Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	act_n	authority_n	majesty_n	3,840	5	6.2854	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08327	The guide of faith, or, A third part of the antidote against the pestiferous writings of all English sectaries and in particuler, agaynst D. Bilson, D. Fulke, D. Reynoldes, D. Whitaker, D. Field, D. Sparkes, D. White, and M. Mason, the chiefe vpholders, some of Protestancy, and some of Puritanisme : wherein the truth, and perpetuall visible succession of the Catholique Roman Church, is cleerly demonstrated / by S.N. ...	S. N. (Sylvester Norris), 1572-1630.	1621 (1621)	STC 18659; ESTC S1596	198,144	242

Christ who was to come in flesh Thou art a priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech Of Saint Ambrose Christ is declared to offer in vs whose speach sanctifyeth the sacrifice which is offered Of Epiphanius The Priesthood of Melchisedech now florisheth in the Church Theophilact Christ is called a Priest for euer because there is dayly offered there is perpetually offered an oblation by the mynisters of God hauing Christ our Lord both the Priest and sacrifyce Of Saint Leo Eucherius Primasius and the rest whose testimonyes togeather with the Priestly function of Melchisedech which they mayntayne M. Fulke and his felow-protestants vtterly contemne Insomuch as Fulke sayeth this bringing forth of bread and wine was no part of Melchisedeches Priesthood therfore those Fathers were deceaued that iudged that act to pertayne to his Priesthood Marke the arrogancy of this yesterday-vpstart in censuring the Fathers for allowing a Priesthood which he with his adherentes flatly detest Well then seing they renounce both these orders I know not in what ranke to place them vnlesse it Tully in Philip. be in the order of Asinius the voluntary Senatour as Tully iesteth at him himselfe being made by himselfe Or of the order of Don-Quixote knighted in an Inne by the good fellow his host For so they are eyther voluntary Priestes arrogating that dignity without commission or created at the Nags-head in Cheape by them that had as much authority to make them as the Inkeeper to dub a knight Or at the most they can be no other then Parlamentall Priests ordayned by the new deuised forme of that temporall Court authorized by the letters patents first of a Child then of a woman which although it may giue more shew and countenance to the vsurpation of their titles yet it giueth no more right then the former to the dignity of their functions 13. Moreouer no secular Princes or temporall Magistrates No secularprinces haue power to cōferre ecclesiastical orders haue authority to confer Ecclesiasticall orders But the order of Mynistery which our ghospellers challenge was both in Kinge Edward and Queene Elizabeths dayes wholy deuised and primarily conferred by the is secular and temporall authority It was therefore no true Episcopall Priestly or Ecclesiasticall order The Maior or first Proposition is apparant in nature For no man can imparte vnto others that which he hath not himselfe Secular persons neyther a part nor assembled togeather in publike Parlament haue any ecclesiasticall order or iurisdiction much lesse can they communicat it vnto others Then Ciuill Magistrates haue only Ciuill power in Ciuill affayres ordeyned to Ciuill and naturall endes The Episcopall or Priestly order is a spirituall dignity touching spirituall functions directed to a spirituall and supernaturall end which can no more be deriued from a Ciuill Magistrate then white from blacke day from night The Minor or second Proposition I proue by the Parlament lawes other testimonyes vnanswerable In the first of King Edward a Statute was made That Archbishops Bishops should not send out their sommons citations other processes in their own names but in the name and stile of the Kinge Seeing as the law it selfe speaketh that all authority of iurisdiction spirituall Edward 1. chap. 2. and temporall is deriued and deducted from the Kinges Maiesty as supreme head of these Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland and so iustly acknowledged by the Clergy of the sayd Realmes Then you heard before how by the Kinges letters Patentes Archbishoprickes and Bishopprickes were conferred And Fox testifyeth that King Henry 8. imparted to the Fox in his Monu pag 522. 1. Eliz. 1. c. 1. Lord Cromwell the exercise of his supreme spirituall regimēt making him in the Church of England vicegerent for concerning all his iurisdiction ecclesiasticall In the first likewise of Queen● Elizabeths raygne a Statute was enacted whereby all spirituall or ecclesiasticall power or authority is vnited and annexed to the Imperiall crowne of her Realme c. all sorrayne vsurped power iurisdiction preheminence cleerly extinguished c. and by solemne oath renounced forsaken in so much as Doctour Whitgift placed in the Queene the fulnes of VVhitg tract 8. c. 3. d. 33. all ecclesiasticall gouernement from whome all ecclesiasticall power and authority is deriued to Bishops and mynisters she hauing in her as he writeth the supreme gouernment in al causes ouer all persons as she doth exercise the one apportayning to matters Ciuile and temporall by the Lord Chauncelour So doth she the other concerning the Church religion by the Archbishops 14. As this power was straunge and neuer heard of before in any Christian heathen or Turkish commonwealth So the maner of consecrating the mynisters of those dayes was new and before vnasuall For another Act was made in the third of King Edwards raign 3. Edward c. 12. fol. 15. wherein it is sayd Be it therefore enacted by the Kinges Highnes with the assent of the Lords spirituall and temporall and the Com●ons of this present Parlament assembled and by the authority of the same That such forme and manner of making and consecrating of Archbishops Bishops Priests Deacons and other Mynisters of the Church as by sixe Prelats and sixe other men of this Realme learned in Gods law by the Kinges Maiesty to be appointed and assigned or by the most number of them shal be deuised for that purpose and set forth vnder the great seale of England before the first day of Aprill next comming shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully exercised and vsed and none other any Statute law or vsage to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Further when this new deuised forme of consecrating Bishops Priests c. bred many doubtes of the inualidity of their consecration and ordering Queene Elizabeth in publique Parlament decreed that all persons that haue been or shal be made ordered or consecrated Archbishops Bishops Priestes after the forme and order prescribed by Kinge Edward in the same forme and order be in very deed 8. Elizab. 1. and also by authority hereof declared and enacted to be and shal be Archbishops Bishops Priests c. and rightly made ordered and consecrated Any Statute law canon or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding 15. What meaneth this Statute Were your Bishops lawfully ordeyned and consecrated before Why then are they not only declared as M. Mason would excuse the manner of speach but enacted to be and shal be Archbishops c In vayne was this Act if they needed it not and Mason lib. 3. c. 4. p. 122. if they needed it it auayled them nothing as I haue already proued Or to speake more clearely Eyther the Lordes of the Parlament with their Queene had authority to install their Bishops in Episcopall dignity and make their inauguration lawfull in case it had beene inualid or they had no power to doe it Which of these M. Mason will you graunt For

one you must needes Had they authority Then no other ordination at that time to the validity of their orders was essentially required in their opinions but the royall assent of the Queene approbation of her Nobility Had they no authority or power to do it It was an vniust act thē of vsurpation in that honourable assembly a great want of Wisdome to make a law not appertayning to their office and nothing Mason pa. 132. 8. Eliz. c. 1. profitable to their cause 16. The like absurdityes ensew of the dispensation her Maiesty vsed to make good the consecrations of D. Paprker and other intruders ordeyned in the second or third of her raigne For if their consecrations were sound as Mayster Mason obiecteth to himselfe why did the Queene in her letters patentes directed for the consecrating of them vse diuers generall wordes and sentences whereby she dispensed with all causes or doubtes of any imperfection or disability that could or might be obiected in any wise agaynst the same as may appeare by ●● Act of Parlament referring vs to the sayd letters Patents remayning vpon record Whereupon I conclude that seeing no man can dispense in the disabilityes of holy orders but such as haue authority to giue and conferre them eyther M. Maiesty who graciously dispensed to vse Mayster Masons wordes with Mason l. ● c. 5. p. 132. all causes or doubtes in their orders was the chiefe collatour and giuer of them or she iniuriously challenged to her selfe that which no law neyther of God nor man could possibly affoard her All the dawbinges which M. Mason applyeth to couer these faultes are pithily and iudiciously cast of by Mayster D. Champney For wheras he one while sayth that the Queene dispensed with the trespasses Doctour Champney in his answ to Mayster Mason c. 13. agaynst her owne lawes It is answered that there were no lawes of hers transgressed in consecrating of any before that tyme she hauing repealed in her first Parlament the lawes of Queene Mary which disanulled that new inauguration deuised by the twelue deputed by King Edward and hauing enacted no new lawes her selfe any way violable in that kinde before she practised that supreme power of her spirituall soueraygnty in graunting dispensations which was about the second yeare of her raygne Then when Mason dallyeth that she dispensed not in essentiall pointes of ordination but only in accidentall Mason l. 3. c. 5. p. 133. 8. Eliz. c. ● not in substance but in circumstance the wordes of the Queenes letters patents giue testimony agaynst him that she dispensed with all causes or doubtes of any imperfection or disability that can or may be obiected in any wise agaynst the same Now the doubtes were not about any accidentall ceremony or other not essentiall circumstance but as appeareth No man cā dispēse in the disabilityes of holy orders but he that hath power to cōferre thē by the Statute made in the Eight of Queene Elizabeth and by other most learned lawyers of the Realme as I shall declare by by they were about the very substance it selfe of their ordination whether they were true Bishops or no Likewise it belongeth only to them to dispense euen in accidental disabilities of holy orders to whome it belongeth to conferre the orders Therfore if Queene Elizabeth had power in M. Masons iudgemēt to doe the one she had authority to confer the other and that collation thogh voyde in it selfe was iudged sufficient amongst the Protestants Besides whereas M. Mason sayth That the wisdome of their Church discreetly and religiously pared away all superfluous and superstitions ceremonyes in ordination Mason l. 2. c. 11. p. ●4 What ceremony vnbeseeming What circumstance vnfitting remayned amongst them which needed dispēsation Especially seeing as M. Doctour Champney wel vrgeth agaynst him It is not to be thought that the Queene would dispense with those which the wisdome of their Church retayneth as good lawfull 17. In fine the ordination ministred in Queene Elizabeths raygne was no other then such as was deuised in the dayes of Kinge Edward ratifyed and confirmed by her But that inauguration was no validity as 8. Eliz. 1. appeareth by an Article of Queene Maryes made by the consent of the Lords spirituall and temporall and thus Fox in his Acts and Monum p. 1295. related by Mayster Fox Touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop c. The same Fox reporteth that Doctour Brook Bishop of Glocester proceeding to the degradation of Ridley consecrated Bishop after that new forme yet made Priest after the ancient tolde him That they were to degrade him only Fox pag. 1604. of Priesthood for they did not take him to be a Bishop Agaynst which Ridley neuer excepted Howbeit Cranmer being truly consecrated was degraded as Archbishop Then the opinion of the Iudges and censure of the common law disallowed that new ordination In the great Abridgement of the common law it is sayd Que Euesques c. That the Bishops in King Edward the sixt dayes were not consecrated Brookes Nouell cases placito 463. fol. 101. printed 1604. and therefore were not Bishops For which cause a lease for yeares made by them and confirmed by the Deane and Chapter shall not binde the Successour for such were not Bishops Contrarywise of a Bishop depriued which was Bishop in fact at the tyme of the letting confirmation made by the Deane and Chapter These were the Iudges words which are yet further strengthned by the case of Bishop Bonner who was certified into the Kings Bench by Doctour Horne supposed Bishop of Winchester for refusing the new oath appointed to ecclesiasticall persons by the statute of the first of Queene Elizabeth 1. Elizab. c. 1. vnto him offered in Southwarke in the Bishops howse there and his addition was Legum doctor in sacris or diuibus constitutus non clericus nec Episcopus And therefore the certificate was challenged sed non alocatur Also the sayd certificate was challenged for that the oath was sayd to be tendred vnto him by Robert Horne Bishop of Winchester who was no Bishop And Bonner was endited vpon this certificate in the County of Midlesex according to the Statute he pleaded thereunto not guilty And it was holden that the triall should not be made by a iury of Midlesex but by a Iurry of Surry and the venew of Southwarke c. It was also much debated amongst 6. 7 Eliz. Diar folio 234. al the Iustices in the Lord Catlins chamber if Bonner might giue in euidence vpon this issue not guilty that the said Bishop of VVinchester non fuit Episcopus tēpore oblationu Sacramenti and resolued by all that the verity and matter being so indeed he should be well receaued vpon this issue and that the Iury should trye it The triall was

be reputed an aduersary while he sitteth in the throne And Saint Paul directly teacheth that the personall line and continuall propagation of Prophets Euangelistes Pastours and Doctours was instituted by God for the perpetuall succession and continuance Ephes 4. v. 11. 12. 13. Ibid. v. 14. of truth That now we be not children wauering and caryed about with euery winde of doctrine c. Therefore the true personall succession cannot be where the succession of doctrine wauereth much lesse where it fayleth which M. Reynolds M. Whitaker and sundry of our Protestant Reynolds in his conference ca. 7. diuis 9. VVhitak contr 1. q. 5. cap. 6. folio 271. aduersaries earnestly auowe and diligently demonstraty to our handes thereby to defeate if they could possible the prerogatiue of our succeeding Bishops But albeit it maketh nothing agaynst vs nay vpholdeth the right of our clayme who agree with our auncestours in al points of fayth yet it vtterly ouerthrowneth the vsurped title they newly challenge to the pedigree of our Bishops frō whome they dissent in the very many articles of our beliefe For by their owne arguments no participation can they haue with them in chayres no affinity or succession in Priestly thrones agaynst whome they bray forth defiance in doctrine 6. Now as touching Election the third thing which is defectiue in the Protestant ministery that is a priuiledge only due to ecclesiasticall persons For although secular Protestāt Bishops want the electiō of Deane chapter of all clergy persōs Princes or such as haue auowsans might somtyme present and nominate their Prelates although the consent and approbation of people for greater vnion and peace hath beene also required yet the Election which interesseth the elected entitleth him to his dignity and giueth him a certayne right to his calling This is and euer was only proper to the Pope to the Deane and Chapter or some other of the Clergy and flatly forbidden to the laity vnder payne of excommunication in In Concil gener 8. can 22. ap Grat. distinc 63. c. Hadrian In Syno Ni● 2. can 3. the eight generall Councell vnder Basil the Emperour and Adrian the Pope Likewise in the second Nicen Synod it is declared That euery Election of Bishop Priest Deacon made by secular powers let it be inualide and of no force And amongst the Canons of the Apostles the thirtith Canon hath these wordes The Bishop who by the fauour of the Princes and Potentates of the world hath gotten his Church let him be deposed But our English Protestant Bishops haue inuaded their Seas by the fauour of Princes by their letters patents without the canonicall election of Pope Deane and Inter can Aposto ca. 30. Chapter or any ecclesiasticall person Therefore they are to be deposed as wolfes vsurpers entring in at the window and not at the dore This defect is not fayned by coniectures as Barlowes consecration is by Mayster Mason nor proued by secret partiall and vnknowne Recordes Masō l 3. c. 4. pag. 127. as he doth the ordination of others But it is publikely set downe in the common receaued lawes or Statutes of the Realme For in the first of King Edward the 1. Edward chapter 2. sixt an Act of Parlament was made for disanulling the election of Archbishops and Bishops by the Deane and Chap. taking away the writ of Conge-deslier graūted to that purpose The wordes of the Statute are these The writ of Congedeslier was not to be graunted in King Edwards dais whose lawes Queene Elizabeth reestablished 8. Eliza. 1. 7. Be it enacted by the King with the assent of the Lords spirituall and temporall and the Commons in this present Parlament assembled by the authority of the same that from henceforth no such Conge-deslier be graunted nor election of any Archbishop or Bishop by the Deane and Chapter made but that the Kinge may by his letters Patentes at all tymes when any Archbishopricke or Bishopricke be voyde conferre the same to any persons to whome the Kinge shall think meete Can there be a more euident proofe that the Bishops of King Edwards dayes when this Statute was in force wanted their canonical electiō And after when his lawes repealed by Queene Mary were reestablished by Queene Elizabeth at least in the beginning how beit since they make shew of returning to the auncient custome Can there be likewise a more vehement suspition willfull forgery in M. Masons registers which testify the Writ of Conge-deslier to be graunted forth when by the tenour of that law it could not be graunted 8. Notwithstanding although their Bishops election Mason lib. 2. chap. 10. fol. 88. 89. The ordination of Protestant Priests Bishops vnlawfull inualide noneat all was inualide and succession of no account yet M. Mason stifly vrgeth that their ordination or consecration was good vnlesse we can name some defect eyther in the consecrated or consecratours I answere that the consecratours after their reuolte from the Catholique Church obstinat persisting in schisme heresy were excommunicated and suspended from the due execution and practise of their functions So that although they had beene before true lawfull Bishops as none excepting Cranmer were of the whole Protestant ranke yet then their authority being taken away by the Catholike Church which as she had power to giue had power also to restrayne and disanull their iurisdiction they could not lawfully communicate vnto others that which was suspended in themselues For this cause Saint Athanasius accoūteth them not in the number of true B●shops who are consecrated by heretikes saying By what right can they Athanasius in Concil Arimi Seleuc. § Quae autē Seie●ciae be Bishops if they receaued their ordination from heretikes as they thēselues accuse them to be Likewise writing in another place in the person of Pope Iulius It is impossible quoth he that the ordinations made by Secundus being an Ariā could haue any force in the Catholike Church 6. But M. Mason our Protestants Attorney will reply Apol. 2. that S. Athanasius is to be vnderstood of the legitimate and lawfull vse not of the validity of ordination For that euery Bishop communicateth not by reason of his inherent grace or out ward vnion with the Church but by vertue of his episcopall character which no schisme quoth he by deduction out of our writinges no sinne no Mason l. 2. c. 10. fo 88. heresy no censures of the Church no excommunication suspension interdiction degradation nothing nothing at all sauing only death if death can dissolue it Thus he I graunt that the character is indeleble and that alone is sufficient in the consecratour if his intention also be right and if he vse the true matter and forme essentially required thereunto But our English Superintendents after their fal from the Roman Church neyther intended to giue those holy orders which were instituted by Christ neyther did the ordeyned intend to receaue them

such as Bonner was discharged and neuer called more in question about that matter But it was presently after ordeyned in Parlament That all actes heretofore made or 8. Eliz. 1. 39. Eliz. 8. done by any person about the consecration confirmation or inuesting of any person elected to the dignity of an Archbishop or Bishop by vertue of the Queenes letters patents or commission since the beginning of her raigne shal be adiudged good 18. Which lawes had beene superfluous and not beseeming the dignity of that place if the sayd Bishops had been sufficiently made before especially seeing it is prouided in the same parlament that all tenders of the sayd 8. Eliz. c. 1. circa finē ●ath made by any Archbishop or Bishop aforesayd or before the last day of this present Session to be made c. all refusalls of the same oath so tendred or before the last day of this present Session to be tendred by any Archbishop or Bishop c. shal be voyde and of no effect or validity in the law What better proofes What more forcible arguments to conuince the nullity of their Bishops former ordination then these Acts of Parlament these decisions of the Iudges That acquittance of Bishop Bonner This disanuiling of the oath tendred and refusall Abridgement of Diars reports 7. Eliz. 23. 4. thereof vntill that present Session in which their Bishops were adiudged authorized and enacted to be lawfull Otherwise it had belonged to that high Court to haue defended and maynteyned their Bishops precedent inauguration their tendring of the oath according to Sand de schis Angli pa. 166 D. Harding in his cōfut of the Apol. par 2. cap. ● the Statute of the first of Queene Elizabeth condemned others refusall contrary thereunto 19. Further if Protestant superintendents had that vndoubted ordination which Mayster Mason fancieth why did their Ministers after Queene Elizabeth had vniustly deposed her lawfull Pastours seeke to Antony Kitchen Bishop of Landasse to be consecrated by him who by reason of his pretended blindnes auoyded the taske Why did they repayre to the Irish Bishop in the Tower Fulk in his answ to a counter Cashol p. 50. VVhitak contr 1. q. 5. cap. 6. Sutcliffe answere to exceptions pag. 87. Sparke in his answere to M. Iohn d' Albinsc 1. p 20 23. 24. 26. who likewise refused to lay hands vpon them and therfore were constreyned to ordeyne one another at the Nagge 's head in Cheapeside in such ridiculous manner as they are now ashamed of it Or if they had receaued their consecration from our Catholik Bishops what iniury doth Doctour Fulke both to his owne Prelats ours in saying vnto vs You are much deceaued if you think we esteeme your offices of Bishops Priestes and Deacons any better then laymen and you presume too much to thinke that we receaue your ordering to be lawfull What wronge doth Doctour Whitaker to himselfe and his collegues when he affirmeth our Catholique Bishops not to be lawfull Bishops eyther by diuine ecclesiasticall or Ciuill law And Sutcliffe in like manner The Romish Church is not the true Church hauing no Bishops nor Priestes at all but only in name what disgrace did Doctour Sparke cast on the glory of their Clergy when writing agaynst vs he presumeth to auow that our Bishops and Priestes haue no ordinary calling but wholy vnlawfull That infinite haue had their cōsecrations and orders from such as were no true Popes or Bishops during the tyme of the Papall schismes and thereupon inferreth how can we count those right Bishops and Priestes 〈◊〉 were made by such as had no right to make any or how shall we 〈◊〉 them from such as fetch their pedigree from right Popes This 〈◊〉 will trouble the whole Church of Rome to cracke 20. But now M. Sparke not the Church of Rome alone but your reformed Church of England is put to the trouble of cracking that nut Now you your selfe must cracke it or els you are a wolfe an intruder who commeth to kill and destroy the sheepe of Christ For as Socrates in the like case pithyly reasoned By the Nicen Fathers Socrates in hist Eccl. l. c. 32. all later Bishops are ordeyned if they had not the holy Ghost who might descend by ordination into euery one neyther haue these receaued the function of Priesthood For how could they receaue it when it 〈…〉 giuen by them who had it not So I dispute with Mayster Mason if our Bishops and Priestes had no ordinary calling no right to ordeyne any Yf they were wholy vnlawfull and meere laymen as his fellowes weene what calling haue their superintendents What ordination What spirituall iurisdiction deriued from such as had no authority to ordeyne them Doctour Whitaker therefore VVhitak contr 2. q. 5. c. 6. folio 35● more ancient and neerer the beginning of Protestant profession then Maister Mason flatly denyeth the ordination or calling of their Mynistery to proceed from the Catholique Clergy which went before them saying Our Bishops and ministers although they be not ordeyned by Papistical Nostri Episcopi ministri si non sunt a Papisticis Episcopis ordinati tamen rite legitime ordinātur Ibidem folio 357. Ibidē folio 36. Bishops yet they are orderly and lawfully ordeyned A little before Truly amongst them Catholiques only they are lawfull Pastours who are called and created according to their order But we say their Ministery was corrupted and therefore that we ought not to be made and created Bishops by them Immediatly after being vrged with a Canon of the first Nicen Councell That a Bishop ought to be created by two or three Bishops he answereth That law was enacted by the Bishops and it was pious if it may be commodiously done and if there be godly Bishops from whome ordination may be had otherwise not which constitution in the flourishing Church may be reteyned not in the lapsed Agayne Touching ordination by three Bishops that constitution is to be obserued as longe as thinges remayne whole and entire and as longe as the Bishops were good otherwise not 21. Besides Yf he Bellarmine graunt our vocation saith Whitaker to be lawfull which neuer any Catholique did Ibid. f. 361. for ordination we 〈◊〉 contend because they that haue authority to cal haue authority also to ordeyne of lawfull ordination cannot be ●●tayned c. But touching the Bishops of those tymes they neuer could be drawn Ad Episcopos veròillorum ●emporū quod attinet illinū quam induci potuerunt vt quemquā ordinarēt nisi qui illis per ōniafaueret to ordeyne any vnlesse it were such a one as in all thinges fauoured thē For this cause he flieth at the end to an extraordinary successiō agaynst the common fashion and vulgarly receaued custome c. This quoth he our Church had because the ordinary succession was corrupt Where I pray Mayster Mason where lay your Registers hid when this glorious light of your

he then Constantine the Emperour gaue to the sayd Pope Siluester the towne of Rome and gaue vnto him the triple Crowne to be crowned therewith in token that he made him supreme head ouer all the Churches in Asia Africa and Europe as his gift conteyned in the decrees distin 96. For the like challenge of supremacy Zosimus Leo Gregory and Boniface are accused as the destroyers of the Church and first vsurpers according to Protestants of that vniuersall and Antichristian dominion Howbeit I haue apparantly conuinced in the second booke of my Antidote That the Supremacy was neyther giuen by Emperours eyther by Constantine to Saint Siluester or Phocas the Emperour to Boniface the third nor yet vsurped by Zosimus Leo Gregory or any other but that it was imparted immediatly from God to S. Peter and made hereditary to his Successours Which Constantine the Great plainly cōfesseth in the very deed of gift or Charter of donation which he mad● when resigning to the Pope the Citty of Rome Italy the westerne Prouinces In ipso Edicto donationis quod habetur Tomo 1. Concil fo 296. apud Binium Quoniam vbi principatus sacerdotum Christianae religionis caput ab Imperatore caelesti iustum non est vt illic Imperator terrenus habeat potestatem he departed to Constantinople Because sayd he Where by the heauenly Emperour the principality of Priests head of Christian Religion is placed it is not meete the earthly Emperour should beare any sway Therefore not the spirituall dignity or supreme headship which Constantine a little before deduceth out of the wordes of our Sauiour spoken to Peter whome he there calleth the Vicar of Christ but the temporall territories landes and reuenues were the endowments of the Roman Sea which he bestowed vpon S. Siluester 7. And the very Centuristes testify that before Cōstantine the great the supremacy of Peter consequently of his successours was acknowledged by Tertullian of whome they write Tertullian doth seeme not without errour to thinke that the keyes of the Church were only giuen to Peter and that the Church was built vpon him They blame also S. Cyprian for affirming that the Roman Church is the Chayre of Peter from which all the vnity of Priesthood proceedeth Likewise Cyprian say they hath diuers other perilous opinions about this matter as for example that he tieth the office of true Pastorship to ordinary succession A little before they accuse him and three other Fathers of his tyme saying Cyprianus Maximus Vrbanus and Salonius doe thinke that one Bishop must be in the Catholike Church to wit one chiefe as head of the rest All these flourished before the dayes of Constantine So did Origen and Hipolitus Matth. 16. versus 18. 19. Martyr who subscribed to the primacy of one supreme Pastour Agayne if S. Siluester were the first Prelate by whome beganne as M. Napper blattereth the horrible detestable Kingdom of Antichrist the first general Coūcel Centur. 3. c. 4. col 84. of Nice authorized in England by Act of Parlament in which he presided by his legats Hosius Vitus Vincentius which he after ratifyed and confirmed did fauour and Ibidem col 84. 85. vphold his Antichristian tyrranny If Zozimus were the man S. Austine was a limne of Antichrist who notwithstanding he was Bishop of Africa obeyed his iniunction Origen ho. 5. in Exod. ho. 7. in Lucam Hi●ol in ora deconsum mundi Napper p. 67 Cedrenus in compend histo Photius libro de 7. concilijs Damasus in Pont August Epist 157. of necessity as comming from his superiour The African Bishops likewise ouer whome our aduersaryes accuse him of encroachment for challenging the right Prosper Con. collat cap. 41. of appellations euen they I say were abettours of Antichrist to whose decrees Pope Zozimus as Prosper writeth added the authority or strength of his sentence and to the cutting of the wicked with the sword of Peter armed the right handes of all other Prosper in chronicis Prelates A Councell held at Carthage of 217. Bishops and the whole worlde did partake with Antichrist for that Councell sent vnto Zozimus their synodicall decrees Cōcil Calcedō in relation ad Leonem quae habetur Tomo 2. Conci act 16. pa● 139. apud Binium Leo Sermo 2. in anniassūp s●u which being approued sayth Prosper throughout the whole world the Pelagian heresy was condemned 8. Yf Leo were the first by whome the Church was ruined and throne of Antichrist aduaunced why doe Protestants allow of the Oecumenicall sacred Councell of Chalcedon Which three tymes gaue him the title of holy acknowledged him their head and themselues his members humbly supplicated vnto him to ratify and confirme their Canons How doth Leo write thus of himselfe VVhen our exhortations are sounded forth in the eares of your Sanctity imagine him to wit S. Peter whose person we represent to speake vnto you because with his loue and affection we admonish Libro 1. ep 1. libro 6. ep 19. libro 1. ep 76. l. 4. ep 33. libro 7. iud 2. ep 2. l. 7. ep 32. l. 1. ep 72. 75. l 11. ep 50. 53. l. 7. indic 2. ep 112. libro ep 15. libro 9. indict 4. ep 61 l. 4. ep 15. 50. 55. libro 1. ep 19. l. 4. epist 9. you and we preach no other thing vnto you then that which he taught With what face could he haue deliuered this in such a publike assembly if he had coyned any new Gospell or taught any other doctrin then that which was preached by S. Peter But if S. Gregory as most Protestants accord was the last good and first Antichristian Pope then in his dayes some monstrous innouation was brought not only into the Roman diocesses but into al the Prouinces and Churches of Christendome which communicated with him as appeareth out of his Epistles to the Bishops of all countryes of Sicily Corsira Sardinia Africa Numidia Hispania Gallia Anglia Hibernia Grecia Dalmatia ouer whome he exercised the soueraygnty of his supreme iurisdiction yet he innouated nothing therin nor deliuered any other new doctrine not taught before as I demonstrate 1. By all these and other Bishops of his age who neuer appeached S. Gregory of any vsurpation of right or nouelty in doctrine to which they would either haue opposed themselues or haue complayned of it or would haue mentioned it at least 2. By S. Gregory himselfe who findeth no fault with any of his Roman predecessors for want of challenging their due or for not agreeing with him in all pointes of fayth as Protestants euery where reprehend and taske their auncestours with variance from them in sundry assertions 3. By diuers learned Fathers of the precedent ages out of whose writings I haue already among my Thirty Controuersyes cleerly proued and out of Scriptures also deduced euery article of importance of which our Gospellers attach S. Gregory 4. By the Magdeburgian and other Protestants