the Church and immediatly after the Nicen Councel that the Bishop of Rome must be called to the Sinod and that that was voyd which was done there besides his Sentence (95) De Conciliis quest 2. p. 42. 43. 44. D. Whitaker relating the Ecclesiastical Canon of those times wherby it was decreed That no Councel should be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome confesseth further that Iulius challenged to himself the like authoritie And wheras Bellarmin doth obiect this example of Iulius and other Bishops of Rome alleaging this Canon (96) Resp ad Bellarm. part 1. p. 595. Danaeus his onlie answear is that this obiection is of no moment because it is produced from the testimonie of a Roman Bishop that is
40) Retractiue from Romish Religion p. 66. Hieroms Age this Superstition of Candles lighted in the day-time began to grow vpon the Church Yea the 41) Cent. 4. col 454. Centurists acknowledge that Waxe candles were accustomed to be carryed at Burials And that Priests did carry before the Corse Lamps and wax-candles 42) Cent. 4. col 453. And that Funeral-rites and Ceremonies in this Age of Constantin Superstition say they increasing were heaped vp partly from Heathenisme partly from Iudaisme Seauenthly as for the vse of Images in Churches in the time of the Primitiue Church the same is prooued at large in the Chapter (a) See before l. 2. c. 14. of Images Eightly D. Raynolds 43) In his Conference with M. Har. p. 552. coÌ„fesseth that Altars Sacrifice are linked by nature in Relation and mutual dependance one of another Wherupon it doth euidently follow that Aultars being vsed in Churches in the ancientest times true external Sacrifice was likewise vsed which Sacrifice to haue been the Sacrifice of the Masse I haue largely proued in the (b) See before l. 2. c. 9. Chapter of Masse Now because true and proper Sacrifice can not be offred at the Altar but by a Priest therfore in the Primitiue Church there were true Priests whose Ordination was euer by a Bishop and not by the Laïtie The 44) Cent. 4. col 435. Centurists confesse that The Constitutions of the Laodicen Councel forbad Ordinations by the iudgement of the multitude And that They were desired of that Bishop who had authoritie to giue Orders as appeareth say they by the Fourth Epistle of Basil to Gregorie and the Thirtith to the Cesareans And else-where 45) Cent. 4. col 489. they say expresly that The ordination of Ministers was proper to the Bishop And as for the word Priest so hateful now to our Protestant Clergie it was so vsual in the Primitiue Church as that 46) In his Defence p. 411. D. Whiteguift saith This name Priest is vsually applyed to the Minister of the Ghospel in al Histories Fathers and Writers of Antiquitie The like is acknowleged by 47) L. 9. cont Dur. p. 813. D. Whitaker who only answereth that the Fathers vsed the word Sacerdos Priest not properly but by abuse of speech an answere directly contrarie to the expresse words of S. Austin himself De Ciuit. Dei l. 20. c. 10. But D. Fulk 48) Against Rhem. Test in Act. 14. see 4. f. 210. Willet in his Synop. Controu 13. p. 482. and D. Willet do both of them reproue the Fathers for their vsing the word Priest properly Yea the Priests of the Primitiue Church were as ours stil are specially anoynted in so much as S. Cyprian in his Sermon de Chrismate mentioning the same is therefore reproued by 49) Exam. part 2. p. 247. Chemnitius They had also their Crownes shauen for M. Brightman 50) Apoc. in c. 9. p. 249. confesseth that the Fathers vsed to entreate Priests by their Tonsure or shauing as now we may see in the Epistles of Hierome and Augustin And 51) Medulla Patrum p. 484. Schultetus affirmeth that Dyonisius the Areopagite in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchie writeth manie things of Temples Altars Sacred-places the Quier Consecration of Moâ—ks the Tonsure and shauing of heads Ninthly the Priests vsed also consecrated vestments and vessels for the celebration of Masse and other offices of the Church The 52) Cent. 4 col 504. Centurists affirme that S. Athanasius mentioneth Ecclesiastical vestments and ornaments and other things necessarie for the Church 53) De Sacramentis p. 44. Zepperus auoucheth that The Ministers or Priests vsed in the celebration of this Mysterie of the Eucharist a peculiar kind of apparel which they tearmed holie neither was it lawful for Priests to weare them but in the celebration of the Eucharist yea they were not to be touched by anie persons but such as were sacred which inuention the first Decretal Epistle of Pope Stephen referreth to himself 54) Of the Crosse part 1. sec 36. p. 52. And see Hut 2 in his 2. part of the Answ and p. 194. 195. 196. Whiteguift in his Def. p. 268. 270. M. Parker granteth in general The Fathers wil haue the Garments to be Religious that are vsed in the Church in proofe wherof he citeth in the Margent Origen and Hierome And to descend to particulars wheras Theodoret l. 2. c. 27. reporteth that Constantin gaue to the Bishop of Hierusalem a Cope or pretious garment wrought with gold to administer Baptisme the same is confessed by 55) In his Persuasion to vniformity c. 5. p. 19. whyteg in his Def. p. 269. M. Sparke and D. Whiteguift in so much as 56) Ibid. p. 268. M. Carthwright testifyeth Theodoret maketh mention of a golden Cope The Centurists 57) Cent. 4. col 876. confesse that in the Fourth Age the Albe was vsed and 58) In his Persuasion to vniform c. 5. p. 19. M. Spark alleageth sundrie ancient Fathers al mentioning the Albe D. Raynolds 59) In his Confer c. 8. diuis 4. acknowledgeth that in the Liturgies of S. Basil S. Chrysostome are mentioned the Amice the Girdle the Chisible the Fanel The Centurists 60) Cenâ— 4. col 835. likewise confesse that as then was vsed the Stole And D. Whiteguift 61) In his Def. p. 269. 270. admitteth the Dalmatica to be vsed in S. Cyprians time alleageth Peter Martyr to be of the same mind who 62) In his Epistles annexed to his com plac in Engl. p. 119. And Whiteg in his Def. p. 264. 268. likewise relateth that as then was vsed the Bishops Pontifical Plate or Miter and 63) Ibid. p. 269. D. Whiteguift auoucheth the same to haue been worne by S. Cyprian The Centurists 64) Cent. 4. col 835. And Osian cent 4. p. 391. likewise report that in the Fourth Age were vsed by Priests in Churches Holie vessels which Subdeacons and Lay persons might not touch And 65) Cent. 4. col 490. they mention the then Careful committing of the holie Chalice to the Priests Custodie D. Sutilisse 66) De Mâ—ssa Papist ca. l. 5. c. 7. f. 96. sayth We do not deny the Church as Chrysostome sayth hom 4. in Math. and de S. Babila to haue had holie vessels and the same not to be touched by lay-men Yea the Centurists 67) Cent. 4. col 504. And see col 409. And Chem. Exam. part p. 26. affirme that Theodoret l. 3. c. 12. sheweth that the Church of Antioch had manie pretious vessels which Constantin and Constantius gaue to it And they mention 68) Cent. 4. col 873. 874. likewise the yet controuerted rites of Chalice Paten Cruet ful of water Towel Wax-candle for Church lights book of Exorcismes c. Tenthly the Priests thus furnished with sacred vestments and vessels not only offred Sacrifice but likewise obserued Canonical Houres of
S. Gregorie (36) See before l. 2. c. 4. for his Predecessours Pelagius Celestine Leo Gelasius Sixtus Siricius Innocentius Sozimus Damasus Iulius Steuen Dionisius Victor c. yea S. Peter himself are al of them reproued by Protestant Writers for the foresayd Primacie So confessed it is that the Primacie of the Roman Church did not first begin in the time of S. Gregorie Now whereas D. White further added that the whole Greek Church complayned when Phocas had first conferred it on Boniface that their complaint supposing it for true is nothing material for they being as then diuided in this poynt from the Roman Church assuming to themselues the sayd Primacie their testimonie in their owne Cause is of no account But neither is it true that Phocas did first conferre it on Boniface for though he did by his Edict declare that the Roman Church was the Head of al Churches as testify S. Bede and others (37) l. de Sex Aetatibus in Phoca Ado in Chron. Paulus Diacon l. 18. de Rebus Roman yet is there no intimation that he first bestowed it yea further they affirme that the reason of the sayd Edict was the pride of the Bishops of Constantinople who iniuriously styling themselues vniuersal Bishops and contemning the Excommunications denounced against them by S. Gregorie Pelagius the Emperour therefore thought it necessarie to interpose his owne authoritie which the Grecians much more feared And he is so free from innouating in this Cause that besides the late premisses of the ancientest Popes euer claiming the same Iustinianus (38) Ep. ad Ioann 2. the elder ancient to Phocas by 70. yeares affirmeth the Roman Church to be Head of al Churches And Valentinian who preceded Phocas 140. yeares auoucheth that the Roman Bishop hath euer had the Principalitie of Preisthood aboue al others Yea in fullest satisfaction hereof it is plainly coÌ„fessed by Protestants theÌ„selues that Constantin our first Christian Emperour elder to Phocas almost 300. yeares (39) Before l. 2. c. 4. attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. So free was Phocas from first conferring Primacie to the Roman Church and so cleerly she resteth acquitted of these pretended Changes Innouations in the first 50. yeares After 650. 650. to 700. I name sayth D. White the Sixt general Councel decreing the marriage of Priests against the Church of Rome labouring to restraine it for which he citeth Can. 13. But the truth is there are not anie such Canons in the Councel cited for the true Sixt General Councel put forth no Canons as it is euident by the Seauenth (40) Act. 4. 5. Synod Wherefore after the Sixt Synode certaine Bishops assembled at Constantinople who in the Emperour Iustiniâ—n the Second his Pallace called Trullum published those Canons vnder the name of the sixt Synode which were neuer approued by anie Roman Bishop but to the contrarie then contradicted by Pope Sergius (41) Beda l. de Sex Aetatibus in Iustiniano Caulus Diacon l. 8. c. 9. de Rebus Rom. But though these Canons were authentical yet litle would they auaile our marrying Ministers not one of them allowing anie Clergie-man to marry after Orders taken and only permitting such to keepe their wiues as had them before they were of the Clergie and neither (42) Can. 6. 12. 48. this do they allow to Bishops but only to others of inferiour Orders Yea the Roman Church is so free from making anie change in this respect at the time prescribed that sundrie (43) Before l. 2. c. 17. Protestants for the self same prohibition of marriage to the Clergie do reproue manie more ancient and confirmed Councels as the 2. Councel of Arles holden in the time of Constantin the Councel of Neocesaraea of Eliberis the first of Nice and sundrie others As also for the same cause they reprehended the ancient Popes Leo Innocentius Calixtus Siricius c. and the learnedst Doctours of those times as S. Hierome S. Ambrose Origen with manie others so that at the time of the 6. Councel of Constantinople no changee at al was made by the Roman Church concerning the Single life of the Clergie But D. White further vrgeth that the sayd â— Councel forbiddeth to make the Holie-Ghost in likenes of a Doue But neither is this true for though it did preferre other Pictures before the Picture of Christ in the figure of a Lambe and the Picture of Holie-Ghost in forme of a Doue yet doth it not condemne these (45) Act. 5. And in the 7. Synod 44 the Image of the Holie-Ghost in forme of Doue is expresly approued Yea therin was also read the Epistle of Adrian to Tharasius in which it is sayd that in the 6. Synod was commended the Image of Christ in forme of a Lambe And that the Roman Church long before those times allowed Images it is euident enough by that which is before sayd concerning Serenus But our Doctour yet vrgeth that at this time there was a Councel holden in Portugal where the Cup is appointed to be ministred to the people against the practise of some that vsed to dip the bread and so to giue it which was one begining of the half Communion But this Councel being the third Councel of (45) Can. 1. Brach did iustly forbid that dipping in that it was neither so instituted by Christ nor could be confirmed by anie testimonie or example from Scripture yet doth it not command both kinds to be giuen And though it had yet were the obiecting thereof impertinent seing as then it was free lawful to vse both kinds Now that CoÌ„munion vnder one kind was sometimes vsed in much more ancient Ages it might easily be proued by Sozomene (46) Hist l. 8. c. 5. Niceph. hist l. 13. c. 7. Hieron Apol. pro l. in Iouin Cypr. Serm. de lapsis Tertul. l. 2. ad vxor Clem. Al. l. 1. strom 700. Nicephorus S. Hierome S. Cyprian Tertullian and others So that D. Whites Examples for the Roman Churches change in this 50. yeares are altogeather friuolous After 700. to 750. I name saith M. White the General Councel of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus against Images This Councel was neuer confirmed but reiected for none of the Patriarchs were present S. German only excepted who would not consent therevnto and thereupon was depriued of his Sea of Constantinople Wherefore this only proueth that some of the Grecians changed their Faith concerning Images for which they were contradicted not only by the Latin Church but by sundrie also of the greatest Doctours of the Greek Church In this Age also he nameth Clemens Scotus and Adelbartus who saith he preached against the Supremacie Traditions Images and in the defence of Priests marriage also against Purgatorie Masses for the dead c. And al this he proueth only by one of his lawful witnesses his Protestant Brother Illiricus which being wholy destitute of al other Authoritie I may lawfully forebeare it al further
answer After 750. 750. to 800. I name saith he the Councel of Constantinople vnder Constant Copronymus and of Franckford vnder Charles the Great against Images and the booke yet extant that he caused to be made against the 2. Nicene Councel with another set forth by Ludonicus his Sonne to the same effect A great tooth stil hath our Minister against Images but it neuer biteth for tâ—is Councel of Constantinople was likewise neuer confirmed but expressely condemned in the Seauenth Synod (47) Act. 6. Paul Diac. l. 21. 22 de Rib. Rom. Zonoras in Annalibus And being assembled only of Grecians who in the doctrine of Images were manie of them diuided from the Roman Church the testimonie thereof is of no force as I haue shewed before But besides it is not worthie of obseruation that as neither of these Councels of Constantinople so often vrged by our Doctour were euer confirmed by the Bishop of Rome without whose allowance according to the first Councel (48) Socrat. l. 2. c. 13. of Nice it was not lawful to assemble General Councels so neither did anie of the Patriarchs themselues euer assent vnto them as is manifest by Zonoras Cedrenus Paulus Diaconus and other Writers hereof Yea further al Authours who write of General Councels as Psellus Photins Zonoras Nicephorus Cedrenus Nycetas Paulus Diaconus Rhegino Ado Sigebert Abbas Vspergensis and others do either not number these two of Constantinople amongst the Councels of the Church or els do expressely reproue them and the 2. Councel of Nice which was truly General and plenarie did directly abrogate and condemne them Adde hereunto in fauour of our Doctour who is so far in loue with these Councels that in that vnder Constantin is decreed (49) Can. 15. those to be accursed who do not inuocate the B. Virgin Marie As also 50) Can. 17. those who do not worship and Inuocate the rest of the Saincts And 51) Can. 18. those who do not beleeue that God wil giue eternal life for merits of works according to the iust waight of his Iudgement al which Catholike Canons are 52) Cent. 8. c. 9. col 639 recited by the Centurists Now if M. White wil vrge this Councel against Images in which respect it was impugned and contradicted by seueral means why may not I much more vrge it for these other poynts wherein it was neuer reproued by any Councel or other Writers Now as concerning the Councel of Franckford vrged here and by sundrie other Protestants against Images First the a) Cen. 8. c. 9. col 639. Magdeburgians themselues acknowledge that Pope Adrian then Bishop of Rome neuer consented vnto it but both himself and his Legates resisted it Now neuer 53) Galasius Temo de vinâ—ulo Anathematis was there anie one Councel holden lawful whereunto the Roman Bishop resisted In so much that this Councel of Franckford itself decreed 54) In lib. Catolino That the last Iudgement of Controuersies belonged to the Roman Bishop and with this verie argument cheifly it endeauoured to confute the seauenth Synode imagining this to haue been assembled without the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome So that this Councel of Franckford by the testimonie of the Centurists destroyeth it selfe Secondly the Centurists in the same place teach that the 2. Nicene Synod was confirmed by Pope Adrian but the Councel of Franckford reiecteth only such Synods as are assembled without the Popes Authoritie wherefore according to the Magdeburgians not the Councel of Nice wherein Images were approued but some other was reproued by the Councel of Franckford Thirdly The Centurists further confesse that the Councel of Franckford did not decree that Images should be taken out of the Churches but remayning in the Churches that they should not be adored Wherefore then do Protestants pul down Images and break them Wherefore do not themselues obserue the Decree of the Councel Yea this verie Councel thundreth Anathema 55) l. Carol. Hincmarus Magdeburg to al such as deface break pul down Images how then wil our Protestants escape this bolt Fourthly the Councel of Franckford did indeed impugne 56) l. Carol. Hincmarus two Councels one of Constantinople which decreed against Images and the other of Nice which was for Images But the impugning of this latter was only through errour and materially euen as the Councel of Ariminum condemned the word Homousios for the Authour of the Bookes vnder the name of Charles had obtruded vnto the same Councel of Franckford two vntruths 57) In praef lib. Carol. First that the Councel of Nice had decreed that Images should be worshipped with the honour of Latria or that which is due only to God 58) l. Carol. The second that this decree was made by the Grecians without the consent of the Bishop of Rome Now these two lyes supposed for truths it is no wonder though the Councel of Franckford resisted the Councel of Nice And that these were mere Impostures falsly imposed vpon the Councel of Nice it is euident aswel in that the Legates of the Roman Bishop subscribed to euerie Act as also in that the Epistles of Pope Adrian himself for Images 59) Act. 2. were read in the Councel it self And so likewise that the sayd Councel did not decree Images to be worshiped with Latria is further manifest in that Basil of Ancyra who was formerly an Heretick being now conuerted and professing the Catholick Faith the (60) Act. 1. whole Councel hearing him and approuing him affirmed that he did worship Images but not with Latria seing that was due only to God And the like (61) Act 3.4.7 was professed by Constantin Bishop of Constance and other Bishops in the Seauenth Synode Neither let it seeme improbable that such vntruths could be forged against a general Councel so lately before celebrated Wheras most Protestants dare now affirme that Catholicks adore Images as Gods whereas almost thousands of Catholick Writers and the General Councel of Trent celebrated in the Confins of Germanie do declaime the contrarie what wonder then if the like be forged of a Greek Synod which few could read and vnderstand and which was celebrated in the Oriental parts being far distant Lastly it is to be remembred that though this Councel of Franckford did erre yet was it not in matter of Faith but only in fact condemning vpon false information the Councel of Nice neither was it euer confirmed but expressely reiected by the Bishop of Rome and therefore the errour thereof doth nothing preiudice the infallible authoritie of lawful approued General Councels So manie wayes doth it appeare that this thredworne Argument from the Councel of Franckford against Images is altogeather impertinent And now to come to the bastard Booke fathered vpon Charles the Great First the Booke of Adrian the First to Charles is extant whereby it appeareth that the sayd Booke was written by some Heretick and sent from Charles to Adrian
is so copiously preached by vs that truly in the Apostles time it was not so cleare And seing 48) Tom 2. lib. Cont. Reg. Angliae f. 344. God's word is aboue al the Diuine Maiestie maketh for me So that I passe not if 100. Austins 1000. Cyprians 1000. King Harrie 's Churches stood against me Wherefore 49) Lib. de Seruo Arb. And see Cnoglerus his Symbolatria p. 152. Cast you off what armour the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers shal afford or the schooles of Diuines the authoritie of Councels Bishops the consent of so manie Ages of al Christian People we receiue nothing but Scriptures but yet so that the infallible authoritie of interpreting is only in vs what we expound that the Holy-Ghost thinketh what others though great though manie bring it commeth from the spirit of Sathan and a mind distracted Yea the Pope 50) L. aduersus Papatum Romae à Satana fundatum f. 1. knoweth saith Luther that by the singular guift and bountie of God I am more learned in the Scriptures then himself and al his Asses But if Luther himself doth so fully mouthe his owne prayses and deserts we may presume his disciples and followers are not sparing in the like And so indeed writeth Alberus 51) Contra Carolostadianos l. 7. I doubt not but that if Austin were now liuing he would not be ashamed to professe himself Martin Luther's Scholler But Musculus lasheth far further for 52) Praef. in Libellum Ger. de Diaboli Tyramide since the Apostles times saith he there liued not in the world a greater then Luther And it may be sayd that God powred al his guifts vpon this only man and that there is as great difference betwixt the ancient Doctours and Luther as betwixt the light of the Sunne and of the Moone Neither is it to be doubted but that the ancient Fathers euen those that are chief and best among them as Hilarie and Austin if they had liued and taught in the same time with Luther would without blushing haue carried the lanterne before him as his Schollers or Ministers And another professeth that 53) In Hos in Hist Sacra part alt f. 346. He preferreth one leaf in Luther before the writings of al Fathers So that if we beleeue either Luther or his Schollers not only Austin and Hilarie and Ambrose but euen al the Fathers since the Apostles times must giue place to Luther in regard of his profoundest knowledge and learning But not only Luther himself thus far excelleth the ancient Fathers but in his opinion the onlie 54) In Col. mensa c. de Patribus Eccl. Apologie of Philip Melancthon doth far excel al the Doctours of the Church and exceed euen Austin himself Beza in like sort affirmeth 55) Praef. in nouum Testament dicat Principi Condiensi Caluin to haue far exceeded al the ancient and later writers in interpreting of the Scriptures wth varietie of words and allegation of reasons Yea saith he 56) Epist Theol. ep 1 p. 5. I haue been accustomed to say and not without cause as I take it that whilst I compare those verie times next the Apostles with our times they had then more conscience lesse knowledge And on the other side we haue now more knowledge and lesse conscience This is my opinion c. Agreably herevnto saith D. Whiteguift in his 57) Defence c. p. 472. Brief Comparison between the Protestants Bishops of our time and the Bishops of Primitiue Church The doctrine taught and professed by our Bishops at this day is much more perfect and sound then it commonly was in anie Age after the Apostles times 58) Ibid. p. 473. Surely you are not able to reckon in anie Age since the Apostles time anie company of Bishops that taught and held so perfect and sound doctrine in al poynts as â—he Bishops of England do at this time Yea in the truth of doctrine our Bishops be not only comparable with the old Bishops but in many degrees to be preferred before them In like sort saith Zanchius 59) De Sacra Scriptura p. 411. Christ hath now giuen to vs more excellent Interpreters then euer heretofore stnce the Apostles Yea saith M. Iacob 60) Defence of Treatise of Christ's sufferings p. 146. And see the Answ to Downham's sermon p. 20. this is the profit that comes by ordinarie flanting with the Fathers c. if in this case we were to looke after anie man surely we haue more cause to regard our late faithful teachers rather then those of old who being equal with the best of them in anie of the excellent graces of God's Spirit c. By which we may see the smal account made by Protestants of ancient Doctours not blushing thus to equal yea much to preferre their owne latest Writers before al the Fathers since the Apostles times But what should I vrge thus much their dislike disclaiming and disgracing of ancient Fathers when they spare not to reiect and contemne the authoritie of al Councels though neuer so general neuer so ancient And first doth not Luther affirme in general 61) In Asser Articulorum per Leonem X. damnat Art 29. That the way is made to vs Protestants of weakning the authoritie of Councels and of freely contradicting their decrees and of iudging their Acts and of confessing confidently whatsoeuer seemeth true to Protestants whether it be approued or reproued by anie Councel Doth not Beza affirme that 62) Praef. in nouum Testam ad Princ. C ndiens euen in the best times the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of Bishops was such that the verie blind may easily perceaue how that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels Doth not D. Humfrey disclaime from the Councels celebrated in the first 600. years saying 63) De vita Iuelli p. 212. What concerneth it vs what the false Synods of Bishops as then shal ordayne And doth not M. Carthwright reiect as erroneous euen the first Nycene Councel saying 64) 2. Reply part 1. p. 509. We haue good cause to hould for suspect whatsoeuer either in gouernment or doctrine those times left vnto vs not confirmed by substantial proofs out of the Word c. This appeareth in the first Councel of Nyce where the most errours decreed vpon c. besides the vngodlie custome which may appeare to haue occupyed almost al the Churches touching the forbidding of the second Marriage of Ministers before that Councel And againe 65) Ibid. p. 484. In the same Councel appeareth that to those chosen to the Ministerie vnmarried it was not lawful to take anie wife afterwards c. Paphnutius sheweth that not only this was before that Councel but was an ancient Tradition in the Church in which both himself and the whole Councel rested c. If the ancient Tradition of the Church saith Cartwright cannot authorize this neither can ancient custome authorize the other to wit of Metropolitans Luther