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
doctrine practise of the Popes Primacie Now as cōcerning the Age next ensuing the 20. yeares after Christ in which persecution so raged as the Churches gouernment was thereby much the more obscured yet it is confessed (127) Cent 3. col 168. that Pope Stephen in this Age did threaten Excōmunicatiō to Helenus Firmilianus al others throughout Cilicia Cappadocia for rebaptizing Hereticks (128) Apocalypsis c. c. 7. p. 193 yea M. Brightman is of opinion that scarcely would anie beleeue those proud brags of the Roman Sea wherwith the Decretal Epistles abound not to haue been forged by succeding Popes and so falsely ascribed to the more ancient they are so impudent and vayne but that Firmilianus assureth they were theyr owne at least a great part of them whose names they beare for speaking of Stephen then Bishop of Rome who sayth he so braggeth of the place of his Bishoprick and contendeth himself to hold the Succession of Peter vpon whom the foundations of the Church were placed and he declareth abundantly how boasting the Bishops then were amongst the Epistles of Cyprian ep 75. The (129) Cent. 3. c. 7. col 168. Centurists confesse that Dionysius Bishop of Rome through the false accusation of some excommunicated Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria but Dionysius of Alexandria made his Apologie and refuted the errours falsely obiected vnto him as Athanasius reporteth Hereby appeareth not only the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome in excommunicating but also the obsequiousnes of the Bishop of Alexandria in not contemning but making his Apologie vnto him They (130) Cent. 3. col 84. likewise reproue S. Cyprian for teaching that There ought to be one Bishop in the Catholick Church And for his calling (131) Ibid. Peters Chayre the principal Church from whence Priestly vnitie ariseth (132) Vpon Iude p. 285. M. Trig reprehendeth S. Cyprian saying Cyprian giueth more priuiledges to the Roman Church he calleth it the chief Church from whence Priestlie vnitie began c. And to which infidelitie cannot haue accesse Wherupon M. Trig thus inferreth Here we may note what certaintie it is to build our Faith on the Fathers c And the (133) Cent. 3. col 84. And See Brightman in his Apocalypsis in c. 13. p. 343. Centurists charge him for teaching say they without anie foundation of Scripture that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of al other for the Mother and root of the Catholick Church Yea D. Morton (134) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 294. 295. professing willingly to admit S. Cyprians Iudgement as Vmpier in this controuersie is yet inforced to say Although the next sentences of S. Cyprian may seem at their first view vnto the vnexpert Reader to obserue in the Church of Rome both a grace of Impossibilitie of Erring and also a Prerogatiue of the Mother Church of al others and are therefore censured by our Centurists for speeches inconuenient Yet no man exercised and conuersant in his writings and other Fathers can be ignorant that such like speeches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification which commonly they vse by way of persuasion rather then by asseueration But what testimonie though neuer so cleer in anie matter whatsoeuer may not easily be euaded if it wil suffice to answer that it was but the language of Rhetorical Amplification or demy-lying Or for what cause should S. Cyprian and other Fathers vtter the foresayd Sayings by way of Persuasion in behalf of the Roman Churches Prerogatiues if they had thought in their owne Iudgements and Consciences that the sayd Prerogatiues had not been due vnto her So vndoubted it is that S. Cyprian and the other Fathers of his Age beleeued and acknowledged the Primacie of the Roman Church But as touching the Age next after the Apostles themselues wherof as M. Hutton (135) In his ansvver to the 2. par of the Reasons of Refusal to Subscription p. 105. obserueth but few Monuments are now remayning As then liued Pope Victor who in D. Whiteguifts (136) In his Defence c. p. 510. opinion was a godlie Bishop and Martyr and the Church at that time in great puritie And yet of him sayth D. Whitaker (137) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. FulK in his Ansvv to a counterf Cath. p. 36. with D. Fulk The first that exercised Iurisdiction vpon forraine Bishops was Victor Insomuch as he excommunicating the Bishops of Asia for not obseruing the Feast of Easter-day according to the vse of the Latin Church D. Fulk (138) Ibid. chargeth him that He passed the bounds of his authoritie Amandus Polanus )139) In Sillog Thes Theol. p. 165 accuseth him to haue shewed a Papal mind and arrogancie And M. Spark (140) Against Iohn de Albines in his Answer to the Preface And see Osiander cent 2. p. 87. 96. affirmeth that somewhat Pope-like he exceeded his bounds when he took vpon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East Beza (141) Pref. ad Princip Condensem before his Translation of the New Testament tearmeth Victor the most foolish and most ambitious Bishop of Rome And (142) Of the state of the Church p. 47 Crispinus speaking of this Age auoucheth that The Roman Bishops now became more audacious to forge new Ceremonies yea and to force vpon other Churches c. Victor in his 2. Decretal calleth himself Archbishop of the Roman and vniuersal Church D Fulk (143) Against the Rhem. Test in 2. Thess 2. sec 9. p. 659. maketh the Mysterie of iniquitie to work in Peters Sea in the times of Anicetus Victor and Cornelius In like sort D. Morton iustifyeth such Protestant Authors as (144) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 300. reprehend Victor for arrogancie and transgressing the bounds of his Iurisdiction in excommunicating the Churches of Asia c. The Centurists record that (145) Cent. 2. c. 7. col 159. Anacletus in the Epistles which heare his name in the general regiment of Churches so loyneth them togeather that to the Roman Church he attributeth Primacie and excellencie of power ouer al Churches and ouer the whole flock of the Christian People and that by the authoritie of Christ saying to Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock wil I build my Church c. The Bishop of Rome is placed first as the supreame Head of the Church who though he erre yet wil he not haue him to be iudged of others c. He sayth also that certaine Citties receaued Primates from the Blessed Apostles and from S. Clement c. He prescribeth that If greater difficulties arise or causes fal out among the Bishops and Primates themselues let them be brought to the Sea Apostolick if such Appeale be made for so the Apostles ordayned by the appoyntment of our Sauiour that the greater and harder questiōs should alwayes be brought to the Apostolick Sea vpon which Christ built his vniuersal Church Math. 16. In like sort they say of Xistus that In
his 2 Epistle he nameth himself the Bishop of the vniuersal Apostolick Church And willeth others to appeale to the Apostolick Sea as to the Head Whereby it is euident that the ancient Popes Victor Anacletus Xistus and our Gregorie xv do wholy agree in their due clayme of Primacie In like māner holie Ireneus who according to Hamelmanus (146) De Traditionibus col 528. might yet remember the Apostles owne liuelie preaching affirming l. 3. c. 3. that It is necessary that al Churches do accord to the Roman Church in regard of a more powerable principalitie is charged for the same by the Centurists (147) In the Alphabetical Table of the 2. Cent. at the word Ireneus with a corrupt Saying concerning the Primacie of the Roman Church But to arise yet euen to the times of the blessed Apostles themselues wheras Papias as appeareth by the testimonie of Ireneus alleadged by the Centurists (148) Cent. 2 col 172. liued in the Apostles time as D. Fulk (149) In his Answ to A Counterf Cath. p 35. confesseth was Schollar to S. Iohn yet doth M. Midleton (150) Papisto-Mastix p. 200. charge him saying Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions and Peters Primacie or Romish Episcopalitie (151) De Scrip. Auth. l. 2. c. 20. fol. 166. Bullinger reporteth that forthwith from the verie times of the Apostles especially from the gouernment of Constantin the Great vnder whom some say the first poysen was powred into the Church the desire of gouerning was often put in practise by certain Roman Bishops c. D. Downeham (152) Antichristi l. 2. c. 8. p. 79. acknowledgeth though not the then open Exercise of the Popes vniuersal Dominion yet the priuate Doctrine therof saying The Antichrist which is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ was come euen in the Apostles time although he was not reuealed by exercising openly a Soueraigne and vniuersal Dominion M. Midleton (153) Papisto-mastix p. 193. affirmeth confidently that we are sure that the Mysterie of iniquitie did work in Pauls time and fel not a-sleep so soone as Paul was dead waking againe six hundred yeares after when this Mysterie was disclosed c. And therefore no maruaile though perusing Councels Fathers and Stories from the Apostles foreward we find the print of the Popes feet c. But Philippus (154) De Regno Christi p. 221. Nicolai vndertaking to speak of the beginning and increase of the Popes Dignitie auoucheth yet further that The desire of Primacie was the common Infirmitie of the Apostles (155) Catal. Testium veritatis Tom. 1. p. 27. and of the first Bishops of the Cittie of Rome Yea some Protestants doubt not to deriue from S. Peter himself as being the prognosticon or type therof the confessed clayme of his Successours the Bishops of Rome saying to this purpose It can not be denyed but that Peter sometimes was subiect to ambition and desire of Rule c. By which infirmitie of Peter it was vndoubtedly signifyed that these Bishops who boasted of Peters succession were to be subiect to the like yea to greater ambition by infinit degrees c. wherfore this so corrupt ambition of Peter and ignorance and negligence of diuine matters c. without douht did foreshew that the Bishop of Rome in that he wil be the Chief and the Heire of Peters Priuiledges was to be ignorant and a contemner of heauenlie things and a louer of human riches power and pleasures And D. Whitaker blusheth not to write that (156) De Concil p. 37. The mysterie of iniquitie did work in the Sea of Rome in Peters time and did shew itself in Anicetus Victor Cornelius Sozimus Bonifacius Celestinus Now if it be true which Caluin affirmeth that (157) Resp ad Sadoletum It is playne conspicuous both to learned and vnlearned that the Kingdome of Christ by which he meaneth the Protestant Church was ouerthrowne when the Primacie of the Roman Bishop was erected then seing the sayd Primacie confessedly began in S. Peter himself and since hath euer continued in his Successours the Bishops of Rome it followeth that therfore the Protestant Church hath been ouerthrowne and ruinated euer since the time of S. Peter then which what can be produced more conuincing in proof that the Protestant Church indeed neuer was But to conclude this with that Princely testimonie of K. Henrie Luther (158) In Assertione 7. aduersus Luther Art 2. cannot deny sayth he but that al the Church of the faithful acknowledge and reuerence the holie Roman Sea as their Mother and Chief if they be not debarred accesse by distance of places or by dangers in the Way And yet if they speak truth which come hither from India the verie Indians themselues distant by so manie parts of the Earth of the Seas of the deserts do yet submit themselues to the Bishop of Rome Therefore if the Pope hath obtayned neither by the commandment of God nor by the assent of men so great and so vniuersal power but hath challenged the same to himself by his owne power Let Luther tel me when he burst into possession of so great Dominion Can the beginning of so great power be obscure especially if it began within the memorie of man but if he say that it was aboue one or two Ages agoe let him make vs remember the same out of Historie for otherwise if it be so ancient that the beginning of so great a matter be blotted out let him know that it is prouided by the Lawes that whose right or Title so surpasseth al memorie of men that it cannot be knowne what beginning it had it is iudged to haue had a lawful beginning And it is clearly forbidden by the consent of al Nations that those things be not changed which haue long continued without change So vndoubted it is that this our Catholick doctrine of the Bishops of Romes Primacie hath been generally taught and practised time out of mind euen from S. Peter himself euen to the end of the Primitiue Church and euer since as hath been formerly proued To come now to the Gouernment of the Church before Christs time The Puritans themselues do confesse that (159) Engl. Puritan p. 16. And Hook Eccl. Pol. l. 5. p. 235. The high Priest of the Iewes was typically and in a figure the supreame Head of the whole Catholick Church which though say they it were visible only in the Prouince and Nation of Iewrie yet those of other Nations and Countries as appeareth by the Historie of the Acts euen though they were Aethiopians were vnder this High Priest and acknowledged homage vnto him So that he was c. in verie deed an Oecumenical vniuersal Bishop of the whole world yea sayth M. Iacob (160) Reasons taken out of Gods word p 5. The Iewish Church vnder the Law was National and only One in the world vnder one high Priest
reporteth that Constantin when he went to the warres vsed to carry about with him a Tabernacle made in forme of a Church to the end that a Consecrated house should not be wanting either to himself liuing in the Deserts or to his Armie c. And that Priests and Deacons did daily attend vpon the Tabernacle the truth herof is so certaine that it is confessed by Crispinus 7) Of the Estate of the Church p. 89. But for further testimonie of hallowing of Churches in those ancient times see D. Fulk 8) Against Rhem. Test in 1. Thim 4. see 13. fol. 378. the Centurie-writers 9) Cent. 4. col 408. and Crispinus 10) Of the Estate of the Church p. 93. Secondly these Consecrated Churches were dedicated in memorie of Christ or some of his Saincts In which respect S. Gregorie is charged by 11) Chron. l. 4. p. 567. 568. Carion to haue Commanded Churches to be dedicated to the bones and Ashes of Saincts M. Mason affirmeth that 12) Consecration of Engl. Bishops p. 57. In Canterburie the Regal Cittie euen when Austin arriued there was a Christian Church built in the time of the Romans dedicated to the Memorie of S. Martin And wheras Eusebius de vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. relateth that Constantin erected Churches in the honour of Martyrs And l. 4. c. 58. 59. dedicated a most sumptious Church in Memorie of our Sauiour's Apostles the 13) Cent. 4. col 408. Centurists speaking hereof say These Dedications seem to haue sprong from Iudaisme without anie Commandment of God Yea 14) Cent. 4. col 452. they further confesse that Constantin appointed a verie Solemne Feast for the Dedication of the Church And Brightman 15) Apoc. in c. 12. p. 325. acknowledgeth that at Constantins comming in c. Temples were Consecrated to Martyrs Yea sayth D. Beard 16) Retractiue from Romish Religion p. 388 389. The Annual Feastes of Dedication of Churches grew from a sinister imitation of Constantin the Great who because he kept a Solemne day at the Dedication of a certain Church which he had built therfore it was receaued as a law c. to solemnize euerie yeare a Holiday vpon the day of the Dedication of their Church Thirdly in the Churches was built a place seueral for the laying vp of holie things called the Vestrie wherof the Centurists 17) Cent. 4. col 835. alleage the Laodicen Councel saying It is not fit that Subdeacons haue libertie to goe into the Vestrie and touch our Lords vessels Yea they 18) Cent. 4. col 409. And see Osiand cent 5. p. 391. acknowledge the Vestrie to be mentioned by S. Ambrose l. 1. offic c. 50. Fourthly as concerning Chancels D. Raynolds 19) In his Conference with M. Hart p. 488. confesseth from S. Denis the Areopagite that in his time there were Chancels seuered with Sanctification from the rest of the Church And Hospinian 20) De Templis p. 85. makeh mention of Chancels vsed in Constantins time And the Centurists 21) Cent. 4. col 1165. Hospin do Templis p. 85. 86. 87. affirme that Lay-persons were prohibited to come into the Chancels Osiander 22) Cent. 4. p. 390. chargeth the Laodicen Councel as Superstitious herein Fiftly but nothing was more diligently regarded and obserued in Churches then sacred Altars S. Gregory is charged by the Centurists 23) Cent. 6. col 369. with Consecration of Altars And Osiander 24) Cent. 6. p 289. 290. affirmeth that Augustin sent by S. Gregorye thrust vpon the English Churches the Roman Rites and Customes to wit Altars c. Peter Martyr 25) In his Common places in English part 4. p. 225. writeth that Petrus Alexandrinus attributeth more to the outward Altar then to the liuelie temples of Christ He further 26) Ibid. p. 226. confesseth that Optatus l. 6. against Parmenianus sayth what is the Altar Euen the Seate of the bodie and bloud of Christ Such sayings as these sayth Peter Martyr edifyed not the people And for the selfe same Saying is Optatus reproued by the Centurie-writers 27) Cent. 4. c. 6. col 409. Hospinian 28) de Templis p. 98. And see p. 101. 459. 460 100. sayth I dare not deny but that in the time of Constantin the great Statelie Temples Statelie and beautiful Altars took their beginning and the same were fixed and of stone The Centurists 29) Cent. 4. col 409. speaking of the same Age affirme that The Histories of this time testify that there were Altars in the Churches c. but this Custome came into the Church of Christ from the Iewish custome But Praetorius 30) De Sacramentis 287. ariseth higher auouching that Anno 262. Pope Sixtus the Second abrogated the tables hitherto vsed and erected Altars which sayth he better represent Iudaisme then Christianisme M. Carthwright 31) â—n his 2. Reply part 1. p. 517. And see Iacob in his Reasons taken out of Gods word c. p. 58. thinketh that Ignatius calleth the Communion Table vnproperly an Altar Yea he 32) â—n his 2. Reply part last p. 264 reproueth the Fathers in general saying The ancient Writers abuse herein may easily appeare in that in this too great libertie of speech they vsed to cal the holie supper of the Lord a Sacrifice and the Communion table an Altar In like sort sayth Peter Martyr 33) In his Com. plac part 4. p. 225. The Fathers should not with so much libertie haue seemed here and there to haue abused the name Aultar So plaine it is that Altars consecrated were vsed in those ancientest times of the Primitiue Church Sixtly vpon these Altars were placed lights or Candles M. Bale 34) In Act. Rom. pontif p. 44. confesseth that S. Gregory gaue lights to Churches And D. Morton sayth of him 35) Prot. Appeal l. 1. p. 57. Margin He indeed requireth lights but not that therby he might burne day c. Which may seem to haue been rather the institution of his Successour Sabinianus for c. But our late Writer D. Beard proueth the same from 36) Retractiue from Rom. Relig. p. 65. the decree of our owne Popes Gregorie the First and Sabinian his Successour the one of which appointed certaine lands for the maintenance of waxe-câ—ndles and Lampes in Churches the other ordayned that burning lampes should be alwayes kept in their Churches The 37) Cent. 4. col 487. Centurists charge Constantin that He ordayned the burning of Candles in the Churches in the day-time And againe say 38) Cent. 4. col 410. they Eusebius hath reported that wax-Candles and Lamps were burned in the day-time in the places of the Assemblies by Constantin the great In like sort Crispinus 39) Of the Estate of the Chuâ—ch p. 93. thinketh that In Constantines time manie Ceremonies il-agreing with Gods Word were brought in as Candles lighted in the day-time M. Beard affirmeth that In
the first Fathers of superstition and Captaines and Ring-leaders of Popish Diuines Sir Edward Hobbie tearmeth him (50) In his Letter to M. Higgons p. 92. Proud and insolent Augustin your Great Gregories delegate M. Price styleth him that (51) Aâ—sw to Leech l. 1. c. 4. p. 69. Proud pettie Monk Austin And M. Iewel affirmeth that Austin was (52) Reply Art 3. p. 185. Neither of Apostolick spirit nor anie way worthie to be called a Sainct but an Hypocrite a superstitious man cruel bloudie and proud aboue measure M. Mason affirmeth that His superfluitie of ceremonies might wel haue been spared He was too forward to display the Popes Banner (53) Consecration of Eng. Bishops p. 58. and his behauiour towards the Brittans was ful of Pride and disdaine The (54) Cent. 6. c. 10. col â—49 Centurists write when Austin had troubled the Britan Churches Thirteen yeares and subdued them to the Roman Antichrist he dyed c. But (55) Cent. 6. p. 290. Osiander proceedeth much further affirming that He Subdued England to the lust of the Roman Antichrist and therfore after his death went vndoubtedly to Hel there to receaue his reward A reward vniust and a Sentence ouer-cruel for so great benefits as he bestowed vpon vs euen by D. Whitakers and other Protestants most grateful former aknowledgement But hence it clearly appeareth that the Faith of S. Gregorie S. Austin and whereto England was by them conuerted was Roman Catholick Neither was this pretended Popish superstition the priuat opinions of S. Gregorie and S. Austin but the vniuersal Doctrine and beleef of that Age. Insomuch that (56) Hist Sacram l. 2. p. 157 Hospinian confesseth that In the Age of Gregorie the Great al kind of superstition and Idolatrie as a certain Sea owerflowed ouerwhelmed and wholy ouerdrowned almost al the Christian world No man not only not resisting but al adding and affording rather what strength they could And (57) Defence of the Answ to the Admonition p. 442. D. Whitguift speaking of Anno Domini 659. so wholy distrusteth the Doctours of those times that he resolutely auoucheth He would be loath to alleage anie Councel of that time to proue anie thing in Controuersie So confessedly was the vniuersal Church of Christians at the time of S. Gregorie S. Austin and Englands Conuersion in the opinion of Protestants altogeather Popish Antichristian and Romish and indeed the One Holie Catholick and Apostolick Church prescribed by our Creed The Sect of Protestants during the same time being not so much as diuised stamped heard-of or being in anie though most base or obscurest part of the world Now al this as wel of the high and most deserued prayses giuen to S. Gregorie and S. Austin for their vertue learning and other singular guifts as also that the Faith and Religion which themselues professed and whereto they conuerted this our Natiue Countrey from execrable Paganisme was truly the perfect Faith of Christ and pure and incorrupted Christianitie And lastly that this so pure Faith was our now Roman Catholick Faith I haue here conuinced by the testimonies and acknowledgments euen of her greatest Enemies as namely by Osiander Danaeus the Magdeburgians Hospinian Hollinshead Cambden Foxe Bale Whitaker Cowper Humfrey Bel Godwine Bilson Stow Mason Abbots Fulk Harison Ascham Wotton Carthwright Willet Hobby Price Iewel Whitguift and Morton al of them Protestant Writers THAT THE PRESENT ROMAN CHVRCH AND Religion continued and Flourished during the whole time of the Primitiue Church contayning the first Six hundred yeares after Christ CHAPTER V. HAuing thus prooued the confessed being and publick general practice and profession for these last thousand yeares of our Roman Faith and Religion I wil now endeauour the selfe same proof and confirmation for the first Six hundred yeares after Christ Which for greater perspicuitie I wil diuide into two seueral Stations or times The First from Constantin the Great to Gregorie the Great the Second from Christ and his Apostles to Constantin agayne In which behalf I find it affirmed by (1) Vpon the Reuel f. 110. M. Brocard that The Pope fel from Christ in the time of Syluester who liued with Constantin and that for a ThousaÌ„d two hundred and sixtie yeares the Church was oppressed and troden downe by the Papacie euen from Syluesters time to these dayes In like sort auoucheth M. Brightman (2) In Apoc. p. 462. that euer since the time of Constantin the Great Rome hath been the whore of Babylon and the Roman Bishop hath been the Beast and Antichrist (3) Ibid. p. 471 And againe sayth he As aboue we haue made manifest it necessarily followeth since the time of the Heathen Emperours the Pope of Rome to haue been that greatest Antichrist of whom the Scriptures haue so diligently forewarned and the Cittie of Rome from that time to haue been the Whore c. foretold in the Apocalypse M. Leigh (4) Great Britanies great Deliuerie f. B. 2 addeth hereunto that The Popes euer since the first Three hundred yeares after Christ haue been Diuels But no man speaketh more plainly then M. Napper whom (5) Vpon the Reuel p. 262. M. Dent tearmeth a learned Writer and an excellent man This so learned a Writer plentifully acknowledgeth (6) Vpon the Reuel p. 68. And See p. 43. that Between the yeare of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papistical raigne began raigning vniuersally and without anie debatable contradiction 1260. And that (7) Ibid. p. 145 Euen 1260. yeares the Pope and his Clergie hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians (8) Ibid. p. 239 Neuer suffring for the space of 1000. yeares after Syluester the First anie to be seen vouchable or visible of the true Protestant Church c. I wil not here stay to confute the wilful vanitie of D. Morton who for his best answer to this so cleer testimonie of M. Napper writeth thus (9) Prot. Appeale p. 72. But this witnes alas for the darknes of Iudgement of these Apologists speaketh not of the whole Profession of the Romish Church but only of one article predominant therin namely the Doctrine of Popedom c. But seing he speaketh in general of the outward visible Church of Christians which includeth al Poynts beleeued by that Church and that the same Church during the sayd time was so wholy possessed by the Pope and his Clergie that not so much as anie one of the Protestant Church was then to be seen I may more iustly say Alas for want of honestie or learning or both in D. Morton And this the more I might inculcate seing his owne guiltie Conscience at last bewrayeth himself saying (10) Ibid. p. 662. If one of our Aduersaries themselues when six of their principal Doctours were produced against him was licenced to except against them c. how much more lawful might it be for vs to deny the testimonies but of two Authours not of eminent note for
meanes to preuent Schismes dissentions in the Primitiue Church when the Graces of God were far more abundant and eminent then now they are Nay if the Twelue were not like to agree except there had been one Chief among them for sayth Hierom among the Twelue one was therefore chosen that a Chief being appoynted occasion of dissention might be preuented How can they think that equalitie would keep al the Pastours in the world in peace and vnitie c. For in al Societies Authoritie which can not be where al are equal must procure vnitie and obedience In like sort the (4) Cen. 4. Col. 556. Centurists confesse that Optatus l. 2. cont Donat. writeth It can not be denyed but that thou knowest in the Cittie of Rome the Episcopal Chaire to haue been first bestowed vpon Peter in which Peter the Head of al the Apostles sate wherupon he is called Cephas In which one Chaire vnitie should be kept by al least the other Apostles should euerie one defend his owne So that he should be esteemed a Schismatick and sinner who should erect another against that singular Sea therfore there is one Chaire c. (5) Cent. 4. Col. 1100. They also reprehend him for that he extolleth ouermuch the Chaire of Peter and the Succession of the Roman Bishops And (6) In his Retentiue c. p. 248. D. Fulk chargeth Optatus with absurditie for saying of Peter He deserued to be preferred before al the Apostles and he alone receaued the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen to be communicated to the rest (7) Retentiue against Bristows Motiues p. 248. D. Fulk (7) Retentiue against Bristows Motiues p. 248. speaking of S. Leo and S. Gregorie Bishops of Rome confesseth that The mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that Seate neer fiue or six hundred yeares before them so anciently before them did the Roman Sea in his opinion begin to be Papal and then greatly encreased they were so deceaued with long continuance of errour that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles then the holie Scriptures of God do allow Yea the (8) Cent. 3. col 85. Centurists recite and reproue Origen hom 17. in Lucam for calling Peter the Prince of the Apostles And D. Raynolds (9) In his Cōference p. 485. citeth S. Dionysius de diuinis nominibus c. 3. tearming Peter the chief and most ancient Top or Head of the Apostles (10) Apocalypsis in cap. 13. p. 343. This poynt is so euident in the Fathers that M. Brightman thinketh It hath its original from a corrupt Doctrine to wit the false boasted Authoritie of the Chaire of Peter wherof almost at euerie word the Roman Bishop braggeth and which the Ancient Saints Tertullian Cyprian and others extolled with immoderate prayses not knowing with what impietie they prepared the way c. But the Fathers further proceed teaching that the whole Church was built or founded vpon S. Peter To which purpose the Rhemists citing S. Gregorie D. Fulk answereth The (11) Ag. Rhem. Test in Math. 16.19 Authoritie of Gregorie c. being a Bishop of Rome himself and so neer the time of the open reuelation of Antichrist in the Romish Sea is partial in this case and therefore not to be heard And againe Leo (12) Ibid. vers 18. Bishop of Rome striuing for the dignitie of his Sea as his Predecessours Zosimus Boniface and Celestin had done before c. is no equal Iudge in this case The (13. Cent. 8. col 555. Centurists charge S. Hilarie that he speaketh incommodiously of Peter the Apostle that he lyeth vnder the building of the Church and is made the Foundation therof They (14) Cent. 4. col 557. see col 1250. likewise affirme that S. Hierom sayth incommodiously of Peter that our Lord built his Church vpon him And for the like Saying they (15) Cent. 4. col 558. and see col 1250. reproue Nazianzene Yea they (16) Cent. 3. col 84. charge Tertullian that not without errour he seemeth to think that the Keyes were committed only to Peter and that the Church was built vpon him And they (17) Cent. 3. col 84. confesse that Cyprian in manie places affirmeth the Church to be founded vpon Peter as l. 1. ep 3. l. 4. ep 9. c. And they (18) Cent. 3. col 85. charge Origen Tract 5. in Math. to say Peter by promise deserued to be made the foundation of the Church (19) Resp Ad Bellar. disp part 1. p. 277. Danaeus reproueth the Fathers in general for that they sayth he naughtily expounded of the Person of Peter that Saying of Christ Math. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church (20) Instit l. 4. c. 6. sec 6. Caluin sayth The Church to be built vpon Peter because it is sayd vpon this Rock c. some of the Fathers haue so expounded but the whole Scripture gaynsayeth Yea the Fathers kept a yearely Festiual day in honour of S. Peters Sea or Chaire which poynt Bellarmine confirming by the testimonies of sundrie Fathers Danaeus (21) In Resp ad Bellar. Disp part 1. p. 275. 276. only answereth that the Fathers assertion therof was the Iudgements and Testimonies of the Church then corrupted and bewitched or made blind with this errour And wheras Anacletus ep 3. Leo ep 53. and Gregorie l. 6. ep 37. do al of them teach a special preheminence to be giuen euen to the Seas of Alexandria and Antioch before other Apostolical or Patriarchal Seas in respect of S. Peter who first founded them Danaeus (22) In Resp ad Bell. part 1. p 275. in his answer to Bellarmin obiecting them in steed of a better euasion barely writeth What he bringeth out of Anacletus Leo and Gregorie is in vaine seing they plead for themselues in their owne cause But D. Field (23) of the Church l. 5. c. 31. p. 162. ingenuously confesseth that There were in the beginning only Three Patriarcks to wit the Bishop of Rome Alexandria and Antioch The reason as some think why the Bishops of these Seas were preferred before others and made Patriarcks was in respect had to blessed S. Peter who was in sort before expressed in order and honour the First and Chiefest of the Apostles c. Al Churches are rightly called Apostolick but these more specially in which the Apostle Peter sate And in proof of this he alleageth Anacletus Leo and Gregorie before mentioned D. Fulk (24) In his Confut. of Papists quarrels c. p. 4. affirmeth in general that manie of the ancient Fathers were deceaued to think something more of Peters Prerogatiue and the Bishop of Romes dignitie then by the word of God was giuen to either of them Hence then we see that Catholicks defending S. Peter to haue been appoynted by Christ the Head of the Apostles and of the whole Church As also the Church