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
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
to haue been built or founded vpon Peter and in this regard Peters Sea to haue been preferred before the Seas of al other Patriarcks do herein but symbolize with the ancient Fathers Gregorie Leo Optatus Hierom Hilarie Origen Cyprian Tertullian Dionysius Areopagita and the other Fathers in general who are here produced and reproued in these respects by the Protestant Writers the Centurists Caluin Danaeus Brightman Fulk Field Couel and Raynolds IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught the Bishop of Rome to Succeed S. Peter in the Primacie of the whole Church CHAPTER IV. HAuing hitherto proued the Primacie of S. Peter ouer the whole Church the next point to be considered is whether the sayd Primacie not being personally tyed to him as to dye with him but rather being to suruiue and continue in his Successours to the Churches good euen to the end of the world whether I say the sayd Primacie is deriued to the Bishop of Rome as the Successour of S. Peter And herein D. Bilson (1) In his true difference c. part 1. p. 147. confesseth most playnly and in general that The Ancient and Learned Fathers cal the Roman Bishop Peters Successour The Centurists (2) Cent. 5. col 1262. charge S. Leo that He painfully 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 And the like is confessed of S. Leo by D. Raynolds (3) In his conference p. 42. 43. who further granteth that (4) Conference p. 218. 219. The Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Rome naming Hierom Eusebius Ireneus And (5) Chron. D. Cowper calleth Linus first Bishop of Rome after Peter Osiander (6) Cent. 4. p. 294. speaking of the ancient Councel of Sardis decreing Appeales to Rome professeth to deliuer the then common opinion and reason therof saying It was the ancient common and receaued errour that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome therefore this honour was thought due to the Successour of Peter according to the common opinion c. Bucer (7) In Praeparatorijs ad Concilium sayth We plainly confesse that among the ancient Fathers the Roman Church obtayned Primacie aboue others as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter and whose Bishops haue almost alwayes been accounted the Successours of Peter Yea the ancient Fathers were so confident herein that they taught the Primacie of the Roman Bishop to be the ordinance of Christ himself and not anie Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution So Gelasius In Decretis cum 70. Episcopis teaching that The Roman Church is preferred before the other Churches not by anie Synodical Constitutions but hath obtayned the Primacie by the Euangelical voyce of our Lord saying Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church The (8) Cent. 5. col 1274. Centurists hereupon inferre and confesse that Gelasius contended that the Roman Church by the law of God was the First or Chief of al Churches In like sort (9) De Regno Christi l. 2. p. 149. Philippus Nicolai granteth that Pope Iulius who liued Anno. 370. as Socrates and Sozomene relate sent Letters to the Eastern Churches in which as the Letters witnesse he often declareth the right of calling General Councels to belong to him alone who by singular Priuiledge euen by Gods ordinance is the Prelate of the first Sea c. to wit the Roman This Diuine ordinance was so beleeued reuerenced and obeyed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church as that nothing is more manifest in al their writings or other histories and Records of Antiquitie nor more fully acknowledged and disliked by the greatest Enemies therof the Protestant Writers And to begin with S. Gregorie whom M. Bale (10) In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44. styleth Gregorie the Great of al the Roman Patriarks the most excellent in life and learning This so excellent a Patriark is charged out of his owne writings by the Centurists (11) Cent. 6. col 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430 431. 432. c. with clayme and exercise of Iurisdiction and Primacie ouer al Churches Carion (12) Chron. l. 4. p 567 568. affirmeth that Though he tragically declaymeth himself to abhorre the name of Vniuersal Bishop yet indeed he sheweth himself earnestly to desire that which the Title importeth And Peter (13) In Cap. 8. Iudicum And see the liKe in Philippus Nicolai De Regno Christi l. 2. p. 66. Martyr in this scoffing manner reprehendeth him saying This litle Saint Gregorie would haue the thing it self of Vniuersal Bishop although he streightned the name and Title For as the Histories of those times teach and his owne Epistles witnesse he did not abstayne from gouerning other Churches M. Bale (14) In his Image of both Churches fol. 11. See Bullinger in 2. Thess 2. p. 531. And Melancton in Ep. Ad Rom. p. 405. q. 2. p. 17. acknowledgeth that Iohn of Constantinople contended with Gregorie of Rome for the Supremacie in which contention Gregorie layd for himself S. Peters keyes with manie other sore arguments and reasons The Protestant Authour 15 of Catholick Traditions reporteth that Maurice the Emperour would haue taken away the Primacie from Gregorie Bishop of Rome and giuen it to Iohn Bishop of Constātinople c. Gregorie did oppose himselfe against him least he should loose his place vrging how insolent that Title was The Centurists (16) Cent. 6. col 425 confesse that Gregorie vpon the fourth Penitential Psalme greatly inueigheth against the Emperour who challenged to himself the Roman Church being the Head of al Churches and would make her a seruant being the Mistresse of Nations Christ also saying I wil giue to thee the Keyes And (17) Cent. 6. col 425. Gregorie glorieth that the Emperour and Eusebius his fellow-Bishop of Constantinople do both of them acknowledge that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolick Sea Yet the Magdeburgians do further charge S. Gregorie and by collection out of his owne writings by them particularly alleadged that (18) Cent. 6. col 426. He challenged to himself power to command Archbishops to ordayne or depose Bishops at his pleasure And (19) Cent. 6. col 427. tooke vpon him right to cite Archbishops to declare their cause before him when they were accused And also (20) col 427. to Excommunicate and Depose them Giuing (21) col 428 Commission to theyr Neighbour Bishops to proceed against them That (22) col 428. 401 In theyr Prouinces he placed his Legats to know and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman sea That (23) col 428. He vsurped power of appoynting Synods in theyr Prouinces (24) col 429. And see more col 430. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. And required other Archbishops that if anie cause of greater importance fel out they should referre the
same to him c. appoynting in Prouinces his Vicars ouer other Churches to end smaller matters and to reserue the greater causes to himself Caluin (25) Instit l. 4. c. 7. sec 12. auoucheth that There is no word in the writings of Gregorie wherin more proudly he boasteth of the greatnes of his Primacie then this to wit I know not what Bishop is not subiect to the Apostolick Sea when he is found faultie c. He assumeth to himself power to punish those who offend D. Raynolds findeth no better shift for the foresayd Saying of S. Gregorie then impudently to say that (26) Conference p. 547. Either Gregorie wrot not so or he wrot an vntruth to cheer vp his Subiects (27) Cent. 6. p. 289. See Philippus Nicolai de Regno Christi li. 2. p. 67. 351. Osiander acknowledgeth that Augustin was sent from Gregorie the Great Bishop of Rome into England that he might subdue the same to the Iurisdiction of the Roman Bishop (28) Cent. 6. p. 290. and to the lust of the Roman Antichrist for which sayth Osiander Austin was after his death vndoubtedly damned to Hel. Yea D. Morton (29) Prot. Appeal l. 1. sec 28. p. 31. a man most sparing to tel the truth yet yeeldeth thus far saying Whether or how far Two hundred yeares after S. Gregorie did reach his Arme of Iurisdiction beyond the limits of his Diocesse is a question by reason of his diuers obscure speeches and some particular practises diuersly censured of our Authours But besides the cleerest premisses this Question of D. Morton is made none by D. Raynodls teaching that (30) Confer p. 550 The Primacie which Gregorie Leo and others giue to the Sea of Rome doth so exceed the truth that c. And (31) Ibid. p. 545. that Gregorie is somwhat large that way Yea that he and al the Popes for three hundred yeares before him (32) Ib. p. 549 auouch more of their Sea then is true and right in the opinion of Protestants With whom accordeth D. Fulk saying Gregorie (33) In 2. Thess 2. was a great worker and furtherer of the Sea of Antichrist and of the mysterie of iniquitie And (34) In Iohn 21. we go not about to cleer Gregorie from al vsurpation of Iurisdiction more then to his Sea appertayned So certayne and out of al question it is that S. Gregorie the Great was a true Roman Catholick in his Doctrine and practise of the Popes Primacie By the premisses then it is euident that the obiection so much vrged by (35) Contrae Camp rat 6. p 97. FulK in his Answer to a Counterf Cath. Iewel in his Reply art 4. p. 225. 226. 227. Mortons Appeal l 1. c. 2. sec 29. p. 32. D. Whitaker D. Fulk D. Iewel D. Morton and sundrie other Protestants from S. Gregorie his reiecting and disliking of the Title of Vniuersal Bishop is altogeather impertinent seing S. Gregorie reiected the same in that sense which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople applyed to himself to wit that he was the sole Bishop and none Bishop but he A thing so euident that the Protestant (36) De Ecclesia l. 2. c. 10. p. 570. Andreas Friccius whom (37) In his com Places part 4. p. 77. Peter Martyr tearmeth an excellent learned man in like sort expresseth the same saying Some there be c. that obiect the Authoritie of Gregorie who sayth that such a Title pertayneth to the Precursour of Antichrist but the reason of Gregorie is to be knowne and it may be gathered of his wordes which he repeateth in manie Epistles that the Title of vniuersal Bishop is contrarie to and doth gainsay the Grace which is commonly powred vpon al Bishops He therfore that calleth himself the onlie Bishop taketh the Bishoplike power from the rest wherfore this Title he would haue to be reiected c. But it is neuertheles euident by other places that Gregorie thought that the charge and Principalitie of the whole Church was committed to Peter c. And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not that Peter was the forerunner of Antichrist So plainly doth this Protestant answer this so often vrged obiection from S. Gregorie and so euident also it is that S. Gregorie himself claymed and defended the Primacie of the Roman Bishop and Church ouer al other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer But to arise from S. Gregorie to other Doctours and Fathers more ancient his next predecessour Pope Pelagius is for the self same cause much reproued by Osiāder (38) Cent. 6. p. 242 in these words Pelagius greatly inueigheth against Iohn of Constantinople because he assumed to himselfe the Title of Vniuersal Patriarch and shewed by that prophane Title of Vniuersal to abolish the name of other Patriarchs c. But in the meane time he contendeth the Roman Church to be the Head of al other Churches and he bableth manie things of the Priuiledges giuen by Christ to S. Peter The Centurie-writers speaking of the Fathers errours which liued in the fift Age playnly and at large confesse (39] Cent. 5. col 774. that In this fift Age the Roman Bishops applyed themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches So they acknowledge that Pope Celestin of whom (40) In his Defence p. 588. D. Whitguift sayth He was a godly Bishop gaue priuiledge of vsing the Title of Pope and the Miter to Ciril of Alexandria whom he had substituted in his place to be President in the Councel of Ephesus He is also charged by M. Carthwright (41) In his 2. Reply part 1. p. 512. to haue claymed superioritie ouer al Churches taking vpon him as it were the name of Vniuersal Bishop (42) Cent. 5. col 1246. Osiander affirmeth that He contended in behalf of the Roman Churches Primacie more impudently then did his Predecessours (43) Cent. 5. col 1285. Nestorius the Heretick then Bishop of Constantinople he allotted ten dayes space to repent which if he did not he should not only be excommunicated but his name should be blotted out of the Catalogue of Priests And for the accomplishment of the premises he made Cyril of Alexandria his Legat. The Centurists (44) Cent. 5. col 778. charge the Popes of those times that They vsurped to themselues power of commanding other Bishops that whom they would and should propose in forraine Churches they might ordayne Bishop or whom they would not haue might depose So Celestin in his Epistle to Cyril of Alexandria and Iohn of Antioch and Rufus of Thessalonica commandeth them that they designe Proclus Bishop at Constantinople D. Raynolds affirmeth that the (45) Conference p. 457. Popes of the Second Three hundred yeares after Christ claymed some Soueraintie ouer Bishops And that (46) Ib. p. 383. Sozimus Boniface Celestin did vsurp ouer the churches of Africk while S. Austine was aliue c. (47) Ib. p. 544. They would haue Bishops and Elders appeale to Rome
(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
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
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-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
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