A counterblast to M. Hornes vayne blaste against M. Fekenham Wherein is set forthe: a ful reply to M. Hornes Answer, and to euery part therof made, against the declaration of my L. Abbat of Westminster, M. Fekenham, touching, the Othe of the Supremacy. By perusing vvhereof shall appeare, besides the holy Scriptures, as it vvere a chronicle of the continual practise of Christes Churche in al ages and countries, fro[m] the time of Constantin the Great, vntil our daies: prouing the popes and bishops supremacy in ecclesiastical causes: and disprouing the princes supremacy in the same causes. By Thomas Stapleton student in diuinitie.

The third Chapter: Of Constantines Dealing in the cause of Athanasius.

Stapleton.

THIS obiection of Athanasius his appeale (as you call it) to Constantine, is a common obiection to all your brethren, and hath ben vsed namely of M. Iewell in his lying Replie in the fourth Article more then ones. For the which (if I listed to follow the fond vain of M. Nowel) I might call you M. Horne, a seely borower of your fel∣lowes Argumēts, &c. But to leaue that peuish toy to boies, of whom M. Nowel in the time of his Scholemaistershippe may wel seme to haue learned it, ād to answere briefly the whole mater, first I refer you to my former āswer made to M. Iew. in my Returne, &c. in the fourth Article. And now for a surplussage, I say with Athanasius himself (who knew this whole mater better I trow, then you or M. Iewel) that this which you call a Councell and a Synod at Tyre, from the

iudgement of which Synod you say Athanasius appealed vn∣to Constantine, referring the whole matter to his hearinge, this, I say, was no Synod or Councell at all. For of this ve∣ry assemblie of the Arrian Bishops at Tyre, where they ac∣cused Athanasius before the honourable Flauius Dionysi∣us, the Emperours Lieutenaunt there, of grieuouse crimes, as of killing Arsenius, who then yet liued, and of a facte of his Pri••st Macharius, for ouerthrowinge of an Aulter, and breakīg of a Chalice, of this assembly, I say, thus doth a holy Synod of Catholique Bishops and Priestes gathered toge∣ther at Alexandria, out of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, and Pen∣tapolis, pronounce and affirme, as Athanasius in his secōd Apologie (the booke by your selfe here alleged) recordeth. Praecla••i Euseb••ani, quo veritatem scriptáque sua obliterent, nomen Synodi suis actis praetexunt, quumres ipsa negotium Im∣peratorium non Synodale haberi debeat. Quippe vbi Comes praesideat, & milites Episcopos suo satellitio cingant, & Impera∣toria edicta quos ipsi volunt coire compellant. These ioly Eu∣sebians (these were Arrians) to the intent they may blotte out the truth, and their owne writings, doe pretēd to their owne doings the name of a Synode, whereas the matter it selfe ought to be counted an Imperiall mater, not the mat∣ter of any Councell or Synod. Loe Maister Horne, you with the Arrians, wil haue this to be a Synod: but we with the Catholique Bisshoppes of Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, and Pentapolis, and with Athanasius him selfe, denye flattelye it was any Synod at all, but onely Negocium imperatorium, a matter Imperiall, a ciuile matter, a laie or temporal con∣trouersie. I truste we with the Catholique Bishoppes, and namely with Athanasius, shal haue more credit herein, then you M. Horne, and Maister Iewell, with the Arrians.

But why doe those Catholike Bishops deny this matter to be any Synodall or Councell matter? Quippe vbi. &c. As in which matter (say they) the Countie, the Emperours Lieutenaunt, was president, and souldiours closed the Bisshops round about, and the Emperours proclamations compelled such to mete as them listed. Behold M. Horne, for this very cause that the Emperour and his Lieutenaunt bore the chief rule, therefore I say, did those Catholike Bishops accompte this matter to be no Synod at al. See I pray you M. Horne: Homo homini quantum interest, stulto intelligens. See howe farre square and extreme different your opinion is from the iudgement of the Catholike Fathers and Bisshops so many hundred yeares past. You M. Horne and your fellowes, will haue al Synods and Councels to be called, ordered, di∣rected, gouerned, confirmed, approued and wholy gouer∣ned of the Prīce and his officers. And without the Princes authority, cōmission, order, directiō, cōfirmation, and royal assent, you wil haue no Synodes or Councelles of Bishops to auaile, or to haue force. Contrarywise, these Catholike Bishops in the East Church, do for this very cause reproue and reiect the Assembly of certaine Bishops, for no Synode at al, because al was there done by the authoritie, order, di∣rection, and power of the Princes Lieutenaunt. And they doe make a plaine distinction betwene Negotium Imperiale, and Synodale, betwene an Imperiall matter, and a Synodall matter: as who shoulde saye, If the Emperour beare all the stroke, it is no Synod, nor so to be called.

Therefore these Catholique Fathers say againe, in the same place within few lines after: Si velut Episcopi sese Iu∣dices volebāt esse, quid opus erat vel Comite, vel militibus, aut edictis ad coeundum imperialibus? If these fellowes would

be them selues Iudges as Bishops, what neded them to haue either the Countie, or the souldiars, or any Imperial Edicts to make them assemble? As who would say: In the Bishop∣ly iudgement, in the Synode of bishops, it is not meete ey∣ther to be summoned by the Prince, or to haue his Lieute∣naunt present, or to haue his gard of Souldiars. These mat∣ters become the temporal Court, and the Ciuile Consisto∣rie, where by force of subiection, lawes do procede. They become not the Synods of Bishoppes, where with quiet of minde, with godly deliberation, freely and franckly, with∣out feare or partialitie, Gods matters ought to be treated, discussed, and concluded.

Therefore againe these Catholik Fathers doe say of this Arrian Conuenticle at Tyrus: Qua fronte talem conuentum, Synodum appellare audent, cui Comes praesedit? With what face dare they call such an assemblye, by the name of a Sy∣node, ouer the which the County was president? And yet will yow M. Horne, that the ciuill Magistrate shall be the president and Supreme gouernour, in and ouer al Synodes? Maye not a man nowe clappe yow on the backe, and saye, Patrisas, Arrianisas? And that yow are as like to the cursed Arrians, as if Arrius him self had spet you out of his mouth? Those Fathers cry yet againe vnto you and say: Quae species ibi Synodi, vbi vel caedes, vel exiliū, si Caesari placuisset, cōstitue∣batur? What face of any Synod was there, where at the Emperours pleasure, either death or banishmēt was decre∣ed? This cōuenticle therefore at Tyrus was no Synod. Nei∣ther could therfore Athanasius appeale from any Synod to the Emperoure. But that which Athanasius then did, and which yow vntruely call an Appeale from the Synod, was only a cōplaint to the godly Emperour Constātine, againste

the vniuste violences of the honourable (as you call him) Flauius Dionysius: wherein also those Catholique Fathers aboue mentioned, shall witnesse with mee against you. For thus they write: Quum nihil culpae in comministro no∣stro Athanasio reperirent, Comésque summa vi imminens plu∣ra contra Athanasium moliretur, Episcopus comitis violenti∣am fugiens, ad religiosissimum. Imperatorem ascendit, depre••ās & iniquitatem hominis & aduersariorum calumnias, p••stulās∣que vt legitima Episcoporum Synodus indiceretur▪ aut ipse au∣diret suam defensionem. Wheras they could find no fault in our fellowe Prieste Athanasius, and the Countye by force and violence wrought many things against Athana∣sius, the Bishoppe declining the violence of the Countie, went vp to the most religious Emperor, complaining both of the iniurious dealing of the Lieutenant, and of the slan∣ders of his Aduersaries, and requiring that a laufull Synode of Bisshops might be called, or els that th'Emperour would heare him to speake for him selfe. By these woordes we see, that Athanasius appealed not from any Synodicall sen∣tence of bishops to the Emperour, as a Superiour Iudge in Synodicall matters, but from the violence and iniuries of the Lieutenaunt, to his Lord and Maister, the Emperoure him self for to haue iustice and audiēce, not in any mate•• of Religion or controuersie of the faith, but in a matter of fe∣lony laid to his charge, as the murder of a man, and an out∣rage committed by one of his Priestes in a Churche. For the which his aduersaries sought his death. And yet when they came before the Emperour, they chaunged their acti∣on, and pleaded no more vpon the murder, which was foūd to be so euident a lye (Arsenius being brought forth aliue, before the benche, when they accused Athanasius of his

death) neither vpō the Chalice brokē, that being also a very ridiculous ād a plain forged mater, but they pleaded a newe actiō of stoppīg the passage of corne frō Alexādria to Con∣stātinople, ād accused hī as an enemie to the Imperial court and City. For prouf wherof, the Arriās brought in false wit∣nesses, and periures. But yet the Emperour (as they write) moued with pitie, satis habebat pro morte exilium irrogare: thought it enough in stede of death, to banish him. Whiche he did at the importune suite and clamoures of the Arrian bishoppes, sor quietnes and vnities sake in the church. But afterward in his death bed the Emperour repentinge him, commaunded Athanasius to be restored to his Bisshopricke a∣gaine, though Eusebius the Arrian then present, laboured much to the contrary. In al this, there was no Ecclesiastical or spi∣ritual matter, but mere Ciuile matters in hand.

Neither was it any Ecclesiastical matter, that the Catho∣like Bisshops of Egypt as you alleage M. Horne) desired and ad••ured Flauius Dionysius the foresaied Countie to reserue the examination and iudgement of, to the Emperour himself. But the matter was suche as we haue before rehearsed, matters and actions mere Ciuile. Namely they adiured that iniuri∣ous and partiall Magistrate, the foresayed Countie, not to proceede farder against their Patriarche, then so grieuo∣slie attainted, but to referre the whole matter to the most Religious Emperoure, where they doubted not to finde more fauoure. Apud quem (say they) licebit & iura Ec∣clesiae, & nostra proponere. Before whome we maye put foorth bothe the rightes of the Churche, and our owne. Meaninge that by his clemencye, they mighte be suffe∣red to procede in that matter among them selues orderly as the righte of the Churche and of the Canons required:

not (as M. Horne falsely translateth it) that the Emperour would iudge according to the right order of the Church. There are no such wordes in the letters of the Catholike Bishops of Aegipt alleaged by M. Horne. Otherwise, to seke any iudgement of Churche matters, at the Emperours handes, be you bolde M. Horne, no man knewe better then Atha∣nasius him selfe, that he could not doe it. For it is Athana∣sius, M. Horne, that being restored, as I haue said, by Con∣stantines last wil and Testament, and after againe the secōd time banished vnder the Arrian Emperour Constantius, by the meanes also of those Arrian Bishops, appealed to Pope Iulius, as his competent and ordinarye Iudge, and was by him restored to his Bishoprike, together with many other Bishops of the East, Paulus of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, Lucius of Adrianople, with many other, appealing then likewise to Pope Iulius. It is Athanasius that saith: When was it heard from the creation of the worlde, that the iudgement of the Church shoulde take his authoritie from the Emperour? And what coulde that learned Father saye more directlye againste you and your whole booke M. Horne? Verely either that most lear∣ned and auncient Father, whom the most famous Fathers of al Christendome haue alwaies from time to time reue∣renced and honoured as a most glorious light and a singu∣lar piller of Gods Church, either that moste excellent Bis∣shop, I say, in whose praise euen out of the testimonies on∣ly of the best writers a iust Treatise might be gathered, did fouly erre and misse of the truth: either you M. Horne, and your fellowes are in a great errour, and do defend an exce∣ding absurditie, damnable both to you and all that followe you, forswearing your selues by booke Othe, when yee

swere, that in conscience you beleue, which you ought not ones so much as to thinke. For see yet what this Nota∣ble Bisshop pronounceth against you. It is Athanasius that saieth it. If this be the iudgement of bishops, what hath the Emperour to doe with it? Els if Caesars threates conclude these matters, to what purpose haue men the Names of Bisshoppes? Contrary wise say you, M. Horne. It is a principal part of the Princes royall power, to haue the supreme gouernement in al maner causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual.

O Barbarous heresye from the creation of the worlde neuer heard of before. O Antichristian presumption. I say, Antichristian presumption: I lerne of that most constant bisshop Athanasius so to say. For it is he that saieth these woordes. What hath Constantius omitted, that is not the parte of an Antichrist? Or what can he, when he cometh, doe more? Or howe shall not Antichrist at his coming finde a ready way prepared for him of this Emperour to deceiue men? For nowe againe in stede of the Ecclesiastical iudgement, he ap∣pointeth his palace to be the benche for Ecclesiasticall causes to be hearde at. Se{que} earum litium summum principem et Au∣thorem facit. And he maketh himself the Supreme gouer∣nour and chief doer of those controuersies: he speaketh of ecclesiastical. Now M. Horne, not our Gracious Soue∣raigne, of her owne desire taketh vppon her such gouern∣ment: but you most miserable clawebackes, and wretched flatterers do force her Grace to take that Title, the taking and practising whereof by the assured verdyt of this most lerned Father, is a plaine Antichristian presumption. For loe what he saieth yet agayne in the same page. Who is it, that seing the Emperour to make him selfe the Prince of bis¦shops in decreeing of matters, and to be president ouer Eccle∣clesiasticall

iudgements may not worth••ly say, that this Empe∣rour is the very abhomination of the d••solation, which was foretolde by Daniel? See and beholde M. Horn, what a most horrible absurdity you labour in your booke to persuade: See to what an extreme inconuenience you force mens consciences, when you tendre them the Othe, comprising the same and more, which here Athanasius accompteth the practise of Antichrist. Se last of all what traytours you are to God and your Prince, which haue persuaded her most Gracious highnes to take vpon her such kinde of go∣uernment which is a preparation to Antichrist, and resem∣bleth the abhomination of desolation foretolde by Daniel. And thus much your own Author Athanasius. You see how wel he speaketh for you.

Now that you alleage out of Socrates that Constantin threatened Athanasius he should be brought, whether he would or no, it anaunceth nothing the Authority of Con∣stantine in Ecclesiasticall matters. For so much manye a Prince doth to him, that lawfully called to a Councel will not come, at the Churches commaundement. Wherein he is rather a Ministerial then a principall doer. Neither doth the place by you alleaged out of Socrates, proue that Constantine examined and iudged the doings of the whole Councell, but onely whether they had proceded against Athanasius of enmity or malice: And as Socrates there wri¦teth, Constantin sayde, the suyte of Athanasius was, that in his presence he might (being driuen thereto by necessyty) com∣plaine of such iniuries as he had suffred. And it appereth by Theodoretus by you alleaged in the said first booke, that the determination and definition of these matters rested in the Bisshops, the execution in the Prince. For the labour

of Constantine with Athanasius then was, onelye that he woulde appeare before a Synode of Bisshoppes, which had accused him diuerslye before the Emperour, and of those Bisshoppes be tryed. Which the Emperour did, as Theodoret writeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beleuing the accu∣sers of Athanasius as Priestes, and thinkinge their accusa∣tions to be true. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For he was vtterly ignorant of their deceytes and craftly dea∣linges, saieth Theodoret. Thus he iudged not him selfe o∣uer Athanasius, but only procured, that to kepe peace in the Churche, the bisshops might assemble together, and trye their own matter among them selues.

M. Horne. The .33. Diuision. Pag. 22. a.

There vvere no Churche mattiers, or Ecclesiastical causes, vvherein the continual practise of the Churche of Christe, in this Emperours tyme, yea and many hundreth yeeres after, did not attribute the (.80.) supreme rule, order, and authority vnto Emperours and Kinges, vpon vvhome (.81.) al Churche mattiers did depende, as vvitnesseth Socrates, vvho shevveth this reason of that he doth thoroughout his Ecclesiasticall History mention so much the Emperours. Because that of the Emperors (saith he) after they be∣ganne to be Christians, the Churche matters doe depende, yea the greatest Councels haue bene, and are called together, ac∣cording to their appointment. Eusebius commendeth the great boun∣tifulnes of Constantine tovvardes all estates, But, (saith he) this Em∣perour had a singular care ouer Goddes Churche, for as one appointed of God to be a common or vniuersall Bisshop, he called Synodes or conuocations of Goddes ministers toge∣ther into one place, that thereby he might appeace the contē∣tious striuinges that were amonge them in sundry places. He disdayned not to be present with thē in their Synodes, and to sit in the middest of thē, as it had been a meaner personage, cō∣mending

and approuing those that bente them selues of good meaning to godly vnity, and shewed him self to mislike on the other side, and to set naught by such, as were of contrary disposition.

Stapleton.

The general assertion that M. Horne here auoucheth, that in Constantynes tyme, the continuall practise of the Churche attributed in al Ecclesiastical causes the supreme rule to Emperours, is but a great vntruthe boldly auou∣ched, but no maner of way yet proued, as hath bene de∣clared, nor hereafter to be proued, as it shall by Gods grace appeare. Againe that he saieth: All Churche mat∣ters did depende of the Emperours, and for witnesse thereof alleageth Socrates, is an other no lesse vntruthe also. For this prety syllable, All, is altogether M. Hornes, and not Socrates, pretely by him shifted in, to helpe forwarde a naughty matter. The very text alleaged by M. Horne, hath not that worde, nor speaketh not so generally. But it is no rare matter with men of M. Hornes brotherhood, to ouerreache their Authours, and therefore the lesse to be wondered at, though not the lesse to be borne with. And to this place of Socrates I haue before answered in my Returne against M. Iewel. That which foloweth out of Eusebius, proueth M. Hornes purpose neuer a deale. Except M. Horne thinke some waight to lye in those words, where the Emperour is called a Common or Vniuer∣sall Bis••hop: as though. we shoulde gather thereby, that the Emperour was then, as the Pope is nowe, and hath all∣waies bene. Except these woordes helpe M. Hornes pri∣macy, nothing is there that wil helpe it, reade and consi∣der

the place who listeth. But as for these woordes what sense they beare, no man better then Constantine him selfe by the report of the same Eusebius also, can tell vs. Constantin in dede was called of Eusebius as a commō bis∣shop, that is, as a common ouerseer, by reason of his passing zele and singular diligence in furdering Gods true Reli∣gion. But that he exercised therein no such supreme go∣uernement as M. Horne fancyeth, neither made him selfe bisshop of bisshoppes, but stayed him selfe within the li∣mites and boundes of his owne Iurisdiction, it appeareth manifestly by these his woordes spoken to a great number of bisshoppes, as Eusebius recordeth it in his own hearing to haue bene said. I am also, saith the Emperour, a bishop. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But you are bisshoppes (or ouerseers) of those thinges that are within the Churche. But I being by God sette ouer those thinges that are without the Church, am also as it were a bisshop, or ouerseer. Marke wel these words M. Horne. Your allegation auoucheth not the Emperor absolutely to be a bisshop: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Appointed of God as a certain cōmō bisshop. that is, resembling for his great zeale to Gods Church, the very office and person of a bisshop. But here the Emperour distinctly expresseth the tru•• bisshops office and vocation to be different from his own office and cal∣ling. He confesseth, I say, expressely, that the bisshoppes are appointed of God to be the Rulers ouerseers and directers of those things that are within the Church, that is, that doe concerne the gouernment of spiritual causes, and matters mere ecclesiastical. But him selfe he acknowledgeth to be ordayned of God ouer those things that are without the

Churche, as of wordly and ciuil matters ouer the which he being the Emperour was the supreme gouernour, and in that respect he thought he might after a sorte call him self also a bisshop, which soundeth, an Ouerseer, Ruler, and Guyder of such things as are to his charge committed. And verily after the paterne and example of this Noble first Christian Emperour, first I say that opēly professed and de∣fended the same, it may wel be thought, the words spoken to Christian Princes at their Coronatiō time, haue ben cō∣ceiued and vsed. The which also, that the Reader may see how distinct ād differēt in dede the vocatiōs are of Prīces and Bisshops, and yet how in some sorte thei both are bis∣shops, that is Ouerseers of Gods people, as Cōstantine pro∣fessed hī self to be, I wil here insert the very words vsually rehersed to Princes at their coronatiō time by the bishops annointing them. These are the words. Accipe Coronā regni tui, quae licet ab indignis, episcoporum tamē manibus, capiti tuo imponitur, In nomine Patris, & Filij, & Spiritus Sancti: Quam sanctitatis gloriā, & honorē, & opus fortitudinis intelligas sig∣nificare, & per hanc te participē ministerij nostri non ignores. Ita vt sicut nos in interioribus Pastores, restores{que} animarum intelligimur, ita & tu contra omnes aduersitates, ecclesiae Chri∣sti defensor assistas, regni{que} tibi à Deo dati: &c. Take the Crowne of your kingdom, which is put vpon your heade by the handes of bisshops, though vnworthy, in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost. The which Crown you must vnderstand, doth signify the glory ād ho∣nour of Godlynes, and the worke of Fortitude: By this al∣so vnderstād, that you are partakener of our Ministery. So that, as we are knowē to be the pastours and gouerners of mens soules in matters internal, so you also shoulde assiste

as a defendour of the Church of Christ, and of the kingdom geuē to you by God, against al aduersites. You see here M. Horne, that as in the words of king Iosaphat in the old law, and of Cōstantin the first Christiā Emperour, so to this day in the Coronatiō of al Christē Princes there is made a plain distinctiō betwene the Emperours or Princes Office, and the Office, charge and cōmission of a bisshop, cōmissiō I say cōmitted to him not of the Prince, but of God. And dare you then to cōfound thē? Or dare you for shame M. Horne make the world beleue, that Cōstantin bore himselfe for a Supreme Gouernour in al causes ecclesiastical or spiritual, when he him self in plain woordes confesseth, that of spiri∣tual or Ecclesiastical matters the bisshops are of God (not of him) appointed the Rulers and ouerseers, but he hath of God cōmitted vnto him the Charge and rule of those mat∣ters that are out of the Church, that are in dede no Church matters, but matters of policy, matters of ciuil gouerment, matters of this world, and cōcerning this present life only?

M. Horne. The 34. Diuision. Pag. 22. a.

The Ecclesiastical histories make mention of many Synodes or councelles, called or assembled at the appointment and order of this Emperour. But the most famous and notable, vvas the Nicene Councel: about the vvhich, con∣sider and marke, vvhat vvas the occasion, by vvhose authority it vvas sum∣moned and called together, and vvhat vvas the doings of the Emperour from the beginning vnto the dissolution thereof: and yee shal see plainely as in a Glasse, that by the order and practise of the Catholik Church, notified in the order of this general Councel, the (.82) supreme gouernment in Eccle∣siastical causes, is in the Emperor and and ciuil Magistrates, and your (83.) opinion condemned by the vniforme agreement of .318. of the most Catholik Bisshops in the vvorlde, commending, and allovving for most godly, vvhat so euer the Emperour did in, or about this councel. The occasion of this famous and most godly councell, vvas the great dissention kindled, partly about a necessarie Article of our beliefe, partly about a ceremony of the Churche.

Arrius incensed vvith ambitious enuie, against Alexander his bisshop at a∣lexandria, vvho disputed in one of his lessons or treatises, more subtily of the diuinity than aduisedly, as the Emperour layeth to his chardge, quarreled Sophistically against him, and mainteined an horrible Heresis. Besides this, the Churches vvere also diuided amongest themselues, about the order or ce∣remony of keeping the Easterday The Emperour sent Hosius vvith his letters, as I sayd before, into the Easte parties to appeace the furious dissentiō about both these matters, and to reconcile the parties dissenting. But vvhen this duetiful seruice of the Emperour, tooke not that effect vvhich he vvished and hoped for, then as Sozomenus vvriteth, he summoned a councel to be holden at Nice in Bythinia, and vvrote to al the chief Ministers of the Churches eue¦ry vvhere, (.84.) commaunding thē that they should not fayle to bee there at the day appointed. The selfe same also doth Theodoretus affirme, both tou¦ching the occasion, and also the summons made by the Emperour. Eusebius also vvriting the life of Constantine, shevveth vvith vvhat carefulnes, the godly Emperour endeuoured to quenche these fiers. And vvhen the Emperour (saieth Eusebius) savve that be preuailed nothing by sending of Hosius vvith his letters, Considering this matter with him self, said, that this warre against the obscure enemy troubling the Church, must be vanquished by an other (meaning himselfe.) Therefore, as the capitaines of Goddes army, towards his voayge, he gathered together a Synode oecumenical, and he called the Bisshops to∣gether by his honorable letters, and that they should hasten them selues from euery place. These things, touching the occasion and cal••ing of this general counsaile by the Emperour, are affirmed to be true also, by Nicephorus the Ecclesiastical historian. Yea, the vvhole counsaile in their letters, to the ••hurches in Aegipt, and the East partes, doe testifie the same Synode, to be called by the Emperour, saying: The great and ho∣ly Synode, was gathered together at Nice, by the grace of God, and the most religious Emperour Constantine, &c.

Notes

• Athanas. in Apo••. ••
• Aboue 12. hūdret yeares.
• M. Horne clean cō¦trary to the Catho¦like Bis∣shops of the Pri∣mitiue Churche
• Athana∣sius ibidē.
• Athana∣sius ibid.
• Ibidem.
• VVhat maner of Appeale Athana∣sius made to Con∣stantine the Em∣perour.
• Athanas. Apol. 2. pag. 384. Socrates lib. 1. c. 27 Theodor. li. 1. ca. 32
• Vide Apol. 2. Athan. sol. 427. Im••ress. Bas••l. An. 1564.
• Sozom. lib. 3. c. 8. Tripart. li. 4. c. 15. Athanas. Apol. 2. Athanas. in epist. ad solitar. vi∣agentes. pag. 459.
• Athana∣sius and M. Horne of a clean contrary iudge∣ment.
• Athana∣sius vbi supra: pa∣gina eadē Fol. 3 b.
• Athanasi∣us in epist. vt supra pag. 470.
• In decer∣nendo prī∣cipē se fa∣cere episco¦porum: & praesidere iudicijs ec¦clesiasticis
• Socrat. li. •• Cap. 28.
• Socrat. li. 1. cap. 34.
• Theod. lib. 1. cap. 28.
• The 80. vntruth: boldly a∣uouched, but no vvaye proued.
• The 81. vntruth. Socrates belied, as shal ap∣peare.

  In proaem. lib. 5.

  Lib. 1. De vit. Const.
• Socrates •• prooemio lib. ••.
• Art. 4. Fol. 139.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 1. ca. 37. de vita Constant.
• Lib. 4. ca. 24. de vit. Constant.
• Vide Pon∣tificale im¦pressum Ve¦netiis An. 1520.
• The 82. vntruth. That vvil neuer ap∣peare in the order of this Councel.
• The 83. vntruth. Not M. Fekenhā•• but M. Hornes opiniō is cleerelye condem∣ned by the agree¦ment of these 318. Father••.
• Lib. 1. c. 17
• The 84. vntruth There ap¦peareth in Sozo∣mene no such Im∣perial cō∣maunde∣ment, but only that he called them to mete at a day.

  Lib. 1 c. 7. Lib. 3. De vit. Const. Lib. 8. c. 14 Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9.