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
Learning and Iudgment c. So willing indeed is M. Doctour to detract from the Authoritie and testimonies of his owne deare Brethren M. Napper and M. Brocard And where he would gladly mince the matter by affirming that they were but Two the perusal of this Chapter and other parcels of this booke wil clearly discouer that there were manie more Twoes of this opinion Wherfore to proceed M. Brightman (11) Apoc. p. 503. thus vrgeth Bellarmine As concerning the continuance of the Apostacie from the true Faith we haue learned by the Apocalypse that the same hath preuayled more then 1260. yeares and that more cleerly then anie of your Subtilties can euade (12) Ibid. p. 539. And againe Antichrist hath raigned from the time of Constantin the Great to this day wherof the Apocalypse affordeth such Demonstrations as neuer anie Iesuit can confute Yea (13) Ibid. p. 477. further The Pope of Rome is the Beast which 1300. yeares receiued power c. therefore from 1300. yeares he is the Antichrist So certain it is by M. Brightmans strongest Demonstrations grounded vpon Scripture that the present Roman Religion hath continued for these last 1300. yeares during which time the Pope in his opinion hath raigned as Antichrist Answerably herevnto (14) Against Staplet Martial p. 25. D. Fulk relateth that some Protestants haue written that the Pope hath blinded the world these manie hundred yeares some say 1000. some 1200. some 900. c. And (15) In Apoc. p. 263. Winckelmanus speaking of the begining and end of the Churches persecution by Antichrist reporteth that there are some Protestant Writers who make the end Anno 1517. when M. Luther first began and so the beginning should be Anno 257. others place the end Anno Christi 1521. when Luther at the Assemblies at Wormes excellently gaue testimonie to the truth and so the beginning should be from Anno Christi 261. c. (16) De Antichristo p. 96. Danaeus also speaking of Antichrists first coming confesseth that some Protestant Writers teach that he came in the Yeare 1000. others 500. others 400. from Christs birth So clear it is that the Pope of Rome for these 1300. yeares in the opinion of Protestants hath raigned as Antichrist But as the Popes for these last 1300. yeares are thus censured for Antichrists so are the most ancient and first Christian Emperours condemned for Papists and fauourers of Antichrist For though D. Morton speaking of the Popes authoritie affirmeth that it hath been (17) Prot. Appeal p. 661. often and notoriously contradicted in Antiquitie c. by right Christian and renowned Emperours Yet M. Brightman speaking of the verie first most ancient and Christian Emperours auerreth the contrarie saying (18) Apoc. p. 344. Into which Catalogue come Constantin the Great Constantius Constans Constantin and their Sonnes Iulian Iouinian Valentinian Gratian Valentinian the Second Theodosius c. for these then raigning the Beast was notably defended and his dignitie much increased Agreably sayth (19) Reioynd to Bristow p. 2. D. Fulk I neuer ment to acknowledge the Emperours Constantin Iouinian Valentinian c. to be such as I would wish for For both in their Religion and manners diuers things are found which I could wiâ—h had been more agreable to the Word of God So that for the second 300. yeares after Christ it resteth euident and for such acknowledged that The Pope and his Clergie possessed the outward visible Church of Christians neuer suffring for 1000. yeares after Syluester the First anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the Protestant Church For which verie cause al the Popes of those Ages are censured for Antichrists and the verie first Christian Emperours for their fauourers and defenders To make now the like trial of the Roman Churches Continuance and her vniuersal and publick profession and practise of her Faith and Religion for the first 300. yeares after Christ to wit from his blessed Apostles to Pope Siluester the First and Constantin the Great Wheras our Catholick Writers do often obiect the Custom of the ancient Fathers in prouoking the Hereticks of their times with the Succession of the Roman Bishops according to the example of Ireneus Cyprian Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustin and Vincentius Lyrinensis (20) Against Purgat p. 373. D. Fulk for his best answear is enforced to confesse saying That these men specially named the Church of Rome it was because the Church of Rome at that time as it was founded by the Apostles so it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles (21) ConfereÌ„ce vvith M. Hart. p. 442. D. Raynolds being prouoked in the like kind acknowledgeth in like manner that The succession of the Roman Bishops was a proof of the true Faith in the time of Augustin Epiphanius Optatus Tertullian and Irenaeus c. (22) Instit l. 4. c. 2. sec 2. 3. And Caluin himself setting downe our foresayd Allegation affirmeth of Catholicks that They indeed set forth their Church verie gloriously c. They report out of Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Augustin and others how highly they esteemed this Succession wherto he giueth the like answear and reason saying Considering it was a matter out of al doubt that from the beginning euen vntil that time nothing was changed in Doctrine the forsayd Doctours took in argument that which was sufficient for the ouerthrowing of al new errours to wit that the Hereticks oppugned the doctrine which euen from the verie Apostles themselues had been inuiolable and with one consent retayned And in his book of Institutions set forth in French he writeth expresly that It was a thing notorious and without doubt that after the Apostles Age vntil those foresayd times no change was made in doctrine neither at Rome nor other Citties In like sort sayth Zanchius (23) De vera Relig. p. 148. In times past the Roman Church and the succession of their Bishops vntil the times of Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Some others was such as that not vndeseruedly these Fathers were accustomed to prouoke and cite the Hereticks of their time to her and others such like (24) De Ecclesia p. 278. D. Whitaker speaking of certain Apostolical Churches and amongst them of Rome by Name collecteth thus From whence we vnderstand why Tertullian prouoked to these Churches to wit because as then by perpetual succession they kept the Doctrine of the Apostles Agreably to which almost in the same words sayth (25) Against Purgat p. 374 D. Fulk The Church of Rome retayned by succession vntil Tertullians dayes that Faith which it did first receiue of the Apostles (26) Fox his Act. Mon. p. 1359. M. Ridley auoucheth that The Patriarch of Rome in the Apostles time and long after was a great maintayner and Setter forth of Christs glorie in the which aboue al other Countries and Regions was preached the true Ghospel the Sacraments were most duly administred c. After the Emperours became Christians
(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
al faith Into such miserable streights manifest coÌ„tradictions are the learnedst Protestants driuen through want of their Churches continuance and vniuersalitie Yea vpon the self same ground of the Protestant Churches not fulfilling the predictions of the Churches continuance (35) In his Preface of the great Latine Bible dedicated to K. Edward the Sixt. Castalio bursteth out into these words Verily we must confesse either that those things shal be performed hereafter or haue been already or that God is to be accused of lying If any man answer that they haue been performed I wil demand of him when If he say in the Apostles time I wil demand how it chanceth that neither then the knowledge of God was altogeather perfect and often in so â—bort space vanished away which was promised to be eternal and more abundant then the flouds of the Sea And agayne The more I do peruse the Scriptures the lesse do I find the same performed howsoeuer you vnderstand the sayd Prophecies But (36) Apcalypsis insignium aliquot Haerâ—siarcharum fol. 4. nu 8. Dauid George a Protestant at Basile proceeded much further vpon the self same cause as is recorded by one of his brethren who introduceth him disputing thus If the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been most true and most powerful to Saluation the Church by their Doctrine they had framed and confirmed should not haue been torne asunder for against the Church the Gates of Hel Christ himself witnessing can not preuayle But now it is euident that the building of Christ and his Apostles is vtterly ouerthrowne by Antichrist as is abundantly seen in the Papacye From whence he necessarily concludeth the Doctrine of the Apostles to haue been torne and discontinued c. To the same effect it is reported in his Historie (37) Historia Georgij Dauidis published by the Diuines of Basile that he thus disputed If the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect the Church which they planted c. should haue continued c. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subuerted the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Church by them begun as is euident in the Papacie therefore the Doctrine of the Apostles was false and imperfect Not much lesse dangerously writeth (38) In praef suorum Dialogorum Bernardine Ockin When I did consider how Christ by his power wisdome and goodnes had founded and established his Church washed it with his bloud and enriched it with his Spirit And againe discerned how the same was vtterly ouer-throwne I could not but wonder and being desirous to know the cause I found there had been Popes So playne it is that the Church of Protestants which themselues suppose to be the Church of Christ directly contrarie to the forsayd Scriptures hath not continued but hath been vtterly ouerthrowne A truth so certaine and plaine that therfore Christ his Apostles and Doctrine are al of them accused of lying through want of accomplishment of the forsayd Prophecies in the Protestant Churches continuance and vniuersalitie And heer I can not but admire the follie and impudencie of D. White (39) The way to the Church p. 85. who directly contrarie to his other brethrens coÌ„fessions to al Histories writeth thus audaciously We confesse the Church neuer ceaseth to be but continueth alwayes without Interruption to the worlds end and against al Papists we make it good that this verie Faith we now professe hath successiuely continued in al Ages since Christ and was neuer interrupted so much as one yeare moneth or day and to confesse the contrarie were sufficient to proue vs no part of the Church of God c. And yet the Contrarie is plainly confessed by D. Whitaker before affirming the mysterie of Iniquitie to haue possessed the whole Church by Cannerus confessing Apostacie to haue auerted the whole bodie of the Church from Christ by M. Paâ—kins confessing for manie hundred yeares an vniuersal Apostacie by D. Willet defending that the Church in which the Word is truly preached and Sacraments administred hath not alwayes been by Castalio confessing that the Prophecies of the Churches Continuance he cannot find performed in the Protestant Church by Dauid George confessing that the Protestant Church hath been vtterly ouerthrowne not continued and by Bernardine Ockin teaching the very same So cleer it is that the Church of Protestants is not the Church of Christ which according to the Shriptures is euer to continue euen from Christs time vnto the end of the world But now to examine whether in our Roman Catholick Church the forsayd Scriptures are truly verifyed by her perpetual Continuance euen from Christs time to these our dayes I hold it superfluous seing I haue proued the same at large heretofore through euery Centurie or Age and that by no weaker proofes then the plainest acknowledgements of manie and the learnedst Protestants as namely (40) See before l. 1. c. 2. for these last 1000. yeares by M. Parkins Powel Wotton Tindal Iohnson Doue Beacon Fulk Downham Whitakers Luther Caluin the Centurists Osiander Hospinian Danaeus and sundrie others And for the like Continuance of our Roman Church for the first 600. yeares (41) See before l. 1. c. 5. by Zanchius Zuinglius Caluin Beza Danaeus Francus Rhegius Broccard Brightman Napper Fulk Powel Leigh Morton Midleton Parkins Bunnie Iewel and manie others Now whereas the Apostles in their Creed do giue to the Church the Surname of Catholick and that for this verie reason according to (42) The Harmonie of Confess p. 307. Clapham in his Soueraigne Remedy p. 23. Protestants themselues because it is vniuersal spread abroad through al parts and quarters of the world and reacheth vnto al times c. This name Catholick is so peculiar and appropriat to the Roman Church and her Professours as that it is applyed only vnto them by their greatest Enemies (43) Act. Mon. p. 613. M. Fâ—x tearmeth our aduersaries Protestants and vs Catholicks (44] l. 7. fol. 96. l. 10. fol 127. Sleydan recordeth that Luther and others differed only in opinion touching the Lords Supper which the Catholicks reioyced at and the rest much lamented And the same name is applyed to vs by M. (45) Reâ—soÌ„s taken out of Gods word p. 5. 23. 24. 73. 74. Willet in his Obedience c. p. 29. Humfrey vita Iuelli p. 202. Iacob D. Willet D. Humfrey and others Yea the sayd name is so dissorting from the Prot. Church so agreable to the Roman that therefore it is hateful and disliked by Protestans Insomuch as Luther translating the Apostles Creed into Dutch thrust out the word Catholick and in steed therof put-in Christian And of the like course obserued by Lutherans (46) Against Rhem. Test in Act. 11. fâ—l 377. D. Fulk himself acknowledgeth and saith It is not to be allowed Yea in the Synod holden at Altemberg betweene the Diuines of the Palsgraue of Rhene and the Duke of
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.
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
Innouation therein could be obserued or reproued by Almaricus In like sorte though Robert Bishop of Lincolne withstood the Popes proceedings in England yet this nothing proueth anie change or first comming in of anie point of Faith in the Roman Church obserued or resisted by the sayd Robert Besides D. Godwine reporteth that a Cardinal sayd to the Pope concerning him He (a) Catalo of Bishop of England p. 240. is for Religion a Catholick as wel as we And so dying he gaue al his bookes an excellent Librarie vnto the Friar Minors at Oxford So charitable was he to Friars and consequently so Roman Catholick euen at his verie death And where he affirmeth that Ioakim Abbas sayd that Antichrist was borne at Rome and should sit in the Apostolick sea It is so vntrue that in his Epistle prefiged to his Exposition vpon the Apocalypse he submitteth his writings to the Censure of the Sea Apostolick affirming further that he firmely beleeueth that the Gates of Hel cannot preuaile against the Roman Church and that her Faith shal not perish before the end of the world Yea in his Exposition vpon the 6. Chapter and 11. verse he calleth such the Sonnes of Babylon who impugne the Church of Peter And vpon the 7. Chapter and 2. verse by the Angel ascending from the East hauing the signe of the liuing God he vnderstandeth the Bishop of Rome who with his fellow-Bishops with the signe of the Crosse wil arme the Elect in that last tribulation which Antichrist shal rayse So litle cause there is to vrge this Abbot against the Pope And indeed al that truly can be vrged against him is that being an old man and half out of his wits he was censured by the Pope for certaine fonde Prophecies and some errours also about the B. Trinitie as appeareth by the Decree extant in the Canon Law against him and by other Authours that haue written of him And as for Fidericus the Second Emperour resisting the Popes Supremacie it proueth no more but that euen the most vicious Emperours were most aduerse to the Pope For he being a Prince of most scandalous and wicked life was after due admonitions excommunicated as also deposed by Pope Innocent the Fourth in a general Councel holden at Lyons so that his resisting in this regard the Supremacie is only a guiltie and conuicted Persons resisting of al such lawful Authoritie whereby he is censured and punished Concerning Arnoldus Villanouanus speaking against Friars the Sacrifice of the Masse and Papal Decrees This M. White only proueth by the testimonies of the Magdeburgians and Osiander which being Protestants are no competent witnesses against Catholicks But besides I haue proued (107) l. 2. c. 9. 4. before that the Sacrifice of the Masse and the Popes Authoritie were beleeued and practised in much more ancient times As also that the Institution of Friars proueth no Innouation in Faith and Religion Euerardus broaching those foule and false reproaches against Pope Gregorie the Seauenth called Hildebrand proueth nothing but his owne disobedience and impatience hauing been by the same 108) Greg. 7. Ep. 18. Pope for his owne demerits iustly suspended from his Episcopal function After 1250. 1250. to 1300. I name Gulielmus de S. Amore withstanding Friars and their abuses but how impertinent this is I haue shewed sufficiently before The Preachers also saith he in Sweden that publickly taught the Pope and his Bishops to be Hereticks But M. White receiuing this Relation from Illiricus no further answer wil be requisit Dante 's also saith he writ that the Empire descended not from the Pope But Dante 's being only a Poet intermedling in other matters committed (109) See Bellar. in Append. ad lib. de Sum. Pont c. 14. manie grosse errours for which his bookes are condemned and prohibited by the Church yea he liued in faction against some (110) Ibid. c. 12. Popes and therefore his writing against them is of no force As for Gulielmus Altisiodorensis M. White producing nothing in particular out of him against the Roman Church but only affirming that in his Summes are found manie things confuted that then were comming in no further particular answer can be expected and though he referre himself for particulars to this his own Booke yet citing no page or place thereof I hould it vnworthie of so paineful search it being also wel knowne that Altisiodorensis only differed from other Schoole-men in matters disputable and not defined After 1300. 1300. to 1350. I name sayth he Marcilius Patauinus that wrot against the Popes Supremacie But he being a knowne condemned Heretick a flatterer of the Schismatical Emperour and his Bookes condemned by the Church as also the Popes Primacie being formerly acknowledged in the Primitiue Church his testimonie is sundrie wayes insufficient And the like is to be answered to Ocham (111) Tritheâ—nius Genebrard l. 4. Chron. who was purposely hyred by the Emperour to write against the Pope who was also Excommunicated and his Bookes prohibited Gregorius Ariminensis his differences were only in Schoole points not determined by the Church And as for the Vniuersitie of Paris condemning the Popes Pardons it is most vntrue and therefere M. White did wel to father it only vpon his Brother Illiricus whom he knew to be expert in the art of forging After 1350. 1350. to 1400. I name sayth he Aluâ—rus Pelagius who wrot a Book of the L mentation of the Church wherein he reproueth diuerse abuses of his times But who denyeth but that in the Militant Church consisting of good and euil there are manie abuses in life and conuersation But as for abuse or Innouation in matter of Doctrine and Faith Aluarus maketh no mention at al in his sayd Booke And as for Montziger disputing against â—ransubstantiation and Adoration of the Sacrament and Cesenas calling the Pope Antichrist besides that the truth hereof dependeth only of the testimonie of Fox and Illâ—ricus both of them Protestants I haue sufficiently before cleered both these poynts from al Innouation in Ages much more ancient Now as for Iohn Wiceliffe as I haue shewed (112) l. 1. c. 3. before that in sundrie poynts of Faith he agreed with Catholicks which Protestants now impugne so it is euident that he taught sundrie grosse errours which both Catholicks and Protestants do detest as that If a (113) Fox Act. Mâ—n p. 96. Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not Order consecrate or Baptize that Al (114) Osiand cent 9. 10. 11. p. 459. oathes are vnlawful That (115) Osiand cent 15. p. 457. al things come to passe by absolute necessitie That there 116) Ib. p. 454. is no Ciuil Migistrate whilest he is in mortal sinne and sundrie others in regard of which Protestants 117) Pant. Chronol p. 119. Mathias Hoe in his Tract duo Tract 1. p. 27. themselues ranke him in the Catalogue of Hereticks So that smal Credit or succour wil M. White