(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
And that (48) Ib. p. 550. Popes namely Innocent Leo Gelasius Vigilius Gregorie taught that the Fathers by the Sentence of God decreed that whatsoeuer was done in Prouinces far of should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the Sea of Rome And this they say al churches took their beginning from the Roman that al Bishops had their honour from Peter And herewith he confesseth that in those times Popes (49) Ibid. p. 540. were learned and Catholicks and were (50) Ibid. p. 552. 554. 555. sued vnto by S. Basil S. Chrysostom and S. Austin and the African Bishops sought vnto them for their aduise and counsel for their authoritie and credit To come to S. Leo for whom (51) of the Church l. 5. p. 284. D. Field speaking of this verie poynt profereth thus largely Surely if they can shew that Leo sayth anie such thing as the former Popes are taught to say we wil most willingly listen to them for we acknowledge Leo to haue been a most worthie Bishop and the things that go vnder his name to be his indubitate workes And M. Mason (52) Consecration of Engli Bishops p. 115. tearmeth him Pope Leo a holie and learned Pope Now for D. Fields and al other Protestants further satisfaction in this poynt I wil but only recite what other Protestant Writers acknowledge and censure of that most worthie Bishop Leo. (53) In Confess Geneu c. 7. sect 12. Beza affirmeth that It is manifest that Leo in his Epistles doth cleerly breath-forth the arrogancie of the Antichristian Roman Sea (54) In his Conference vvith Hart. p. 50. D. Raynolds writeth I do freely professe that I mislike those haughtie speaches in Leo and I think that the Mysterie of iniquitie so wrought through his so ambitious aduancing Peter that c. (55) De Conciliis contra Bellarm p. 37. D. Whitakers censure is As for Leo the First I litle care he was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdome And yet this notwithstanding the same (56) Ibid. p. 34. D. Whitaker acknowledgeth that Leo was a learned and godly Bishop but yet sayth he ouer ambitious The (57) Cent. 5. col 1013. Centurists report how that Theodoret a Greek Father being deposed by the Second Councel of Ephesus did make his appeale to Pope Leo and that thereupon the most godlie Leo restored to Theodoret his Bishoprick They likewise (58) Cent. 5. col 778. confesse that Leo confirmed Maximus Bishop of Antiochia in his Bishoprick and established to Proâ—erius Bishop of Alexandria the ancient rights of that Sea according to the Canons and Priuiledges as is shewed in the 68. and 69. Epistle of Leo. And they affirme (59) Cent. 5. col 779. that the Popes of those times took vnto themselues power to excommunicate other Archbishops and Churches So Leo excommunicated the Eastern Bishops and Foelix Acacius Gelasius condemned Acatius and Peter sending letters into the East And that (60) Cent. 5. col 780. They endeauoured to challenge that Authoritie ouer Archbishops that if they did anie thing they should be thought to do it by Authoritie of the Roman Bishop as though they were his seruants and slaues So Leo Epist 84. sheweth that the Bishops of Thessalonica alwayes supplyed the place of the Apostolick sea and he admonished Anastasius then their Bishop that in remote Prouinces in some sort he should visit himself and decree nothing but what he knew would be approued by him Also They (61) Cent. 5. col 779. dared to exact of Archbishops that if there were anie thing they could not determine by their owne Iudgments they should referre it to them So Leo epist 84. prescribeth this law to the Bishop of Thessalonica In like sort they (62) Cent. 5. col 781. assumed to themselues power to cal General Councels as appeareth in the 93. epist of Leo c. And they reiected as vnlawful such Synods as were assembled without their Authoritie c. Leo sent Paschasius Bishop of Sicilie to be President in the Councel of Chalcedon And (63) Col. 782 The Fathers often for honour sake desired theyr Decrees to be confirmed by them So the Councel of Chalcedon writeth to Leo we desire that thou wilt honour our Iudgement with thy Decrees and as we desirous of good haue agreed so thy Height or greatnes may fulfil in thy sonnes what is fitting And yet D. Raynolds confesseth of this Councel (64) Conf. p. 563. that it 67 was a companie of 630. Bishops sound in Religion and Zealous of the glorie of God affirming further that the sayd Councel (68) Ib. p. 562 named Pope Leo their Head and that he was President of the Councel But to conclude this of Leo wherin for D. Fields further satisfaction I haue been the larger it is playnly confessed by the Centurists (69) Cent. 5. col 12. 62. that Leo verie paynfully goeth about to proue that singular preheminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence rose the Primacie of the Roman Church For which verie cause D. Morton chargeth S. Leo to haue been (70) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 283. 285. Peremptorie c. and ambitious As for Pope Leo (71) Prot. Appeal l. 2. p. 294. 295. sayth he he was so peremptorie that for his presumption he found in his time some Brotherlie checks To proceed Prosper de ingratis c. 2. affirming Rome to be the seat of Peter and the Head of Pastoral Honour ouer the world is censured for the same by (72) Resp ad Bellar. par 1. p. 594. Danaeus to be the Popes flatterer In like sort Vincentius aduersus Haer. is charged (73) Ibid. p. 313. by him to haue plainly flattered the Pope of Rome when he tearmed S. Faelix and S. Iulius Bishops of Rome to be the Head of the world and S. Cyprian and S. Amhrose the Sides But to passe to others the (74) Cent. 5. col 778. Centurists affirme that Gelasius in his epistle to Faustus doth impudently lye affirming that it is established in the Canons that Appeales of the whole Church should be brought to the Examen of the Roman Sea and from her in no place Appeale should be made And agayne (75) Cent. 5. col 780. Gelasius in his epistle to the Dardanians affirmeth that he hath giuen the charge of the Church of Alexandria to Acacius of Constantinople and therefore that he ought to relate al things vnto him Yea (76) Cent. 5. col 779. they further confesse that Gelasius in the Tome of Excommunications denyeth that Peter of Alexandria Bishop of the second Sea can be absolued by anie then the Bishop of the first Sea to wit the Roman As also (77) Cent. 5. col 1274. M. Symondes vpoÌ„ the Reuel c. 5. p. 58. Gelasius held that Councels are subiect to the Pope and that al should appeale to him but none from him They (78) Cent. 5.
is made with oyle of oliue consecrated by a Bishop (52) In Postilla super ca. 15. Marci and super 1. Cor. 1. yea he els-where numbreth and mentioneth al the seauen Sacraments And lastly in his epistle to Pope Vrban written not three yeares before his death endeauouring to purge himself to the Pope he plainly acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ vpon earth Adding thus further If I haue erred in anie of these poynts I wil submit my self to correction euen by death if necessitie so require By al which we may see that Iohn Wiccliffe in al the former poynts now contradicted by Protestants was wholy Catholick As also the Age wherin he liued A truth so euident that Osiander (53) Cent. 6. 10. 11. p. 439. confesseth that Wiccliffe had no companions of the same time who might brotherly admonish him c. and D. Humfrey (54) In vita Iuelli p. 263. acknowledgeth that In these last times he was almost the first Trumpeter of this Ghospel of Protestants So litle did the fame or infamie of Protestancie sound in the Christian world at Wiccliffs first beginning In the Age before Iohn Wiccliffe liued the Hereticks Albigenses who because they were in opinion and Sect wholy (55) FulK de successione Eccles cont Staplet p. 332. 333. SparK in his Ansvv to Albines p. 58. Abbots against D. Hil. p. 57. More in his Tables p. 173. agreing with the Waldenses and only differing in Titles and Names according to the diuersitie of places and times wherin they liued I wil therefore omitting them come to the Waldenses who receiued their name from Waldo a Catholick Lay-man (56) Act. mon. p. 628. a rich Marchand of Lyons and one so vnlearned sayth M. Fox that he gaue rewards to certaine learned men to translate the holie Scriptures for him and certain other workes of the Doctours by which he did conferre the forme of Religion in his time to the infallible Word of God wherupon sayth M. Fox Further (57a) Act. Mon. p. 41. sprung vp the doctrine and name of those which are called Waldenses But Waldo being destitute of al ordinarie calling and despayring to obtayne it from the Church of Rome out of which he was gone forth contemning the same he taught that (57b) Illiricus in Catal. Test veritatis p. 731. 732. 740. 745. Lay-men and women might consecrate the Sacraments and preach for the practice wherof the Waldenses and Albigenses were (58) Simons on the Reuel p 165. excommunicated by the Pope And yet this their reuolt from the Roman Sea notwithstanding (59) In Iesuit part 2. rat 3. p. 270. Fox Act. Mon. p. 628. D. Humfrey and M. Fox do both grant that Waldo did forsake al things that being poore he might follow Christ and the Euangelical perfection which D. Fulk (60) Against Rhem. Test. in Math. 19. f. 38. ParKins in his Reform Cath. p. 241. and M. Parkins reiect for Popish In so much that (61) Chronogr p. 94. Pantaleon affirmeth that he and his followers were a very order or Profession of begging Fryars wherupon according to M. Fox (62) Act mon. p. 41. 629. they were called The poor men of Lyons professing as (63) In Iesuit part 2. p. 270. D. Humfrey vrgeth a kind of Monastical life wherin they were so forward that they afterwards made (64) Vrsperg in chron Ar. 12â—2 meanes to Innocentius the Third then Pope to haue their Order by him confirmed but could not preuayle It is further confessed by [65] In ep 244 p 4â—0 Caluin that they beleeued the Real presence and by (66) Against Symbolizing part 1. c 3. p. 162. M. Parker that they retayned the Signe of the Crosse in the blessing of their meates And (67a) De Ecclesia p 24. Morgensterne speaking vnto them sayth You confirme the decree of Antichrist concerning the number of the Sacraments though that you haue also often done in other articles as in the Doctrine of Single life of Vowes of the sacred Scripture of good Workes of Iustification Baptisme of Children and Purgatorie Now from these premises it euidently ensueth that Waldo immediatly before his Apostacie was a Roman Catholick and not a member of anie other Church to him then knowne or in being and so his first proceedings are confessed by (68a) Of the Estate of the Church p. 338. Crispinus to haue been in time of thick darknes of Poperie and as a first and litle beginning of the instauration of the Christian Religion to wit the Protestant So vndoubted it resteth that the Religion vniuersally and publickly professed in the time of Waldo was not anie Protestant but the Roman Religion In the same Age liued S. Bernard of whon sayth D. Whitaker (67b) De Eccl. p. 369. against Rainolds p. 125. 126. I do think Bernard was truly a Sainct And other Protestants ackdowledge that he was (68b) Osiand cent 12. p. 309. A verie good man (69) Pasquils Returne into England p. 8. 130. A good Father and one of the LaÌ„ps of the Church of God D. Morton demandeth (70) Prot. Appeal p. 458 Why may not Protestants acknowledge S. Bernard for his life a Saint and for his doctrine a Lamp c. This then so true a Sainct good man and clearest Lamp was so wholy Roman Catholick as that D. Whitaker speaking to vs sayth (71) Resp ad Camp p. 105. Bernard whom your Church these manie yeares hath brought forth one godly man c. And Gomarus alleageth him to vs (72) In speculo Eccl. Bernard your Sainct Yea he was (73) Simon de Voyon in his catal p. 126. the Abbot of Clarauaux and so deare to the Pope that M. Bel tearmeth him (74) Challeng c. p. 148. And see Abbot in his 3. parte of the def c. In his Aduertisment therto annexed pag. 20. Vvotton in his Trial of the Romane clergie p. 265. Tossanus in Synopsi de Patribus p. 58. The Popes deare Monk and Reuerend Abbot Osiander and Hospinian report that (75) Cent. 12. p. 309. Hospini de origin Monach. f 175 He was the founder of a hundred and fortie Monasteries And Danaeus affirmeth that (76) 1. part alt parte cont Bellar. p. 440. Hierom and Bernard were Monks and Authours and fauourers of that errour And though D. White (77) Vvay to the true church p. 388. blush not to obiect his Authoritie against the Popes Primacie yet his Writings Doctrine and Practice were so direct to the contrarie that therefore he is expresly reproued by (78) Against Rhem. Test in Luc 22. F. 133. VvhitaK li. 2. cont Dur. p. 154. D. Fulk and D. Whitaker The Centurists also auouch that (79) Cent. 12. Col. 1637. He worshipped the God of Maozim euen vnto the last breath of his life he was a most sharp defender of the Sea of Antichrist c. For which by other ProtestaÌ„ts he
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
assigned the third place to Hereticks who haue Gone out of the elect people of God but were not of them So that Scriptures Fathers and Protestants do al of them agree That the Going out or departing from the Church is the Badge of Heresie and Persons so Going out are thereby marked Hereticks Examples heerof we haue in al former Hereticks in Arius Macedonius Nestorius Pelagius Eutyches Donatus waldo Wicclif Husse c. who al of them being at first Roman Catholicks through Innouation of opinions afterwards seuered themselues from their mother Church going out from her to new Congregations But now to apply this to Catholicks and Protestants and breefly to examine whether companie hath gone or departed out of a former knowne Church the true Church of Christ and first to giue M. D. Morton a short scantling concerning himself his Brethren his owne neighbour M. Mason answering certaine demands of Catholicks in this kinde saith a) Consecrat of English Bishopes p. 41. When it pleased him which causeth the light to spring out of darknes we did spring from yourselues being stil content to be yours so you would be Christs In like sort sayth a) Apol. p. 288. D. Iewel We haue indeed gone from the Pope we haue shaken of the yoake of the Bishop of Rome It is true sayth b) Act. mon. p. 3. M. Fox we are remoued from the Church of Rome And D. Rainolds c) In his Conclusions annexed to his Conference maketh this one of his Conclusions That the reformed Churches in England Scotland France Germanie and other kingdomes and Common-wealthes haue seuered themselues lawfully sayth he from the Church of Rome And as for Luther himself he was at first so Roman Catholick as that sayth he (d) In Ep ad Gal. fol. 38. and see 37. 188. I did so highly esteeme the Popes authoritie that to dissent from him euen in the least point I thought it a sinne worthy of euerlasting death and would my selfe in the defence of the Popes Authoritie haue ministred fire and sword Caluin speaking of Protestants in general expresly sayth 20) In Ep. 141. p. 273. we were inforced to make a departure from the whole world yea we 21) Instit l. 4. c. 6. § 1. haue departed sayth he from her to wit the Roman Church And so accordingly it is so euident that Waldo Wicliffe Husse Luther Caluin Zuinglius c. were first borne baptised and brought vp in the Catholick Church from whence afterwards through Noueltie Libertie they went out became Apostates as that to endeauour anie special proof therof might iustly be censured of no lesse idle vanitie then to seeme to deny it of greatest ignorance or impudencie And so leauing our Protestants thus confessedly Going out of our former Catholick Roman Church and thereby branding themselues with the infamous Mark of Hereticks I wil examine what Protestants think of the Roman Church in this behalf And indeed this crime of Going out is in it self so foule a blemish as that some Protestants much desire to stayne our Roman puritie therewith So D. Fulk would haue the world to thinke That 22) Retentiue p. 85. the Popish Church is but an Heretical Assemblie departed from the vniuersal Church long since Augustins departure out of this life With whom agreeth his Brother blindbyard D. Sutclif affirming That 23) Suruey of Poper p. 315. the Papists are a sect going out of Christs Church and rising long after Christs time But these great Doctours speake much but proue nothing for it behoued them to assigne a former Church from whence the Papists thus reuolted as also the persons who the time when with other Circumstances of al which they rest silent Wherefore to cleere our Roman Church of this so foule Imputation that to the perfect sight of the blearedst eye And first to omit al former testimonies plentifully exhibited in proof of her confessed knowne and vn-interrupted Conrinuance from the Apostles times to these of ours as also to forbeare that ancient Doctours and Writers in al Ages do specially mention and register vp al notorious departures made by any Hereticks from the true Church not insinuating the least concerning our Roman Our Innocencie herein is so notoriously apparent as that sundrie Protestants being prouoked in this kind to giue the least Instance of anie such departure in our Roman Church are euer inforced in their answer therunto only to fly to our pretended departure from the sacred Scriptures so passing ouer al precedent Ages without anie colour of Examples to be vrged against vs. So M. Knewstubs 24) Answer to certaine assertions c. p. 35. answereth you require to know if our doctrine were the same which they in the Primitiue Church professed who they were that did at that time note our Going out c. This question is altogeather vnnecessarie for when an offender is taken with the manner it is needlesse to stand vpon Examination of them who were at the deed doing We haue taken you with the manner that is to say with Doctrine diuerse from the Apostles and therefore neither Law nor conscience can force vs to examine who were witnesses of your first departing With whom agreeth M. Powel only answering that the Roman Church is 25) Consideration of the Papistes supplication p. 36. fallen from the doctrine comprehended in the writings of the Apostles But to omit that this answer is a base and shameles begging of the thing it self in question to wit that we are departed from the Scriptures which as most vntrue we euer do deny It is further most impertinent to the point now vrged which is whether the Roman Church hath gone out from anie other knowne Church yea it most strongly argueth the contrarie seing they much desiring to exemplify against vs herein for want of al Instance during these 1600. yeares constrained to iumpe them ouer and only to insist in the writings of the Apostles then which what more strongly can be vrged in our behalf And yet in like sort for want of better answer D. Sutclif 26) Answer to the mass Priestes supplicat c. 7. sayth Neither is it material that the Roman Church neuer went out of anie knowne Christian Societie So insinuating her neuer Going out with is the only thing I here desire to proue But if this be not material with D. Sutclif yet is it most material and conuincing with al men of iudgement for if the Roman Church or anie other Church hauing once been confessed members of the true ancient visible Church of Christ did neuer depart or Go out of the sayd true Church then are they stil yet within it and members of it Now that the Romam Church was not only a true Church in the Apostles times but also vnto the time of S. Austin and further it is abundantly already confessed and therefore seing she hath confessedly neuer departed out the sequele is euident that stil she continueth tâ—e
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
answer After 750. 750. to 800. I name saith he the Councel of Constantinople vnder Constant Copronymus and of Franckford vnder Charles the Great against Images and the booke yet extant that he caused to be made against the 2. Nicene Councel with another set forth by Ludonicus his Sonne to the same effect A great tooth stil hath our Minister against Images but it neuer biteth for tâ—is Councel of Constantinople was likewise neuer confirmed but expressely condemned in the Seauenth Synod (47) Act. 6. Paul Diac. l. 21. 22 de Rib. Rom. Zonoras in Annalibus And being assembled only of Grecians who in the doctrine of Images were manie of them diuided from the Roman Church the testimonie thereof is of no force as I haue shewed before But besides it is not worthie of obseruation that as neither of these Councels of Constantinople so often vrged by our Doctour were euer confirmed by the Bishop of Rome without whose allowance according to the first Councel (48) Socrat. l. 2. c. 13. of Nice it was not lawful to assemble General Councels so neither did anie of the Patriarchs themselues euer assent vnto them as is manifest by Zonoras Cedrenus Paulus Diaconus and other Writers hereof Yea further al Authours who write of General Councels as Psellus Photins Zonoras Nicephorus Cedrenus Nycetas Paulus Diaconus Rhegino Ado Sigebert Abbas Vspergensis and others do either not number these two of Constantinople amongst the Councels of the Church or els do expressely reproue them and the 2. Councel of Nice which was truly General and plenarie did directly abrogate and condemne them Adde hereunto in fauour of our Doctour who is so far in loue with these Councels that in that vnder Constantin is decreed (49) Can. 15. those to be accursed who do not inuocate the B. Virgin Marie As also 50) Can. 17. those who do not worship and Inuocate the rest of the Saincts And 51) Can. 18. those who do not beleeue that God wil giue eternal life for merits of works according to the iust waight of his Iudgement al which Catholike Canons are 52) Cent. 8. c. 9. col 639 recited by the Centurists Now if M. White wil vrge this Councel against Images in which respect it was impugned and contradicted by seueral means why may not I much more vrge it for these other poynts wherein it was neuer reproued by any Councel or other Writers Now as concerning the Councel of Franckford vrged here and by sundrie other Protestants against Images First the a) Cen. 8. c. 9. col 639. Magdeburgians themselues acknowledge that Pope Adrian then Bishop of Rome neuer consented vnto it but both himself and his Legates resisted it Now neuer 53) Galasius Temo de vinâ—ulo Anathematis was there anie one Councel holden lawful whereunto the Roman Bishop resisted In so much that this Councel of Franckford itself decreed 54) In lib. Catolino That the last Iudgement of Controuersies belonged to the Roman Bishop and with this verie argument cheifly it endeauoured to confute the seauenth Synode imagining this to haue been assembled without the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome So that this Councel of Franckford by the testimonie of the Centurists destroyeth it selfe Secondly the Centurists in the same place teach that the 2. Nicene Synod was confirmed by Pope Adrian but the Councel of Franckford reiecteth only such Synods as are assembled without the Popes Authoritie wherefore according to the Magdeburgians not the Councel of Nice wherein Images were approued but some other was reproued by the Councel of Franckford Thirdly The Centurists further confesse that the Councel of Franckford did not decree that Images should be taken out of the Churches but remayning in the Churches that they should not be adored Wherefore then do Protestants pul down Images and break them Wherefore do not themselues obserue the Decree of the Councel Yea this verie Councel thundreth Anathema 55) l. Carol. Hincmarus Magdeburg to al such as deface break pul down Images how then wil our Protestants escape this bolt Fourthly the Councel of Franckford did indeed impugne 56) l. Carol. Hincmarus two Councels one of Constantinople which decreed against Images and the other of Nice which was for Images But the impugning of this latter was only through errour and materially euen as the Councel of Ariminum condemned the word Homousios for the Authour of the Bookes vnder the name of Charles had obtruded vnto the same Councel of Franckford two vntruths 57) In praef lib. Carol. First that the Councel of Nice had decreed that Images should be worshipped with the honour of Latria or that which is due only to God 58) l. Carol. The second that this decree was made by the Grecians without the consent of the Bishop of Rome Now these two lyes supposed for truths it is no wonder though the Councel of Franckford resisted the Councel of Nice And that these were mere Impostures falsly imposed vpon the Councel of Nice it is euident aswel in that the Legates of the Roman Bishop subscribed to euerie Act as also in that the Epistles of Pope Adrian himself for Images 59) Act. 2. were read in the Councel it self And so likewise that the sayd Councel did not decree Images to be worshiped with Latria is further manifest in that Basil of Ancyra who was formerly an Heretick being now conuerted and professing the Catholick Faith the (60) Act. 1. whole Councel hearing him and approuing him affirmed that he did worship Images but not with Latria seing that was due only to God And the like (61) Act 3.4.7 was professed by Constantin Bishop of Constance and other Bishops in the Seauenth Synode Neither let it seeme improbable that such vntruths could be forged against a general Councel so lately before celebrated Wheras most Protestants dare now affirme that Catholicks adore Images as Gods whereas almost thousands of Catholick Writers and the General Councel of Trent celebrated in the Confins of Germanie do declaime the contrarie what wonder then if the like be forged of a Greek Synod which few could read and vnderstand and which was celebrated in the Oriental parts being far distant Lastly it is to be remembred that though this Councel of Franckford did erre yet was it not in matter of Faith but only in fact condemning vpon false information the Councel of Nice neither was it euer confirmed but expressely reiected by the Bishop of Rome and therefore the errour thereof doth nothing preiudice the infallible authoritie of lawful approued General Councels So manie wayes doth it appeare that this thredworne Argument from the Councel of Franckford against Images is altogeather impertinent And now to come to the bastard Booke fathered vpon Charles the Great First the Booke of Adrian the First to Charles is extant whereby it appeareth that the sayd Booke was written by some Heretick and sent from Charles to Adrian
to examine matters but to define nothing before his notice and withal not to communicate with Photius as a Bishop but only as a Secular man being ordayned contrarie to the Canons and hauing vniustly deposed Ignatius which when Photius perceuied he hindred the sayd Legats for conferring with anie but only their own followers and withal assembled a Synod wherein through the power of the Emperour he further confirmed the Deposition of Ignatius and his own Creation threatning also the Popes Legats that vnles they also would subscribe to the sayd Councel the Emperour would bannish them into remote Countries where for verie hunger they should be inforced to eate lice Through which terrours and also through bribes from Photius the Legats contrarie to the Popes command subscribed to the condemnation of Ignatius and establishment of Photius Which when Pope Nicolas truly vnderstood assembling a Councel in Rome he excommunicated Photius and his own Legats and deposed them al restoring Ignatius to his Sea Which Basil the Emperour succeding Michael according to the Popes determination fully executed Now what doth anie of this make against the Popes Supremacie but rather confirme the same seing that both Michael and Photius sent Embassedours to the Pope entreating that he would send Legats from himself for the redressing of abuses at Constantinople And when themselues were found cheifly faultie the Emperour was seuerely reprehended by the Pope and Photius excommunicated and deposed Adde hereunto that the Greek Writers themselues do generally testifye that both Michael and Photius were men extremely addicted to manie and most enormous vices and therefore their resisting the Pope is of no greater Authoritie then of an offender or Rebel resisting his lawful Iudge or Prince So likewise concerning the Bishop of Rauenna's resisting the Pope Anastasius cited by M. White in proof thereof reporteth (81) In Nicolao 1. that sundrie Persons going to Pope Nicolas with manie complaints of greiuous wrongs and dommages done vnto them by the sayd Bishop the Pope therevpon did by his Legats and letters admonish him to surcease the same and to make satisfaction Which the Bishop neglecting and adding stil more to his former impieties he further commanded him to repaire to Rome there in the Synod to answer in his own behalf which he likewise refusing and contemning to do he was therevpon Excommunicated by the same Councel Yea the Pope himself vpon the earnest intreatie of the people of Rauenna went to the same Cittie where presently he restored manie things taken wrongfully by the Bishop who hauing Intelligence before hand of the Popes comming was fled to Papia there to desire Ludonicus the Emperours help and backing against the Pope But as the people there in the streets did eschew his companie hearing that he was Excommunicated by Pope Nicolas so the Emperours answer was only this by his Messenger Let him go and laying pride aside let him humble himself to the Pope to whom both we and al the Church are subiect Which when the Bishop heard despayring of al other meanes he went to Rome where submitting himself to the Pope and promising reformation and performance of sundrie matters enioyned him and commanded by the same Pope he was therevpon absolued from his Excommunication and suspension from saying Masse This being the truth of the Storie concerning the Bishop of Rauenna his resisting the Pope I referre it to the Iudgement of anie impartial Reader whether this doth not strongly confirme the Primacie of the Bishop of Rome But to proceed after 900. 900. to 950. 950. and so forward D. White vrgeth sundrie abuses noted as then in the Church of Rome But those by him specifyed concerning only matter of life and manners are altogeather improper and insufficient to proue any change in Faith and Doctrine which was the only point pertinent to be proued Yea Baronius by him alleaged speaketh only of such abuses as were brought into the Church by Anti-Popes and Intruders not by true Popes And whereas further it is obiected that certaine of the English Clergie maintayned the Sacrament to be only a figure of the Bodie bloud of Christ against the Real Presence then increasing Besides that the confirmation hereof dependeth vpon the testimonie of the old Fabler Fox I haue shewed heretofore in the Examples of Scotus and Bertram that our Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence was confessedly beleeued and taught in the purest times of the Primitiue Church After 950. 950. to 1000. we haue fayth D. White Otho the Great that deposed Iohn the Pope and assumed into his hands the nominating and making of Popes hereafter c. But this only proueth what was done not with what right it was done for though through the solicitation of a false Synod Otho assented to the deposition of Iohn by reason of manie crimes obiected against him Yet the proceeding therin was in sundrie respects not Iuridical but directly contrarie to the much more ancient practise and decrees of the Church as Baronius proueth at large Anno 963. Neither is it true that Otho assumed into his hands the nominating and making of Popes hereafter for no sooner was Iohn deposed but immediatly in the hearing of the Emperour the Bishops assembled iâ— the same Synod sayd We choose Leo our Pastour that he may be the cheif and vniuersal Pope of the Roman Church to which though the Emperour afterwardes assented yet did he neither first nominate or elect him In this Semi-centurie M. White further vrgeth that Aelfricus Archbishop of Canterburie preached and published his Homilies against the Real Presence comming in But first Aelfricus the Archbishop of Canterburie was so Roman Catholick that D. Godwin testifieth (n) Catal. of Bishops p. 23. that he was brought vp in Glassenburie And M. Bale assureth vs that he was Schollar to S. Ethwald and Abbot of Abingdon and for his craftie (x) Cent. 2. c. 41. sayth he in promoting Papistrie made Archbishop of Canterburie Secondly the Protestants which (*) In the Preface before it published that Sermon confesse that the Authour thereof was no Archbishop of Canterburie And it is more likely to be true which M. Fox (y) Act. mon. p. 1148 1040. sayth that it was Aelfrick surnamed Bara an Heretick who as S. Dunstan appearing to one in a vision sayd as reporteth Osberne attempted to disinherit his Church but I haue stopped him sayth S. Dunstan and he could not preuaile Thirdly that Sermon diligently read maketh as much for Transubstantiation as against it Lastly though we should suppose for the present that Aelfricus did preach or publish such Homilies yet was that doctrine so far from comming in as then as that the best and ancientest Fathers of the Primitiue Church are formerly confessed and reproued for the same doctrine by sundrie Protestant Writers In like sort though Arnulphus a man vicious inueighed against the Pope vrging that if he be voyd of charitie puffed vp only with knowledge he is Antichrist
Innouation therein could be obserued or reproued by Almaricus In like sorte though Robert Bishop of Lincolne withstood the Popes proceedings in England yet this nothing proueth anie change or first comming in of anie point of Faith in the Roman Church obserued or resisted by the sayd Robert Besides D. Godwine reporteth that a Cardinal sayd to the Pope concerning him He (a) Catalo of Bishop of England p. 240. is for Religion a Catholick as wel as we And so dying he gaue al his bookes an excellent Librarie vnto the Friar Minors at Oxford So charitable was he to Friars and consequently so Roman Catholick euen at his verie death And where he affirmeth that Ioakim Abbas sayd that Antichrist was borne at Rome and should sit in the Apostolick sea It is so vntrue that in his Epistle prefiged to his Exposition vpon the Apocalypse he submitteth his writings to the Censure of the Sea Apostolick affirming further that he firmely beleeueth that the Gates of Hel cannot preuaile against the Roman Church and that her Faith shal not perish before the end of the world Yea in his Exposition vpon the 6. Chapter and 11. verse he calleth such the Sonnes of Babylon who impugne the Church of Peter And vpon the 7. Chapter and 2. verse by the Angel ascending from the East hauing the signe of the liuing God he vnderstandeth the Bishop of Rome who with his fellow-Bishops with the signe of the Crosse wil arme the Elect in that last tribulation which Antichrist shal rayse So litle cause there is to vrge this Abbot against the Pope And indeed al that truly can be vrged against him is that being an old man and half out of his wits he was censured by the Pope for certaine fonde Prophecies and some errours also about the B. Trinitie as appeareth by the Decree extant in the Canon Law against him and by other Authours that haue written of him And as for Fidericus the Second Emperour resisting the Popes Supremacie it proueth no more but that euen the most vicious Emperours were most aduerse to the Pope For he being a Prince of most scandalous and wicked life was after due admonitions excommunicated as also deposed by Pope Innocent the Fourth in a general Councel holden at Lyons so that his resisting in this regard the Supremacie is only a guiltie and conuicted Persons resisting of al such lawful Authoritie whereby he is censured and punished Concerning Arnoldus Villanouanus speaking against Friars the Sacrifice of the Masse and Papal Decrees This M. White only proueth by the testimonies of the Magdeburgians and Osiander which being Protestants are no competent witnesses against Catholicks But besides I haue proued (107) l. 2. c. 9. 4. before that the Sacrifice of the Masse and the Popes Authoritie were beleeued and practised in much more ancient times As also that the Institution of Friars proueth no Innouation in Faith and Religion Euerardus broaching those foule and false reproaches against Pope Gregorie the Seauenth called Hildebrand proueth nothing but his owne disobedience and impatience hauing been by the same 108) Greg. 7. Ep. 18. Pope for his owne demerits iustly suspended from his Episcopal function After 1250. 1250. to 1300. I name Gulielmus de S. Amore withstanding Friars and their abuses but how impertinent this is I haue shewed sufficiently before The Preachers also saith he in Sweden that publickly taught the Pope and his Bishops to be Hereticks But M. White receiuing this Relation from Illiricus no further answer wil be requisit Dante 's also saith he writ that the Empire descended not from the Pope But Dante 's being only a Poet intermedling in other matters committed (109) See Bellar. in Append. ad lib. de Sum. Pont c. 14. manie grosse errours for which his bookes are condemned and prohibited by the Church yea he liued in faction against some (110) Ibid. c. 12. Popes and therefore his writing against them is of no force As for Gulielmus Altisiodorensis M. White producing nothing in particular out of him against the Roman Church but only affirming that in his Summes are found manie things confuted that then were comming in no further particular answer can be expected and though he referre himself for particulars to this his own Booke yet citing no page or place thereof I hould it vnworthie of so paineful search it being also wel knowne that Altisiodorensis only differed from other Schoole-men in matters disputable and not defined After 1300. 1300. to 1350. I name sayth he Marcilius Patauinus that wrot against the Popes Supremacie But he being a knowne condemned Heretick a flatterer of the Schismatical Emperour and his Bookes condemned by the Church as also the Popes Primacie being formerly acknowledged in the Primitiue Church his testimonie is sundrie wayes insufficient And the like is to be answered to Ocham (111) Tritheâ—nius Genebrard l. 4. Chron. who was purposely hyred by the Emperour to write against the Pope who was also Excommunicated and his Bookes prohibited Gregorius Ariminensis his differences were only in Schoole points not determined by the Church And as for the Vniuersitie of Paris condemning the Popes Pardons it is most vntrue and therefere M. White did wel to father it only vpon his Brother Illiricus whom he knew to be expert in the art of forging After 1350. 1350. to 1400. I name sayth he Aluâ—rus Pelagius who wrot a Book of the L mentation of the Church wherein he reproueth diuerse abuses of his times But who denyeth but that in the Militant Church consisting of good and euil there are manie abuses in life and conuersation But as for abuse or Innouation in matter of Doctrine and Faith Aluarus maketh no mention at al in his sayd Booke And as for Montziger disputing against â—ransubstantiation and Adoration of the Sacrament and Cesenas calling the Pope Antichrist besides that the truth hereof dependeth only of the testimonie of Fox and Illâ—ricus both of them Protestants I haue sufficiently before cleered both these poynts from al Innouation in Ages much more ancient Now as for Iohn Wiceliffe as I haue shewed (112) l. 1. c. 3. before that in sundrie poynts of Faith he agreed with Catholicks which Protestants now impugne so it is euident that he taught sundrie grosse errours which both Catholicks and Protestants do detest as that If a (113) Fox Act. Mâ—n p. 96. Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not Order consecrate or Baptize that Al (114) Osiand cent 9. 10. 11. p. 459. oathes are vnlawful That (115) Osiand cent 15. p. 457. al things come to passe by absolute necessitie That there 116) Ib. p. 454. is no Ciuil Migistrate whilest he is in mortal sinne and sundrie others in regard of which Protestants 117) Pant. Chronol p. 119. Mathias Hoe in his Tract duo Tract 1. p. 27. themselues ranke him in the Catalogue of Hereticks So that smal Credit or succour wil M. White
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
stileth the Canons of the sayd Councel of Nyce 66) Luther l. de Cōcilijs part 1. p. 92. hay straw wood stubble and demandeth whether the the Holie-Ghost hath nothing els to do in Councels but to bind and burden his Ministers with impossible dangerous and vnnecessarie lawes So absurd was the Councel of Nyce in Luther's iudgement affirming further That more light is brought to a Christian by that Catechisme which children do learne then by al the Councels Caluin calleth the Fathers of the sayd Councel of Nyce 67) Lib. de vera Eccl. reformat opuscul p. 486. And Inst l. 4. c. 9. 3. 10. Phanaticos that is men Phanatical or deluded by the Diuel and withal giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examin the decrees of Councels by the Scriptures saying 68) Inst l. 4. c. 9. §. 8. 9 11. Let no names or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examin al Spirits of al men by the rule of the Word of God And againe 69 Ib. 3. 14. I deny that Interpretation of Scripture to be alwayes true and certain which is receaued by the consent of a Councel But I cannot heer but obserue the strange giddines of this primest protestant Caluin who directly contrarie to his former Assertions writeth thus 70) Inst l. 4. c. 9. §. 8. Those ancient Synods as Nyce Constantinople the first of Ephesus of Chalcedon and the like which were assembled for the confuting of errours we do willingly embrace and reuerence as Sacred for as much as concerneth doctrines of Faith For they containe nothing but the pure and natiue Interpretation of Scripture which the holie Fathers with spiritual wisdome applyed to the vanquishing of the Enemies of Religion which then appeared But to leaue him thus fighting with himself and to come to the Ministers of the Church of Scotland 71) In the end of the Harmonie of Coafes p. 19. And see the sayd Harmonie sect 1. p. 14. Without iust examination we do not receaue say they whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a General Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestly erred and that in matters of great weight and importance So far then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandment that it giueth by the plaine word of God so soone do we reuerence and embrace the same Heervnto also do accord our English Protestants teaching that 72) Articles of faith agreed vpon in the Conuocations of A. 1562. 1604. art 21. General Councels c. may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in things pertaining vnto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessarie to saluation haue neither strength nor authoritie vnles it may be declared that they be taken out of holie Scriptures So vnwilling or rather truly fearful are Protestants to appeale vnto General Councels for the decision of Controuersies But D. Luther proceedeth further seriously expecting exacting that al Councels shal be subiect to his Censure determination 73) Tom. 2. wittenberg f. 375. The Rectours of Churches saith he the Pastours of Christ's sheep haue indeed power to teach but the sheep ought to iudge whether they propose the voice of Christ or of strangers c. Wherefore let the Pope Bishops Councels c. decree appoynt and ordaine what they wil we wil not hinder them but we who are the sheep of Christ and heare his voice wil haue it in our power to iudge whether they propose things true and agreable to the voice of our Pastour or no and they are to yeald subscribe and obey our Censure and Sentence Now if Councels be subiect to the Censure of Luther or anie other such rotten sheep then lesse is the authoritie of Councels then of Luther himself then the which nothing can be spoken more absurd or ridiculous In like sort saith Peter Martyr in general 74) De votis p. 476. As long as we rest in Councels Fathers we shal be euer conuersant in the same errours Yea saith M. Carthwright 75) In whiteg Tract 2. p. 95. If this be a sufficient proof to say such a Councel decreed such a Doctour sayd so there is almost nothing so true but I can impugne nothing so false but I can make true And wel assured I am that by their meanes the principal grounds of our Protestant Faith may beshabken But to conclude 76) De Concil contr Bellar. 9. 6. Fulk Answ to a Counterf Cath p. 89. 90. Will. Syno 92. D Whitaker D. Fulk D. Willet and most other Protestants teaching that General Councels may erre in Faith and manners it is no wonder though they reiect their authoritie but yet it euidently conuinceth that in matters of Faith and Religion Protestants dare not relye and submit themselues to the decrees and definitions either of ancient or moderne General Councels So that though Ministers in their Pulpits where none wil gainsay them do florish and flaunt forth the ancient Fathers prayses approue their authoritie applaud them as Protestants and appeale to those primitiue Doctours as Maisters and Patrons of their errours yet when they are pressed by Catholicks with cleerest euidence of their particular writings sayings and practise and with the answerable acknowledgements of the learned Protestants then their tone is changed bitterly exclaming that The argument drawne from Antiquitie is a Popish argument that To appeale to the Primitiue Church is to iniurie the Protestant Congregation That for Protestants to fil their books with the authorities of Fathers is dangerous and to be eschued That in al Councels Fathers and Stories since the Apostles the print of the Popes feet is to be found That the Papists strongest towers are in the testimonies of the Doctours That the Fathers were blind and ignorant in the Scriptures That they were certainly damned for their Papistical opinions vnles they repented That their interpretations of Scripture were aduantagious to Papists and preiudicial to Protestants That their books and Commentaries were contrarie to Scripture Yea that the Fathers did contradict one another and often one and the same himself That Luther and sundrie other Protestants are much to be preferred for learning before S. Austin S. Ambrose and al the other Fathers That the Doctrine now taught by the Bishops of England is much more sound then euer was taught by any Bishops since the Apostles and therefore that our Bishops are in manie degrees to be preferred before them that euen in the best times Sathan was president in Councels And lastly that al decrees of Popes Bishops and Councels are to yeeld and obey the Censure of Luther Dot not al this most strongly confirme that in the verie harts and consciences of Protestants themselues the ancient Fathers were Roman Catholicks and most aduerse to Protestants and that therefore and only therefore they are thus reiected contemned disgraced and wronged by them euen by Luther Caluin Beza
Confess Mansfelden Ministror tit de Antinomis f. 89. 90. that the Law of God is not worthie to be called the Word of God If thou beest a where a whore-mungar if an adulterer or otherwise a sinner beleeue and thou walkest in the way of saluation When thou art drowned in sinne euen to the bottom if thou beleeuest thou art in the midst of happines Al that busie themselues about Moyses that is the Ten Commandments belong to the Diuel to the gallowes with Moyses In like sort Illiricus the chief of the Centurie-writers and whom M. Bel termeth 16) Regim of the Chur. p. 28. a very famous Writer and most worthie defender of the Christian truth this so famous defender of Protestancie is accused of these Antinomian errours by his owne Brethren saying 17) Act. Colloq Aldeburg p. 94. After the death of Luther when Flaccus Illiricus and manie other factious Companions of his had begun againe those Antinomian filthinesses c. And with no litle applause of the multitude c. had dispersed them abroad c. Yea D. Hutter publick Professour at Wittenberg addeth yet further saying 18) Concord explicat Art 5. c. 1. p. 478. And see Art 6. p. 535. 536. c. But neither did that errour rest in a narrow compasse but presently getting strength crept abroad c. In so much that Melancthon in the last Edition of his CoÌ„mon Places hath plainly renewed the same errour c. And An. 59. the later Antinomians who named themselues the Schole-men of Wittemberg publikly and before the whole Church vndertook the Defence of that errour Yea that Antinomian furie encreased so much that also An. 70. in this our Wittemberg some Diuines for the obtaining of the highest degree in Diuinitie c. propounded publickly that errour and endeauoured to defend it as it appeareth by the 38 and 39. Theses of that Disputation Some Protestants also teach that 19) Act. Mon. p. 1335. And see the Parable of the wicked Mammon wherof Tindal is sayd to be Authour p. 573. 486. the Commandments were giuen vs not to do them but to know our damnation and to cal for mercie to God And D. Whitaker sayth accordingly 20) Cont. Camp par 8. p. 153. Christ proposeth to vs another more easie condition Beleeue and thou shalt be saued By this new league the old one is taken away that whosoeuer beleeueth the Ghospel is freed from the condition of the Law For those who beleeue are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace what need I say more Christians are freed from the curse of the Law not from the obedience But if Christians be deliuered from the condition curse of the Law how can they be bound to the obedience of it Or what can the breach therof be preiudicial vnto them So that if Catholicks do at anie time vrge against Protestants the authoritie of Moyses or of his Law or the Ten Commandments sundrie of the chiefest Protestants haue alreadie answered I wil not heare Moyses he is Christ's enemie he is the maister of hangmen Away with Moyses therefore to the gallowes His Law is a fable leading to Acheron or the pit of Hel. The Ten Commondments do not pertaine to Christians they are the fountain of al Heresies and are not to be taught in Churches The Law of God is not worthie to be called the Word of God Yea if thou be an adulterer or drowned in the depth of sinne do but beleeue and thou art in the midst of felicitie And so al Arguments drawne from Moyses or his writings are of no force or esteeme in the iudgement of Protestants But to proceed to other Scriptures Luther further affirmeth that 21) In Ser. Conuin tit de Patriar Prophet he doth not beleeue al things to be so done as they are related in the booke of Iob. And againe 22) Tit. de libr. Vet. Nou. Testa the booke of Iob is as it were the argument of a fable to propose the example of Patience And when Luther had read ouer the booke of Ecclesiastes his graue censure was 23) Pet. Robenstock lib. 2. Colloq Lat. Luâ—her c. de Vet. Test This Booke is not perfect manie things are taken away it wanteth bootes and spurres that is it hath no perfect sentence It rideth vpon a long reed as I when I was a Monk was wont to do in the Monasterie And as for the Canticles which our English Protestants terme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon 24) Bible of An. 1595. Luther was of opinion that they imported no further but only a familiar 25) In Exordio fuarum Annot. in Cant. conference between Salomon and the Common-wealth of the Iewes inuiting Salomon to raigne ouer her But Castalio proceedeth further iudging this Book to be only 26) In his Laâ— Transl of the Bib. Praef. in Cant. the first Edit And see Beza in Praef. ante Comment Calu. in Iosue a loue-communication betweene Salomon and his Mistris Sulamitha for which he citeth those words Returne Sulamitha returne and let vs looke vpon thee adding also in the Margent Sulamitha the Mistris and spouse of Salomon And Beza testifyeth of Castalio that 27) In Vita Caluini And see Vvhitak poorest euasion hereof cont Dur. l. 1. p. 121. he commanded the Canticles of Salomon to be thrust out of the Canon as an impure and obscene Song reuiling with bitter reproches such Ministers as resisted him therin Yea this so impious reiecting this parcel of Canonical Scripture was so grosse in Castalio a Caluinist that now since in the later Editions of his Bible at Basil the Protestant publishers therof haue for verie shame altered it But now to passe from the Old Testament to the New and to omit that Caluin 28) Instit l. 2. c. 16. §. 18. resteth doubtful whether the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed was made and published by the Apostles or no and consequently whether it be of infallible authoritie and beleef He further chargeth S. Mathew's Ghospel with errour saying 29) In Matth. 27. vers 9. Surely the name of Hieremie to be erroneously put for Zacharie the thing itself sheweth because no such thing is read in Hieremie but that other place vnlesse it be dexterously applyed may seeme to be drawne into a contrarie sense c. And wheras Math. 20.16 Christ sayth Manie are called but few are chosen Caluin reiecteth it saying 30) Harm in Math. 20.16 Minimè quadrat quae à quibusdam inseritur sententia Multi vocati pauci electi That sentence Manie are called few are chosen which by some is inserted doth not agree Which words doth not agree he expoundeth in French is nothing to the purpose M. Iewel likewise affirmeth 31) Def. of the Apol. p. 361. that S. Mark alleadgeth Abiathar for Abimelech and S. Mathew Hieremias for Zacharius 32) Bible of An. 1592. Our English Church Math. 6. receaues as Canonical scripture these