from a Partie in his owne cause And M. Carthwright (97) In his 2. Reply part 1. p. 501. auoucheth that Iulius Bishop of Rome at the Councel of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes that appertayned not to him The (98) Cent. 4. col 529. Centurists confesse that The Roman Bishops made a Law that they might command al things first to be written to them as appeareth by the Epistle of Iulius in Athasius Apologia secunda For Iulius sayth Are you ignorant this to be the custome that first we be written vnto c. (99) Vpon the Reuel c. 5. p. 53. And see Mornay of the Church in English p. 264. M. Symonides testifyeâ—h that Iulius decreed that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge might appeale to the Sea of Rome In so much that wheras the Arians had expelled Athanasius Bâ—shop of Alexandria Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and diuers other Catholick Bishops of the East Church it is (100) Cent. 4. col 530. testifyed that Iulius commanded the Arians to come to Rome and appoynted also a day to Athanasius Theodoret. l. 2. c. 4. c. where hearing euerie mans accusations and (101) Cent. 4. col 550. complâ—ynt He restored euerie one of these wronged Bishops to his owne place or Bishoprick and that not by intreatie or arbitrably but as the (102) Cent. 4. col 550. 530 Centurists confesse by Prerogatiue of the Roman Sea Al which might as ye be made much more euident by Iulius his vndoubted Epistle extant in Aâ—hanasius his second Apologie and alledged by the Centurists (103) Cent. 4. col 735. who mention their (104) col 737 742. Citation euen vnto Iudgement (105) col 739. 740. and at a certayne day and greatly reprehending this (106) col 529 And see D. field of the Church l 5. p. 178. Saying of Iulius Are ye ignorant this to be the custome that first we be written vnto that from hence that which is right may be defined c. for what we haue receaued froÌ„ the blessed Apostle Peter that I signify vnto you To coÌ„clude this of Pope Iulius Doctour Philippus Nicolai (107) De Regno Christi l. 2. p. 149. auoucheth that Pope Iulius as Socrates and Sozomene relate sent letters to the Eastern Bishops in which as the letters witnes he often affirmeth the right of calling general Councels by a certain singular Priuiledge euen by Diuine Precept to belong to himself alone who as he sayth is the Prelate of the first Sea He also affirmeth that it no lesse appertayneth vnto him being the Bishop of that Cittie that he be acquaynted with the affaires of Bishops and other waightie businesses of that kind After the same manner and with like ambition Damasus c. and afterwards Innocentius c. Thus far the Protestant Philippus To whom I wil only adde M. Fox confessing that (108) Act. Mon. l. 1. p. 1. The Church of Rome in al those Ages aboue specifyed from the Apostles challenged to it self the Title and ring-leading of the whole vniuersal Church on earth by whose direction al other Churches haue been gouerned And (109) Ibid. p. 8. whatsoeuer was done in other places coÌ„monly the manner was to write to the Roman Bishop for his approbation The testimonie of the Roman Bishop was sometimes wont to be desired in those dayes of Pope Iulius for admitting Bishops in other Churches wherof we haue examples in Socrates l. 4. c. 37. when Bishops of anie other Prouinces were at anie dissension they appealed to the Bishop of Rome Neither was this only the priuate opinion of some particuler Popes of those times but it was the general receaued doctrine of other Bishops and Fathers In so much as the Councel of Sardis which M. Bel (110) In his Regiment of the Church p 158. tearmeth The famous and ancient Councel of Sardis coÌ„sisting of 300. Bishops and aboue assembled from Spaine (111) Cent. 4. col 747. Theodoret. hist. l 2. c. 8. FraÌ„ce Italie Greece AEgipt Thebais Palestine Arabia c. and most other parts of the Christian world wherat sundrie Fathers of the Nicene CouÌ„cel were (112) Carion in his Chron. p. 282. present (113) Cent. 4. col 764. decreed Appeales to the Bishop of Rome Insomuch as the (114) Ibid. Centurists and (115) Epitome p. 294. Osiander do both of them acknowledge and recite this 7. Canon of that Councel It hath seemed good to vs that if a Bishop be accused if the Bishops of the Prouince assembled togeather haue iudged the matter and haue depriued him if the Partie depriued do appeale and fly to the Bishop of Rome c. if the Partie accused desiring his cause to be heard once againe do intreate the Bishop of Rome to send Legats à latere suo from him it shal be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shal think good c. (116) Antich Disp bipart p. 31. sect 103. Tilenus speaking hereof auoucheth that The Decree of the CouÌ„cel of Sardis of Appealing to Rome made the Roman Bishop more bould And in regard of this Decree this so ancieÌ„t a Councel is much reproued (117) Instit l. 4. c. 7. sect 9. by Caluin (118) In his com places in English p. 4. p. 39. Peter Martyr (119) Palma Christiana p. 30. 122. 124. Frigiuilleus Gaunius and (120) Cent 4. p. 294. Osiander But to end this Centurie wherin our first Christian Emperour Constantin the Great liued ruled The Protest writer (121) Palma Christiana p. 35. Frigiuilleus Gaunius plainly confesseth that the sayd Constantin himself attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. that (122) Ibid p. 34. Therby it appeared to be fatal that CoÌ„staÌ„tin would giue power to the Beast which Pope Iulius forthwith put in practise for Constantin the Great carryed in his Ensignes the Dragon for his Armes c. so that he was the Dragon Apoc. 13.2 (123) Fidelis Relatio c. p. 19. Bibliander acknowledgeth that Constantin the Great raigning c. Siluester the Bishop of Rome began to lay the foundations of the Papistical Monarchie c. M. Bale hath almost the same words saying (124) Cent. 1. c. 36. In these times of CoÌ„stantin Syluester began to lay the foundation of the Popes Monarchie and finding the key of the depth he opened the pit if it be true which Papists write of him Yea al the Popes after Syluester to Bonif. 3. he tearmeth Mitred Bishops preparing by their CanoÌ„s and Decrees the seat for the great Antichrist The (125) Cent. 4. col 549. CeÌ„turists coÌ„fesse in general that In this age the Mysterie of iniquitie was not idle (126) Cent. 4â— col 550. And that The Bishop of Rome challenged by Ecclesiastical Canon the dissallowing of those Synods wherat they were absent So cleer it is that the Fathers Bishops and Councels of this Age agreed with vs Catholicks in the
meanes to preuent Schismes dissentions in the Primitiue Church when the Graces of God were far more abundant and eminent then now they are Nay if the Twelue were not like to agree except there had been one Chief among them for sayth Hierom among the Twelue one was therefore chosen that a Chief being appoynted occasion of dissention might be preuented How can they think that equalitie would keep al the Pastours in the world in peace and vnitie c. For in al Societies Authoritie which can not be where al are equal must procure vnitie and obedience In like sort the (4) Cen. 4. Col. 556. Centurists confesse that Optatus l. 2. cont Donat. writeth It can not be denyed but that thou knowest in the Cittie of Rome the Episcopal Chaire to haue been first bestowed vpon Peter in which Peter the Head of al the Apostles sate wherupon he is called Cephas In which one Chaire vnitie should be kept by al least the other Apostles should euerie one defend his owne So that he should be esteemed a Schismatick and sinner who should erect another against that singular Sea therfore there is one Chaire c. (5) Cent. 4. Col. 1100. They also reprehend him for that he extolleth ouermuch the Chaire of Peter and the Succession of the Roman Bishops And (6) In his Retentiue c. p. 248. D. Fulk chargeth Optatus with absurditie for saying of Peter He deserued to be preferred before al the Apostles and he alone receaued the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen to be communicated to the rest (7) Retentiue against Bristows Motiues p. 248. D. Fulk (7) Retentiue against Bristows Motiues p. 248. speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregorie Bishops of Rome confesseth that The mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that Seate neer fiue or six hundred yeares before them so anciently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal and then greatly encreased they were so deceaued with long continuance of errour that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the holie Scriptures of God do allow Yea the (8) Cent. 3. col 85. Centurists recite and reproue Origen hom 17. in Lucam for calling Peter the Prince of the Apostles And D. Raynolds (9) In his Cōference p. 485. citeth S. Dionysius de diuinis nominibus c. 3. tearming Peter the chief and most ancient Top or Head of the Apostles (10) Apocalypsis in cap. 13. p. 343. This poynt is so euident in the Fathers that M. Brightman thinketh It hath its original from a corrupt Doctrine to wit the false boasted Authoritie of the Chaire of Peter wherof almost at euerie word the Roman Bishop braggeth and which the Ancient Saints Tertullian Cyprian and others extolled with immoderate prayses not knowing with what impietie they prepared the way c. But the Fathers further proceed teaching that the whole Church was built or founded vpon S. Peter To which purpose the Rhemists citing S. Gregorie D. Fulk answereth The (11) Ag. Rhem. Test in Math. 16.19 Authoritie of Gregorie c. being a Bishop of Rome himself and so neer the time of the open reuelation of Antichrist in the Romish Sea is partial in this case and therefore not to be heard And againe Leo (12) Ibid. vers 18. Bishop of Rome striuing for the dignitie of his Sea as his Predecessours Zosimus Boniface and Celestin had done before c. is no equal Iudge in this case The (13. Cent. 8. col 555. Centurists charge S. Hilarie that he speaketh incommodiously of Peter the Apostle that he lyeth vnder the building of the Church and is made the Foundation therof They (14) Cent. 4. col 557. see col 1250. likewise affirme that S. Hierom sayth incommodiously of Peter that our Lord built his Church vpon him And for the like Saying they (15) Cent. 4. col 558. and see col 1250. reproue Nazianzene Yea they (16) Cent. 3. col 84. charge Tertullian that not without errour he seemeth to think that the Keyes were committed only to Peter and that the Church was built vpon him And they (17) Cent. 3. col 84. confesse that Cyprian in manie places affirmeth the Church to be founded vpon Peter as l. 1. ep 3. l. 4. ep 9. c. And they (18) Cent. 3. col 85. charge Origen Tract 5. in Math. to say Peter by promise deserued to be made the foundation of the Church (19) Resp Ad Bellar. disp part 1. p. 277. Danaeus reproueth the Fathers in general for that they sayth he naughtily expounded of the Person of Peter that Saying of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church (20) Instit l. 4. c. 6. sec 6. Caluin sayth The Church to be built vpon Peter because it is sayd vpon this Rock c. some of the Fathers haue so expounded but the whole Scripture gaynsayeth Yea the Fathers kept a yearely Festiual day in honour of S. Peters Sea or Chaire which poynt Bellarmine confirming by the testimonies of sundrie Fathers Danaeus (21) In Resp ad Bellar. Disp part 1. p. 275. 276. only answereth that the Fathers assertion therof was the Iudgements and Testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched or made blind with this errour And wheras Anacletus ep 3. Leo ep 53. and Gregorie l. 6. ep 37. do al of them teach a special preheminence to be giuen euen to the Seas of Alexandria and Antioch before other Apostolical or Patriarchal Seas in respect of S. Peter who first founded them Danaeus (22) In Resp ad Bell. part 1. p 275. in his answer to Bellarmin obiecting them in steed of a better euasion barely writeth What he bringeth out of Anacletus Leo and Gregorie is in vaine seing they plead for themselues in their owne cause But D. Field (23) of the Church l. 5. c. 31. p. 162. ingenuously confesseth that There were in the beginning only Three Patriarcks to wit the Bishop of Rome Alexandria and Antioch The reason as some think why the Bishops of these Seas were preferred before others and made Patriarcks was in respect had to blessed S. Peter who was in sort before expressed in order and honour the First and Chiefest of the Apostles c. Al Churches are rightly called Apostolick but these more specially in which the Apostle Peter sate And in proof of this he alleageth Anacletus Leo and Gregorie before mentioned D. Fulk (24) In his Confut. of Papists quarrels c. p. 4. affirmeth in general that manie of the ancient Fathers were deceaued to think something more of Peters Prerogatiue and the Bishop of Romes dignitie then by the word of God was giuen to either of them Hence then we see that Catholicks defending S. Peter to haue been appoynted by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church As also the Church
(161) Cent. 4. col 549. And see Carthwright in Whâ—tguift Def. p 700. See Osiand cent 4. p. 477. AmaÌ„dus Polanus Symphonia p 841. 849. And as the Fathers were thus direct and ful for the Bishop of Romes Primacie so did they answerably reiect al pretended spiritual Primacie in anie temporal Magistrate So the Centurie-writers confesse that Emperours assumed to themselues vnseasonably the iudgement of matters of Faith which thing Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius Ambrose in Valentinian Yea (162) Of the Estate of the Churcb p. 99 Crispinus confesseth that our first Christian Emperour Constantin sayd God hath ordayned you Bishops and hath giuen you power to iudge of yourselues by meanes wherof we yeeld ourselues to your iudgement Men may not iudge you but God alone Yea (163) Ibid. p. 93 And see the Abridgement of Fox his Acts Mon. p 67. Crispinus further acknowledgeth that he gaue power vnto Clerks for to appeale from Ciuil Magistrats to Bishops And others (164) In the sayd Abridgement p. 66 grant that He freed them from al manner of publick duties and burdens As also that (165) Napper vpon the Reuâ—l p. 145. He subdued al Christian Churches to Pope Syluester And (166) Frigiuilleus Ganuius in his Palma Christ p. 35. Attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. And such was his respect to Ecclesiastical Gouernours as that the Centurists (167) Cent. 4 col 4â—0 relate that It is knowne what reuerence and obseruance he had to Bishops in the Councel of Nyce where he would not sit downe vntil the Bishops willed him And then as 168) Chron. p. 274. And Lubbertus de Concilijs Carion reporteth Constantin sate downe on a lower Seat amongst the Bishops So far was this most renowned and Christian Prince from challenging to himself Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical The Centurists (169) Cent. 5. col 663. doe acknowledge and recite Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperour and his wife who were aduerse to Chrysostom and took part with Theophilus where he thus writeth I the least of al and a Sinner hauing yet the Throne of the Great Apostle Peter committed to me do separate and remoue thee and her from receiuing the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God And euerie Bishop or anie other of the Clergie which shal presume to minister or giue to you those holy mysteries after the time that you haue read the present letters of my bound pronounce them voyd of their dignitie c. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishop-like Throne in Chrysostoms roome though he be dead we depose and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops In like manner we depose al other Bishops who deliberatly haue communicated with him c. To the deposing of Theophilus we adde Excommunication c. From hence then it appeareth that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church not only denyed euen to the greatest Emperours al pretended Supremacie in Ecclesiastical matters but that also Constantin himself disclaymed from the same and when other Emperours offended against the Church the same Church spared not to punish them for the same The premisses likewise do most fully conuince that the Primitiue Church neuer thought anie Pope or succession of Popes to be Antichrist But contrarie to Protestants making al Popes for manie hundred yeares past to be Antichrists it is confessed by D. Whitaker (170) l. De Antichristo p. 21. that The Fathers for the most part thought that Antichrist should be but one man but in that sayth he as in manie other things they erred either because they yeelded too much to the common opinion concerning Antichrist or because they waighed not the Scriptures so diligently as they ought And as M. Whitaker forsooth hath done M. Carthwright's (171) In his 2. Reply part 1. p. 508. See Gracerus his Historia Antichristi p. 11. censure is that Diuers of the ancient and the chiefest of them imagined fondly of Antichrist as of one singular Person And as for the time of his coming and continuance M. Fox (172) In Apoc. c. 12 p. 345. acknowledgeth that Almost al the holie and learned Interpreters doe by a Time Times and halfe a Time vnderstand only Three yeares and a halfe And (173) In Apoc. c. 13. p. 362. that this is the consent opinion of almost al the ancient Fathers Bullinger (174) In Reuel c. 11. ser 46. f. 142 auoucheth that Doubtlesse al Expositours grounding themselues vpon this Text haue attributed to the Kingdome of Antichrist and to his most cruel persecutions no more then Three yeares and a halfe This shortest time of Antichrists raigne was so cleerly the Doctrine beleef of the ancient Fathers that D. Morton for his truest answere confesseth the same reprouing them al of Errour saying (175) Prot. Appeal l 2. p. 144. Why might not these Fathers be sayd to haue erred in prefining the time of Antichrist who haue been thus farr ouerseen in reporting his Tribe So confessedly do the Fathers cleer al our Popes from being Antichrists (176) Of the Church 9. p. 286 Philip Mornay proueth at large that Antichrist is not to come during the continuance of the Roman Empire in which behalf he alleadgeth the agreable Sayings of S. Ambrose Hierom Austin Chrysostom and S. Paul By al which it is most euident that in the opinion of the ancient Fathers Antichrist is to be but one man and the continuance of his Raigne to be Three yeares and a halfe before the ending of the world before which the Roman Empire must cease To reuiew then the truest harmonie between the Primitiue and our present Roman Church in this principal Controuersie concerning the Popes Supremacie in Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical The Fathers and Bishops as then taught First that the Bishop of Rome was S. Peters successour and that this Succession was not anie humane or Synodical Constitution but euen the ordinance of God himself Secondly that therfore Popes might Exercise their Iurisdiction Primacie ouer al Churches Thirdly And so accordingly they did ordaine Excommunicate depose restore and cite other forraine Bishops Archbishops Fourthly they placed their Legats or Vicars in other Countries to end smaller matters reseruing the greater causes to theÌ„selues Fiftly Appeales were made to them from al Christian Kingdomes Sixâ—ly and they not only had power to cal General Councels but they also appoynted Presidents in the same Yea Councels were then so subiect vnto them as that no Councel was holden lawful which was not assembled approued by their authoritie Seauenthly Princes Emperours were subiect to their Spiritual Censures And yet no Father Bishop or King of those times did euer traduce anie one of those Popes with that fowlest note or stayne of Antichrist Now the ancient holie Doctours and Bishops which are here acknowledged and reproued for the foresayd seueral poynts and priuiledges of the Popes Primacie are Gregorie Pelagius Celestin
that (22) Antilog p. 273. In King Henries the Eight time the Masse continued and the whole bodie of the Roman doctrine the Supremacie excepted Sleidan also sayth of K. Henrie (23) Sleidan in Engl. l. 13. fol. 174. He exiled the name of the Bishop of Rome but kept stil his doctrine Yea saith M. Fox (24) Act. Mon. p. 1472. He set forth and by ful consent of Parlament established the book of Six Articles contayning the summe of Popish Religion In which he was so resolute as that himself in Person not only (25) Ib p. 530. disputed but also commanded (26) Ib. p. 533 Sentence to be pronounced against the Protestant Lambert And this notwithstanding the Popish Church vnder his Raigne is by D. Fulk (27) Against HesKins c. p. 564 acknowledged to be a true Church and the King himself to be (28) Ib. sect 82 And Humf. Iesuit part 2. p. 304. A member of the Catholick Church of Christ yea sayth M. Hal the Church as then was A true (29) Apologie against Brownists c. 11. p. 30 visible Church of God And for asmuch sayth (30) Consecration of English Bish. p. 67. M. Mason as it is the custom of Papists to brand the Raigne of King Henrie the Eight with the odious name of Schisme let me a litle dispel those clouds and mists wherwith they darken the glorie of that Heroical Prince So gratefull are they to K. Henrie though wel they know that sundrie of their Protestant Predecessours he burned for their Heresies In the Age next before Luther and K. Henrie liued Iohn Husse who though some Protestants through their greatest penurie make bold to challenge for a member of their Church yet is it to the contrarie confessed by (31) In Colloquiis Germ. c. de Antichristo Luther himself that The Papists burned Iohn Husse when as yet he departed not a finger-breadth from the Papacie for he taught the same which the Papists do only he found fault with their vices and wicked life against the Pope he committed nothing Agayne They do not wel sayth (32) Explicaet Art 30 Luther who make me a Hussite for he held not with me (33) Tom. 1. p. 493. He taught horrible and diuelish blasphemies Agreably sayth (34) In Apoc. c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox The Papists traduce Husse and Hierom of Prague who liued in the same Age as Hereticks why so I beseech you c. I adde further if he be an Heretick who varieth from the Decrees of the Roman Church what dit Husse at any time teach or defend in the Councel wherin he did not rather seem superstitiously to consent with the Papists What did the Popish Faith decree concerning Transubstantiation which he likewise with the Papists did not confirme Who celebrated Masse more religiously then he or more chastlie obserued the vowes of Priestly Chastitie Adde further that in doctrine of Catholicks concerning Free-wil Predestination Informed Faith the cause of iustification and Merit of good works what other thing did he hold then is taught at Rome what Image of any Sainct did he euer cast out of his Church at Bethlem c. what therfore shal we say him to haue committed for which he is not togeather with the Roman Sea to be condemned or with it to be absolued In like ful sort sayth D. Field (34) In his Appendix to the 5. booKe of the Church part 1. p. 87. touching Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prague I could neuer yet find in what poynt of Faith they dissented from the doctrine of the Church then constantly resolued on but they bitterly inueighed against the Ambition Pride Coueteousnes and negligence of the Clergie And more in particular M. Fox (35) Act. Mon. p. 216. confesseth that Husse beleeued the seauen Sacraments and (36) Act. Mon. p. 209. 197. Transubstantiation M. Iacob (37) Def. of the Churches c. p. 13. And Act. Mon. p. 227. 216. addeth the Popes Primacie wherof also sayth (38) In Assertionibus art 30 Luther Iohn Husse seemeth not to withstand but that the Monarchie of the Pope may be yea he further there affirmeth that Husse attributeth much to the Roman Idol Lastly Husse being a Catholick Priest (39) Def. of the Churches c. p. 13. M. Iacob affirmeth that he sayd Masse to his dying day So manifest it is that in the Age of Iohn Husse the publick Seruice of the Church was the Sacrifice of the Masse and the Religion then knowne and beleeued by Husse and others was our present Roman Where I can not but much admire the absurditie and beggerie of M. Fox and others in (40) Act. Mon. p. 190. 241. And D. Downham of Antichrist p. 40. registring Iohn Husse for a most holie Martyr of their Protestant Church and further (41) In Apoc. c. 11. p. 249. affirming that It can not seem otherwise but that Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prague are without al controuersie the two witnesses c. wherof the Prophet speaketh properly and expresly in this place to wit of the Apocalipse wheras it is most certain that Husse was condemned and burned chiefly (42) See Simō de Voyon vpon the Catalog of Doctours p. 159. Fox Act. Mon. p. 230. Osiand cent 15. p. 469. for his vrging of Communion to the Lay-people vnder both kindes and for maintayning Wicclifs seditious Doctrine against Princes Priestes and Bishops if they committed mortal Sinne in other poynts of Faith liuing and dying a Roman Catholick In the Age precedent to Iohn Husse liued Iohn Wiccliffe who was a Catholick Priest (43) Stows Annales p. 464 euen the Parson of Lutterworth in Lecestershier who according to M. Stow (44) Ib. p. 425 first inueighed against the Church for that he had been depriued by the Archbishop of Canterburie from a certain Benefice c. And hauing vpon this occasion seuered himself from the Church in which he formerly was He with his Disciples went barefooted and basely cloathed in coorse russet garments downe to the heeles and (45) Ib. p. 426 seemed to contemne al temporal goods for the loue of eternal riches adioyning himself to the begging Friars approuing their pouertie and extolling their perfection Reteyning stil his former Catholick opinions concerning (46) Vviccleus de Blasphe c. 17 Holie-water (47) Vviccl de Euchar. c. 9. the Worshipping of Relicks and Images the (48) Serm de Assumptione Intercession of our B. Lady S. Mary the (49) De Apostasia c. 18. Rites and Ceremonies of the Masse wherof (50) In Professione fidei c. 28. Przibauus an Heretick who liued neer the same time sayth Iohn Wiccliffe in his booke of Apostacie and eighteenth chapter alloweth al the Rites of Masse from the beginning almost to the end c. (51) In 1. ad Cor. c. 1. Wiccliffe himself calleth Extreame Vnction a medecine to cure sinne as appeareth sayth he Iames. 1 And he affirmeth that it
and euen the whole Chaos of Popish Superstition be builded vp But to cleare S. Gregorie of al Innouation in this point of Doctrine The Centurists acknowledge that (33) Cent. 5. c. 6. col 692. S. Chrysostom mentioneth dayes of Indulgence and Pardon And D. Field (34) Of the Church l. 1. c. 17. p. 33. confesseth that The Ancient Bishops were wont to cut off great partes of enioyned Pennance which remission was called an Indulgence Now to conclude Confession being made and Pennance inioyned the Priest as the Centurists confesse for the practise of the Third Age did afterwards absolue the Penitent euen with the now-like vsed ceremonie of imposing his hand So that the Primitiue and our present Roman Church do confessedly agree in the doctrine of Pennance First As that Priests haue truly Power to remit Sinnes Secondly that Auricular Confession is necessarie Thirdly that after Confession Pennance is to be imposed Fourthly (35) Cent. 3 col 127. that the same is truly Satisfactorie Fiftly after Pennance Absolution is giuen with Imposition of hands Sixtly yea Pardons and Indulgences are acknowledged to be granted and vsed in those purest times of the Church Primitiue Now the Fathers cited and reproued by Protestants for our foresayd doctrines are S. Gregorie Leo Chrysostom the Doctours in the Age of Constantin Ambrose Augustin Cyprian Tertulian the Carthage Councel the 1. Councel of Neece and the Fathers in general The Protestants accusing them are the Centurie-writers Caluin Chemnitius Melancthon Hamelmanus Osiander Hieronimus Marius Pantaleon Valera Symonides Bale Humfrey Field Morton and Whitaker It is granted by Protestants that the Catholick Doctrine of Purgatorie and of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead was beleeued taught and practised by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church CHAPTER XI WHAT more generally disliked by Protestants then our Catholick doctrine of Purgatorie and our charitable pracise of Praying Sacrificing for the dead And yet what more generally confessed by Protestants to haue been the beleef and custome of the Primitiue Church then Purgatorie Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead Concerning S. Gregorie D. Humfrey (1) In Iesuit part 2. rat 5 p. 5. 627. acknowledgeth that he taught vs Englishmen by the preaching of S. Austin the doctrine of Purgatorie c. the oblation of the healthful Sacrifice Prayers for the dead (2) In Chro. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Carion confesseth that he approued the opinion of the oblation of Christs Bodie Bloud to be made for the dead Iohn Bale (3) In Act. Rom. Pontif. p. 44. 45. 46. 47. is of opinion that he made his foure books of Dialogues for the vpholding of Purgatorie c. and admitted euen Masses for the dead The Magdeburgians (4) In the Index of the 6. Centurie at the word Gregorie charge him out of his owne writings with the Doctrine of Purgatorie c. (5) Cent. 6. col 373. and with oblation of Sacrifice for the dead D. Fulk (6) Ag. Rhem. Test in 1 Cor. 3. sayth In the dayes of Gregorie c. the opinion of Purgatorie had gotten some ground in the Latin Church c. yet in the place by the Rhemistes quoted he granteth it but for very smal offences D. Sutcliffe auoucheth that Gregorie (7) Subuersion c. 4. vsed Litanies allowed Purgatorie c. And wheras D. Whitakers confidently auoucheth that (8) Contra Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. He that first deliuered Purgatorie for a certaine Doctrine was Gregorie the Great Yet M. Symonides (9) Vpon the Reuel p 83. only chargeth him not with beginning but with increasing two pernitious things in the Church Inuocation of the Dead and Prayer for the dead yea D. Morton confesseth that S. Gregory (10) Prot. Appeale l 1. Sec. 17. p. 19. â—0 frameth thus his conclusions Because such Soules departed appearing after desire the help of the liuing the Sacrifice of the Altar is profitahle for them Wherupon our Doctour concludeth saying This doth giue vs cause to obserue in him a deep plunge into Superstition And againe S. Augustin spake with a Peraduenture but S. Gregorie kindled the fire with a Credo c. And now of late the Romanists haue blowâ—e the flame with an Anathema So hotly do Roman Catholicks follow the Sent giuen by S Gregorie and S. Augustin But to clear S. Gregorie of al Innouation in this poynt (11) Ibid. p. 498. I wil ascend to his predecessours and Ancients And to begin with S. Augustin whom though D. Morton pretendeth to speak hereof only with a Paraduenture or doubtfully yet Bullinger hauing perused diuers places of S. Augustins writings concerning this poynt auoucheth (12) De origâ—â— Erroriâ— f. 223. That not in one but in manie places Augustin maketh mention of Sacrifice for the dead c. in Enchirid. c. 109. for it is not to be denyed sayth he but that the Soules of the dead are releeued by the pietie of their liuing friends when the Sacrifice of the Mediatour is offered for them c. And in his 32. sermon de Verbis Apostoli This sayth he deliuered from the Fathers the whole Church obserueth that prayer be made for them who dyed in the Communion of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ when in their place they are remembred in the Sacrifice and the Sacrifice also is offered for them This therfore sayth Bullinger I set downe more at large that thou mayst vnderstand this custome of Sacrificing for the dead to be ordayned not by the Apostles but by the holie Fathers D. Willet affirmeth That diuers of the ancient Fathers (13) Tetrastylon part 3. p. 97. did incline too much to maintayne and commend prayer for the dead with which errour sayth he S. Austin seemeth somewhat to be infected Augustine sayrh Caluin (14) Instâ—t l. 3. c. 5. § 10 in his books of Confessions telleth that his mother Monica earnestly desired that Memorie of her might be made at the Altar in performing the mysteries An old womans desire sayth Caluin which her Sonne squared not by the rule of Scripture but through affection of Nature would haue it approued to others D. Fulk confesseth that (15) In his Confut of Purgat p. 1â—0 Austin de Ciuitate Dei l. 21. c. 13. concludeth verie clearly that some suffer temporal paynes after this life this may not be denyed Yea he boldly auoucheth that Austin (16) Ibid. p 313. blindly defended prayer for the dead D. Morton affirmeth that Protestant Authours (17) Prot. Appeal p. 495. haue obserued S. Augustin to haue been the first who opened the window vnto the doctrine of Purgatorie by whose owne direction sayth he we haue a good warrant to dissent from him c. So admitting S. Austin for Purgatorie but most disgraciously insinuating that therin he is contrarie to himself which as most palpably vntrue I forbeare to confute and only proceed cleerly to shew that neither S. Austin was first nor the sole man that opened