The progenie of Catholicks and Protestants Whereby on the one side is proued the lineal descent of Catholicks, for the Roman faith and religion, from the holie fathers of the primitiue Church ... and on the other, the neuer-being of Protestants or their nouel sect during al the foresayd time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned hereticks. ...

IT IS CONFESSED BY PROTESTANTS, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught, the Bishop of Rome to Succeed S. Peter in the Primacie of the whole Church. CHAPTER IV.

HAuing hitherto proued the Primacie of S. Peter ouer the whole Church; the next point to be considered, is, whe∣ther the sayd Primacie, not being personally tyed to him, as to dye with him, but rather being to suruiue and con∣tinue in his Successours, to the Churches good, euen to the end of the world; whether, I say, the sayd Primacie, is deriued to the Bishop of Rome, as the Successour of S. Peter. And herein D. Bilson(1) 1.1 confesseth most playnly, and in general, that The Ancient and Learned Fathers, cal the Roman Bishop, Peters Successour. The Centurists(2) 1.2 charge S. Leo, that, He painfully goeth about to proue, that sin∣gular preheminence was giuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacie of the Roman Church. And the like is confessed of S. Leo by D. Raynolds(3) 1.3 who further granteth, that(4) 1.4 The Fathers say, Peter was Bishop of Rome, naming Hierom, Eusebius, Ireneus. And(5) 1.5 D. Cowper calleth Linus, first Bishop of Rome after Peter. Osiander(6) 1.6 speaking of the an∣cient Councel of Sardis decreing Appeales to Rome, professeth to deliuer the then common opinion, and reason therof, saying: It was the ancient, common, and receaued errour, that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, therefore this honour was thought due to the Successour of Peter, according to the common opi∣nion

&c. Bucer(7) 1.7 sayth: We plainly confesse, that among the ancient Fathers, the Roman Church obtayned Primacie aboue others, as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter, and whose Bishops haue almost alwayes been accounted the Successours of Peter. Yea the ancient Fathers were so confident herein, that they taught the Primacie of the Roman Bishop, to be the ordinance of Christ himself, and not anie Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution. So Gelasius (In Decretis cum 70. Episcopis) teaching that, The Roman Church is preferred before the other Churches, not by anie Synodical Constitutions, but hath obtayned the Primacie, by the Euangelical voyce of our Lord saying: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock I wil build my Church. The(8) 1.8 Centurists hereupon inferre, and confesse that, Gelasius contended that the Roman Church, by the law of God, was the First (or Chief) of al Churches. In like sort(9) 1.9 Philippus Nicolai granteth that, Pope Iulius (who liued Anno. 370.) as Socrates and Sozomene relate, sent Letters to the Eastern Churches, in which, as the Letters witnesse, he often declareth the right of calling General Councels, to belong to him alone, who by singular Priui∣ledge, euen by Gods ordinance, is the Prelate of the first Sea &c. to wit, the Roman.

This Diuine ordinance was so beleeued, reuerenced, and obeyed by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, as that, nothing is more manifest in al their writings, or other histories, and Records of Antiquitie, nor more fully ac∣knowledged and disliked by the greatest Enemies therof, the Protestant Writers. And to begin with S. Gregorie, whom M. Bale(10) 1.10 styleth Gregorie the Great, of al the Roman Patriarks, the most excellent in life and learning: This so excellent a Patriark, is charged out of his owne writings by the Centurists,(11) 1.11 with clayme and exercise of Iurisdiction and Primacie, ouer al Churches. Carion(12) 1.12 affirmeth, that, Though he tragically declaymeth himself to abhorre the name of Vniuersal Bishop, yet indeed he sheweth himself earnestly to desire that which the Title importeth. And Peter(13) 1.13 Martyr in this scoffing manner reprehendeth him, saying: This litle Saint Gregorie, would haue the thing it self of Vniuersal Bishop, although he streightned the name and Title: For as the Histories of those times teach, and his owne Epistles witnesse, he did not abstayne from gouer∣ning other Churches.

M. Bale(14) 1.14 acknowledgeth, that, Iohn of Constantinople, contended with Gregorie of Rome, for the Supremacie; in which contention Gregorie layd for himself S. Peters keyes, with manie other sore arguments and reasons. The Protestant Au∣thour (15) of Catholick Traditions reporteth, that Maurice the Emperour would haue taken away the Primacie from Gregorie Bishop of Rome, and giuen it to Iohn Bishop of Constātinople &c. Gregorie did oppose himselfe against him, least he should loose his place, vrging how insolent that Title was. The Centurists(16) 1.15 con∣fesse, that Gregorie, vpon the fourth Penitential Psalme, greatly inueigheth against the Emperour, who challenged to himself the Roman Church, being the Head of al Churches, and would make her a seruant, being the Mistresse of Nations; Christ also saying: I wil giue to thee the Keyes. And,(17) 1.16 Gregorie glorieth that the Emperour, and Eusebius his fellow-Bishop (of Constantinople) do both of them ac∣knowledge, that the Church of Constantinople, is subiect to the Apostolick Sea. Yet the Magdeburgians do further charge S. Gregorie, and by collection out of his

owne writings by them particularly alleadged, that(18) 1.17 He challenged to himself power to command Archbishops, to ordayne or depose Bishops at his plea∣sure: And(19) 1.18 tooke vpon him right to cite Archbishops to declare their cause before him, when they were accused: And also(20) 1.19 to Excommunicate and Depose them: Giuing(21) 1.20 Commission to theyr Neighbour (Bishops) to proceed against them: That(22) 1.21 In theyr Prouinces he placed his Legats to know, and end the causes of such as appealed to the Roman sea: That(23) 1.22 He vsurped power of appoynting Synods in theyr Prouinces(24) 1.23 And required other Archbishops, that if anie cause of greater importance fel out, they should referre the same to him &c. appoynting in Prouinces, his Vicars ouer other Churches to end smaller matters, and to reserue the greater causes to himself.

Caluin,(25) 1.24 auoucheth that, There is no word in the writings of Gregorie wherin more proudly he boasteth of the greatnes of his Primacie, then this, to wit, I know not what Bishop is not subiect to the Apostolick Sea, when he is found faultie &c. He assumeth to himself power to punish those who offend. D. Raynolds findeth no better shift for the foresayd Saying of S. Gregorie, then impudently to say that(26) 1.25 Either Gregorie wrot not so, or he wrot an vntruth, to cheer vp his Subiects(27) 1.26 Osiander acknowledgeth that, Augustin was sent from Gre∣gorie the Great Bishop of Rome, into England, that he might subdue the same to the Iurisdiction of the Roman Bishop(28) 1.27 and to the lust of the Roman Antichrist; for which (sayth Osiander) Austin was after his death vndoubtedly damned to Hel. Yea D. Morton(29) 1.28 a man most sparing to tel the truth, yet yeel∣deth thus far, saying: Whether, or how far, Two hundred yeares after, S. Gregorie did reach his Arme of Iurisdiction beyond the limits of his Diocesse, is a question, by reason of his diuers obscure speeches, and some particular practises, diuersly cen∣sured of our Authours. But besides the cleerest premisses, this Question of D. Morton, is made none by D. Raynodls, teaching, that(30) 1.29 The Primacie which Gregorie, Leo, and others giue to the Sea of Rome, doth so exceed the truth that &c. And(31) 1.30 that Gregorie is somwhat large that way: Yea that he and al the Popes for three hundred yeares before him(32) 1.31 auouch more of their Sea, then is true and right, in the opinion of Protestants: With whom accor∣deth D. Fulk saying: Gregorie(33) 1.32 was a great worker and furtherer of the Sea of Antichrist, and of the mysterie of iniquitie. And(34) 1.33 we go not about to cleer Gregorie from al vsurpation of Iurisdiction, more then to his Sea appertayned. So certayne and out of al question it is, that S. Gregorie the Great, was a true Roman Catholick, in his Doctrine, and practise of the Popes Primacie.

By the premisses then it is euident, that the obiection so much vrged by(35) 1.34 D. Whitaker, D. Fulk, D. Iewel, D. Morton and sundrie other Prote∣stants, from S. Gregorie his reiecting and disliking of the Title of Vniuersal Bishop, is altogeather impertinent; seing S. Gregorie reiected the same in that sense, which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople applyed to himself, to wit, that he was the sole Bishop, and none Bishop but he. A thing so euident, that the Protestant(36) 1.35 Andreas Friccius (whom(37) 1.36 Peter Martyr tearmeth an excellent learned man) in like sort expresseth the same, saying: Some there be &c. that obiect the Authoritie of Gregorie, who sayth, that such a Title per¦tayneth to the Precursour of Antichrist, but the reason of Gregorie is to be knowne, and it may be gathered of his wordes, which he repeateth in manie Epistles, that

the Title of vniuersal Bishop is contrarie to, and doth gainsay, the Grace which is commonly powred vpon al Bishops. He therfore that calleth himself the onlie Bishop, taketh the Bishoplike power from the rest; wherfore this Title he would haue to be reiected &c. But it is neuertheles euident by other places, that Gregorie thought that the charge and Principalitie of the whole Church was committed to Peter &c. And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not, that Peter was the fore∣runner of Antichrist. So plainly doth this Protestant answer this so often vrged obiection from S. Gregorie; and so euident also it is, that S. Gregorie himself claymed and defended the Primacie of the Roman Bishop and Church ouer al other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer. But to arise from S. Gregorie to other Doctours and Fathers more ancient, his next predeces∣sour Pope Pelagius is for the self same cause much reproued by Osiāder(38) 1.37 in these words: Pelagius greatly inueigheth against Iohn of Constantinople, because he assumed to himselfe the Title of Vniuersal Patriarch, and shewed by that prophane Title of Vniuersal, to abolish the name of other Patriarchs &c. But in the meane time he contendeth the Roman Church to be the Head of al other Churches, and he bableth manie things of the Priuiledges giuen by Christ to S. Peter.

The Centurie-writers speaking of the Fathers errours which liued in the fift Age, playnly and at large confesse(39] 1.38 that, In this fift Age the Roman Bishops applyed themselues to get and establish dominion ouer other Churches. So they acknowledge that Pope Celestin (of whom(40) 1.39 D. Whitguift sayth, He was a godly Bishop) gaue priuiledge of vsing the Title of Pope and the Miter to Ciril of Alexandria, whom he had substituted in his place to be President in the Councel of Ephesus. He is also charged by M. Carthwright(41) 1.40 to haue claymed superioritie ouer al Churches, taking vpon him as it were the name of Vniuersal Bishop.(42) 1.41 Osiander affirmeth that, He contended in behalf of the Roman Churches Primacie more impudently then did his Predecessours.(43) 1.42 Ne∣storius (the Heretick) then Bishop of Constantinople, he allotted ten dayes space to repent, which if he did not, he should not only be excommunicated, but (his name) should be blotted out of the Catalogue of Priests. And for the ac∣complishment of the premises, he made Cyril of Alexandria his Legat. The Centurists(44) 1.43 charge the Popes of those times, that, They vsurped to them∣selues power of commanding other Bishops, that whom they would, and should propose in forraine Churches, they might ordayne Bishop, or whom they would not haue, might depose. So Celestin in his Epistle to Cyril of Alexandria, and Iohn of Antioch, and Rufus of Thessalonica, commandeth them, that they designe Proclus Bishop at Constantinople.

D. Raynolds affirmeth, that the(45) 1.44 Popes of the Second Three hundred yeares after Christ, claymed some Soueraintie ouer Bishops. And that(46) 1.45 Sozimus, Boniface, Celestin, did vsurp ouer the churches of Africk, while S. Austine was aliue &c.(47) 1.46 They would haue Bishops and Elders appeale to Rome. And that(48) 1.47 Popes (namely Innocent, Leo, Gelasius, Vigilius, Gregorie) taught that the Fa∣thers 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) 1.48 were learned, and Catholicks, and were(50) 1.49 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) 1.50 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) 1.51 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) 1.52 Beza affirmeth that, It is manifest, that Leo in his Epistles doth cleerly breath-forth the arrogancie of the Antichristian Roman Sea.(54) 1.53 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) 1.54 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) 1.55 D. Whitaker acknowledgeth, that, Leo was a learned and godly Bishop, but yet (sayth he) ouer ambitious. The(57) 1.56 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) 1.57 con∣fesse, that Leo confirmed Maximus Bishop of Antiochia in his Bishoprick: and established to Pro••erius Bishop of Alexandria the ancient rights of that Sea ac∣cording to the Canons and Priuiledges, as is shewed in the 68. and 69. Epistle of Leo. And they affirme(59) 1.58 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 condem∣ned Acatius and Peter, sending letters into the East; And that(60) 1.59 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) 1.60 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) 1.61 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) 1.62 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) 1.63 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) 1.64 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 confes∣sed by the Centurists(69) 1.65 that Leo, verie paynfully goeth about to proue, that sin∣gular 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 char∣geth S. Leo, to haue been(70) 1.66 Peremptorie &c. and ambitious. As for Pope Leo(71) 1.67 (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.) affir∣ming Rome to be the seat of Peter, and the Head of Pastoral Honour ouer the world, is censured for the same by(72) 1.68 Danaeus, to be the Popes flatterer. In like sort, Vincentius aduersus Haer. is charged(73) 1.69 by him, to haue plainly flat∣tered 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) 1.70 Centurists affirme, that Gelasius in his epistle to Faustus, doth impudently lye (affirming) that it is established in the Ca∣nons, 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) 1.71 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) 1.72 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) 1.73 Gelasius held, that Councels are subiect to the Pope, and that al should appeale to him, but none from him.

They(78) 1.74 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) 1.75 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 sauou∣reth 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) 1.76 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) 1.77 D. Whit∣guift 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) 1.78 M. Carthwright, and other Protestant Writers, that the Councel of Chalcedon (whose au∣thoritie is established to our Aduersaries by Act of Parlament, Anno 1. Eli∣sabeth. c. 1.) did offer the name of vniuersal Bishop, to the Bishop of Rome.

And hence it is that the Centurists(83) 1.79 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) 1.80 Who then like∣wise 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) 1.81 That man naturally aduanceth his power, at whose hands he seeketh help: As though Theo∣doret 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 con∣fessed 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 Go∣uernment 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) 1.82 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) 1.83 M. Whiteguift confesseth that, Da∣masus, was a Vertuous, Learned, and Godlie Bishop(88) 1.84 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. Cart∣wright(89) 1.85 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) 1.86 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 Con∣stantinople: In the Reuerence, deare children, which you owe to the Apostolick Sea, you do much for your selues &c.(91) 1.87 M. Symondes acknowledgeth, that Da∣masus 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 autho∣ritie 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) 1.88 Centurists. And M. Bunnie(93) 1.89 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) 1.90 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) 1.91 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) 1.92 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, from a Partie in his owne cause. And M. Carthwright(97) 1.93 auou∣cheth, that Iulius Bishop of Rome at the Councel of Antioch outreached in claiming the hearing of causes, that appertayned not to him. The(98) 1.94 Centurists confesse, that, The Roman Bishops made a Law, that they might command al things first to be written to them, as appeareth by the Epistle of Iulius in Atha∣sius Apologia secunda. For Iulius sayth: Are you ignorant this to be the custome, that first we be written vnto &c.(99) 1.95 M. Symonides testifye••h that, Iulius decreed, that whosoeuer suspected his Iudge, might appeale to the Sea of Rome. In so much that wheras the Arians had expelled Athanasius B••shop of Ale∣xandria, Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and diuers other Catholick Bishops of the East Church, it is(100) 1.96 testifyed, that, Iulius commanded the Arians to come to Rome, and appoynted also a day to Athanasius. Theodoret. l. 2. c. 4. &c. where hearing euerie mans accusations and(101) 1.97 compl••ynt, He restored euerie one of these (wronged Bishops) to his owne place, or Bishoprick; and that not by intreatie, or arbitrably, but, as the(102) 1.98 Centurists confesse, by Prerogatiue of the Roman Sea. Al which might as ye be made much more eui∣dent by Iulius his vndoubted Epistle extant in A••hanasius his second Apolo∣gie, and alledged by the Centurists(103) 1.99 who mention their(104) 1.100 Citation euen vnto Iudgement(105) 1.101 and at a certayne day, and greatly reprehending this(106) 1.102 Saying of Iulius, Are ye ignorant this to be the custome, that first we be written vnto, that from hence that which is right may be defined? &c. for what we haue receaued frō the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify vnto you. To cōclude this of Pope Iulius, Doctour Philippus Nicolai(107) 1.103 auoucheth that, Pope Iulius as Socrates and Sozomene relate, sent letters to the Eastern (Bishops) in which, as the letters witnes, he often affirmeth, the right of calling general Councels by a certain singular Priuiledge, euen by Diuine Precept, to belong to himself alone, who, as he sayth, is the Prelate of the first Sea. He also affirmeth that it no lesse appertayneth vnto him being the Bishop of that Cittie, that he be acquaynted with the affaires of Bishops, and other waightie businesses of that kind. After the same manner and with like ambition Damasus &c. and afterwards Innocentius &c. Thus far the Protestant Philippus. To whom I wil only adde M. Fox confessing that(108) 1.104 The Church of Rome in al those Ages aboue specifyed (from the Apostles) challen∣ged to it self the Title and ring-leading of the whole vniuersal Church on earth, by whose direction al other Churches haue been gouerned. And(109) 1.105 whatsoeuer was

done in other places, cōmonly the manner was to write to the Roman Bishop for his approbation. The testimonie of the Roman Bishop was sometimes wont to be desired in those dayes (of Pope Iulius) for admitting Bishops in other Churches, wherof we haue examples in Socrates l. 4. c. 37. when Bishops of anie other Prouinces were at anie dissension, they appealed to the Bishop of Rome. Neither was this only the priuate opinion of some particuler Popes of those times, but it was the general receaued doctrine of other Bishops and Fathers: In so much as the Councel of Sardis (which M. Bel(110) 1.106 tearmeth The famous and ancient Councel of Sardis) cōsisting of 300. Bishops and aboue, assembled from Spaine(111) 1.107 Frāce, Italie, Greece, AEgipt, Thebais, Palestine, Arabia &c. and most other parts of the Christian world, & wherat sundrie Fathers of the Nicene Coūcel were(112) 1.108 present(113) 1.109 decreed Appeales to the Bishop of Rome: Insomuch as the(114) 1.110 Cen∣turists and(115) 1.111 Osiander do both of them acknowledge and recite this 7. Ca∣non of that Councel: It hath seemed good to vs, that if a Bishop be accused, if the Bishops of the Prouince assembled togeather haue iudged the matter, and haue depri∣ued him, if the Partie depriued do appeale and fly to the Bishop of Rome &c. if the Partie accused desiring his cause to be heard once againe, do intreate the Bishop of Rome to send Legats (à latere suo) from him; it shal be in the power of the Bishop to do as he shal think good &c.(116) 1.112 Tilenus speaking hereof auoucheth that, The Decree of the Coūcel of Sardis of Appealing to Rome, made the Roman Bishop more bould. And in regard of this Decree, this so anciēt a Councel is much reproued(117) 1.113 by Caluin(118) 1.114 Peter Martyr(119) 1.115 Frigiuilleus Gaunius, and(120) 1.116 Osian∣der. But to end this Centurie wherin our first Christian Emperour Constantin the Great liued & ruled. The Protest. writer(121) 1.117 Frigiuilleus Gaunius plainly confesseth, that the sayd Constantin himself attributed Primacie to the Roman (Bishop) before al. & that(122) 1.118 Therby it appeared to be fatal, that Cōstātin would giue power to the Beast, which (Pope) Iulius forthwith put in practise: for Constantin the Great carryed in his Ensignes the Dragon for his Armes &c. so that he was the Dragon Apoc. 13.2.(123) 1.119 Bibliander acknowledgeth, that Constantin the Great raigning &c. Siluester the Bishop of Rome began to lay the foundations of the Papi∣stical Monarchie &c. M. Bale hath almost the same words saying(124) 1.120 In these times (of Cōstantin) Syluester began to lay the foundation of the Popes Monarchie, and finding the key of the depth, he opened the pit, if it be true which Papists write of him. Yea al the Popes after Syluester to Bonif. 3. he tearmeth Mitred Bishops pre∣paring by their Canōs and Decrees the seat for the great Antichrist. The(125) 1.121 Cētu∣rists cōfesse in general, that In this age the Mysterie of iniquitie was not idle(126) 1.122 And that, The Bishop of Rome challenged by Ecclesiastical Canon, the dissallowing of those Synods, wherat they were absent: So cleer it is, that the Fathers, Bishops and Councels of this Age agreed with vs Catholicks in the doctrine & practise of the Popes Primacie. Now as cōcerning the Age next ensuing the 20. yeares after Christ, in which persecution so raged, as the Churches gouernment was thereby much the more obscured▪ yet it is confessed(127) 1.123 that Pope Stephen in this Age (did) threaten Excōmunicatiō to Helenus & Firmilianus, & al (others) throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia, for rebaptizing Hereticks(128) 1.124 yea M. Brightman is of opinion that, scarcely would anie beleeue those proud brags of the Roman Sea, wherwith the Decretal Epistles abound, not to haue been forged by succeding Popes

and so falsely ascribed to the more ancient, they are so impudent and vayne, but that Firmilianus assureth they were theyr owne, at least a great part of them whose names they beare; for speaking of Stephen then Bishop of Rome, who (sayth he) so braggeth of the place of his Bishoprick, and contendeth himself to hold the Succession of Peter, vpon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, and he declareth abundantly how boasting the Bishops then were, amongst the Epistles of Cyprian ep. 75.

The(129) 1.125 Centurists confesse that, Dionysius Bishop of Rome, through the false accusation of some, excommunicated Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria; but Dionysius of Alexandria made his Apologie, and refuted the errours falsely ob∣iected vnto him, as Athanasius reporteth. Hereby appeareth not only the au∣thoritie of the Bishop of Rome in excommunicating, but also the obsequi∣ousnes of the Bishop of Alexandria in not contemning, but making his Apo∣logie vnto him.

They(130) 1.126 likewise reproue S. Cyprian for teaching that, There ought to be one Bishop in the Catholick Church, And, for his calling(131) 1.127 Peters Chayre the principal Church from whence Priestly vnitie ariseth(132) 1.128 M. Trig repre∣hendeth S. Cyprian, saying: Cyprian giueth more priuiledges to the Roman Church; he calleth it the chief Church from whence Priestlie vnitie began &c. And to which infidelitie cannot haue accesse. Wherupon M. Trig thus infer∣reth: Here we may note, what certaintie it is, to build our Faith on the Fathers &c And the(133) 1.129 Centurists charge him, for teaching (say they) without anie foundation of Scripture, that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of al other, for the Mother and root of the Catholick Church. Yea D. Morton(134) 1.130 pro∣fessing willingly to admit S. Cyprians Iudgement as Vmpier in this controuersie, is yet inforced to say: Although the next sentences of S. Cyprian may seem, at their first view, vnto the vnexpert Reader, to obserue in the Church of Rome, both a grace of Impossibilitie of Erring, and also a Prerogatiue of the Mother Church of al others, and are therefore censured by our Centurists for speeches inconuenient: Yet no man exercised and conuersant in his writings, and other Fathers, can be igno∣rant, that such like speeches are but the languages of Rhetorical Amplification, which commonly they vse by way of persuasion, rather then by asseueration.

But what testimonie, though neuer so cleer in anie matter whatsoeuer, may not easily be euaded, if it wil suffice to answer, that it was but the language of Rhetorical Amplification, or demy-lying? Or for what cause should S. Cyprian and other Fathers, vtter the foresayd Sayings, by way of Persuasion, in behalf of the Roman Churches Prerogatiues, if they had thought in their owne Iudgements and Consciences, that the sayd Prero∣gatiues had not been due vnto her? So vndoubted it is, that S. Cyprian and the other Fathers of his Age, beleeued and acknowledged the Pri∣macie of the Roman Church.

But as touching the Age next after the Apostles themselues, wherof as M. Hutton(135) 1.131 obserueth, but few Monuments are now remay∣ning: As then liued Pope Victor, who in D. Whiteguifts(136) 1.132 opinion was a godlie Bishop and Martyr, and the Church at that time in great puritie: And yet of him sayth D. Whitaker(137) 1.133 with D. Fulk, The first that exercised

Iurisdiction vpon forraine Bishops, was Victor: Insomuch as he excommunica∣ting the Bishops of Asia for not obseruing the Feast of Easter-day according to the vse of the Latin Church, D. Fulk(138) 1.134 chargeth him that, He passed the bounds of his authoritie. Amandus Polanus)139) 1.135 accuseth him, to haue shewed a Papal mind and arrogancie. And M. Spark(140) 1.136 affirmeth that, somewhat Pope-like he exceeded his bounds, when he took vpon him to excommunicate the Bishops of the East. Beza(141) 1.137 tearmeth Victor the most foolish and most ambitious Bishop of Rome. And(142) 1.138 Crispinus speaking of this Age, auoucheth, that The Roman Bishops now became more audacious to forge new Ceremonies, yea and to force vpon other Churches &c. Victor in his 2. Decretal calleth himself Archbishop of the Roman and vniuersal Church. D Fulk(143) 1.139 maketh the Mysterie of iniquitie to work in Peters Sea in the times of Anicetus, Victor, and Cornelius. In like sort D. Morton iustifyeth such Protestant Authors as(144) 1.140 reprehend Victor for arrogancie, and transgressing the bounds of his Iurisdiction, in excommunicating the Churches of Asia &c.

The Centurists record, that(145) 1.141 Anacletus in the Epistles which heare his name, in the general regiment of Churches, so loyneth them togeather, that to the Roman Church he attributeth Primacie and excellencie of power ouer al Churches, and ouer the whole flock of the Christian People, and that by the authoritie of Christ saying to Peter: Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock wil I build my Church &c. The Bishop of Rome is placed first, as the supreame Head of the Church: who though he erre, yet wil he not haue him to be iudged of others &c. He sayth also, that certaine Citties receaued Primates from the Blessed Apostles, and from S. Clement &c. He prescribeth that, If greater diffi∣culties arise, or causes fal out among the Bishops and Primates themselues, let them be brought to the Sea Apostolick, if such Appeale be made: for so the Apostles ordayned by the appoyntment of our Sauiour, that the greater and harder questiōs should alwayes be brought to the Apostolick Sea, vpon which Christ built his vniuersal Church. Math. 16. In like sort they say of Xistus, that In his 2, Epistle (he) nameth himself the Bishop of the vniuersal Apostolick Church: And willeth others to appeale to the Apo∣stolick Sea as to the Head. Whereby it is euident that the ancient Popes, Victor, Anacletus, Xistus, and our Gregorie xv. do wholy agree in their due clayme of Primacie. In like māner holie Ireneus, who according to Hamelmanus,(146) 1.142 might yet remember the Apostles owne liuelie preaching, affirming l. 3. c. 3. that, It is necessary that al Churches do accord to the Roman Church, in regard of a more power∣able principalitie, is charged for the same by the Centurists,(147) 1.143 with a corrupt Saying, concerning the Primacie of the Roman Church.

But to arise yet euen to the times of the blessed Apostles themselues: wheras Papias, as appeareth by the testimonie of Ireneus, alleadged by the Centurists,(148) 1.144 liued in the Apostles time &, as D. Fulk(149) 1.145 confesseth, was Schollar to S. Iohn, yet doth M. Midleton(150) 1.146 charge him saying: Papias was the first Father and Founder of Traditions, and Peters Primacie or Romish Episcopa∣litie:(151) 1.147 Bullinger reporteth that, forthwith from the verie times of the Apostles, especially from the gouernment of Constantin the Great (vnder whom some say the first poysen was powred into the Church) the desire of gouerning was often put in practise by certain Roman Bishops &c. D. Downeham(152) 1.148 acknowledgeth, though not the then open Exercise of the (Popes) vniuersal Dominion, yet the priuate Doctrine therof, saying: The Antichrist which is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, was come euen in the Apostles time, although he was not reuealed

by exercising openly a Soueraigne and vniuersal Dominion. M. Midleton(153) 1.149 affir∣meth confidently that, we are sure that the Mysterie of iniquitie did work in Pauls time, and fel not a-sleep so soone as Paul was dead, waking againe six hundred yeares after, when this Mysterie was disclosed &c. And therefore no maruaile though peru∣sing Councels, Fathers, and Stories from the Apostles foreward, we find the print of the Popes feet &c.

But Philippus(154) 1.150 Nicolai vndertaking to speak of the beginning and in∣crease of the Popes Dignitie, auoucheth yet further, that The desire of Primacie was the common Infirmitie of the Apostles,(155) 1.151 and of the first Bishops of the Cittie of Rome. Yea some Protestants doubt not to deriue from S. Peter himself (as being the prognosticon or type therof) the confessed clayme of his Successours the Bishops of Rome, saying to this purpose: It can not be denyed, but that Peter sometimes was subiect to ambition, and desire of Rule &c. By which infirmitie of Peter it was vndoubtedly signifyed, that these Bishops who boasted of Peters succession, were to be subiect to the like, yea to greater ambition by infinit degrees &c. wherfore this so corrupt ambition of Peter, and ignorance and negligence of diuine matters &c. without douht did foreshew, that the Bishop of Rome, in that he wil be the Chief and the Heire of Peters Priuiledges, was to be ignorant and a contemner of heauenlie things, and a louer of human riches, power, and pleasures. And D. Whitaker blusheth not to write, that,(156) 1.152 The mysterie of iniquitie did work in the Sea of Rome in Peters time, and did shew itself in Anicetus, Victor, Cornelius, Sozimus, Bonifacius, Celestinus.

Now if it be true which Caluin affirmeth that,(157) 1.153 It is playne & conspi∣cuous both to learned and vnlearned, that the Kingdome of Christ (by which he meaneth the Protestant Church) was ouerthrowne when the Primacie of the Roman Bishop was erected, then seing the sayd Primacie confessedly began in S. Peter himself, and since hath euer continued in his Successours the Bishops of Rome, it followeth, that therfore the Protestant Church hath been ouer∣throwne and ruinated euer since the time of S. Peter; then which what can be produced more conuincing in proof, that the Protestant Church indeed neuer was? But to conclude this with that Princely testimonie of K. Henrie. Luther(158) 1.154 cannot deny (sayth he) but that al the Church of the faithful acknow∣ledge and reuerence the holie Roman Sea as their Mother and Chief, if they be not debar∣red accesse by distance of places, or by dangers in the Way. And yet if they speak truth, which come hither from India, the verie Indians themselues, distant by so manie parts of the Earth, of the Seas, of the deserts, do yet submit themselues to the Bishop of Rome. Therefore if the Pope hath obtayned, neither by the commandment of God, nor by the assent of men, so great and so vniuersal power, but hath challenged the same to himself by his owne power: Let Luther tel me, when he burst into possession of so great Dominion: Can the beginning of so great power be obscure, especially if it began within the me∣morie of man? but if he say, that it was aboue one or two Ages agoe, let him make vs re∣member the same out of Historie; for otherwise if it be so ancient, that the beginning of so great a matter be blotted out, let him know, that it is prouided by the Lawes, that whose right (or Title) so surpasseth al memorie of men, that it cannot be knowne what beginning it had, it is iudged to haue had a lawful beginning: And it is clearly forbidden by the consent of al Nations, that those things be not changed, which haue long continued without change. So vndoubted it is, that this our Catholick

doctrine of the Bishops of Romes Primacie hath been generally taught and practised time out of mind, euen from S. Peter himself, euen to the end of the Primitiue Church, and euer since: as hath been formerly proued.

To come now to the Gouernment of the Church before Christs time, The Puritans themselues do confesse that,(159) 1.155 The high Priest of the Iewes was typi∣cally and in a figure the supreame Head of the whole Catholick Church, which though (say they) it were visible only in the Prouince and Nation of Iewrie, yet those of other Nations and Countries (as appeareth by the Historie of the Acts, euen though they were Aethiopians) were vnder this High Priest, and acknowledged homage vnto him. So that he was &c. in verie deed an Oecumenical & vniuersal Bishop of the whole world. yea, sayth M. Iacob,(160) 1.156 The Iewish Church vnder the Law was National and only One in the world vnder one high Priest.(161) 1.157 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) 1.158 Crispinus confesseth, that our first Christian Empe∣rour 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) 1.159 Crispinus further acknowledgeth, that, he gaue power vnto Clerks for to appeale from Ciuil Magistrats to Bishops. And others(164) 1.160 grant that, He freed them from al manner of publick duties and burdens. As also that,(165) 1.161 He subdued al Christian Churches to Pope Syluester; And(166) 1.162 Attributed Primacie to the Roman Bishop before al. And such was his respect to Ecclesiastical Gouernours, as that the Centurists(167) 1.163 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 as168) 1.164 Carion repor∣teth, Constantin sate downe on a lower Seat amongst the Bishops. So far was this most renowned and Christian Prince from challenging to himself Supre∣macie in causes Ecclesiastical.

The Centurists(169) 1.165 doe acknowledge and recite Pope Innocentius his Epistle to Arcadius the Emperour and his wife, who were aduerse to Chryso∣stom, 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 con∣trarie to Protestants, (making al Popes for manie hundred yeares past to be Antichrists) it is confessed by D. Whitaker(170) 1.166 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) 1.167 cen∣sure is, that Diuers of the ancient and the chiefest of them imagined fondly of Anti∣christ, as of one singular Person. And as for the time of his coming and conti∣nuance, M. Fox(172) 1.168 acknowledgeth that, Almost al the holie and learned In∣terpreters, doe by a Time, Times, and halfe a Time, vnderstand only Three yeares and a halfe: And(173) 1.169 that this is the consent & opinion of almost al the ancient Fa∣thers. Bullinger(174) 1.170 auoucheth, that, Doubtlesse al Expositours grounding them∣selues 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 An∣tichrists 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) 1.171 Why might not these Fathers be sayd, to haue erred in pre∣fining 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) 1.172 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 pre∣sent 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, Excom∣municate, 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 thēselues. Fiftly, Appeales were made to them from al Christian Kingdomes. Six••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 tra∣duce anie one of those Popes with that fowlest note or stayne of Anti∣christ.

Now the ancient holie Doctours and Bishops which are here acknow∣ledged and reproued for the foresayd seueral poynts and priuiledges of the

Popes Primacie are, Gregorie, Pelagius, Celestin, Leo, Foelix, Gelasius, the Fa∣thers of the Councel of Chalcedon, & of Africk, and the 6. of Carthage, of Sardis: Sixtus, Innocentius, Siricius, Sozimus, Damasus, Iulius, Stephen, Denis, Cyprian, Victor, Anicetus, Cornelius, Ireneus, Papias, Peter, and the other Apostles.

The Protestants producing and reprouing the foresayd Fathers, are the Centurie-writers, Danaeus, Caluin, Bucer, Philippus Nicolai, Peter Martyr, Carion, Bullinger, Melancthon, Osiander, Friccius, Beza, Crispinus, Tilenus, Frigiuilleus Gauuius, Bibliander, Amandus, Polanus, Hamelmannus, Illyricus, Lubbertus, Sarauia, Napper, Mornay, Whitguift, Carthwright, Whitaker, Fulk, Bilson, Trige, Rainolds, Brightman, Bale, Symonides, Bunnie, Spark, Midleton, Fox, Morton and Field: euerie one wherof do cite and reproue some Father or Councel before mentioned, concerning some branch of the Bishop of Romes Primacie.

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  In his true difference &c. part. 1. p. 147.
• (2) 1.2

  Cent. 5. col. 1262.
• (3) 1.3

  In his con∣ference p. 42. 43.
• (4) 1.4

  Conferen∣ce p. 218. 219.
• (5) 1.5

  Chron.
• (6) 1.6

  Cent. 4. p. 294.
• (7) 1.7

  In Prae∣paratorijs ad Concilium.
• (8) 1.8

  Cent. 5. col. 1274.
• (9) 1.9

  De Regno Christi l. 2. p. 149.
• (10) 1.10

  In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 44.
• (11) 1.11

  Cent. 6. col. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430 431. 432. &c.
• (12) 1.12

  Chron. l. 4. p 567 568.
• (13) 1.13

  In Cap. 8. Iudicum. And see the liKe in Philippus Ni∣colai De Regno Christi. l. 2. p. 66.
• (14) 1.14

  In his Image of both Churches fol. 11. See Bullin∣ger in 2. Thess. 2. p. 531. And Melancton in Ep. Ad Rom. p. 405. q. 2. p. 17.
• (16) 1.15

  Cent. 6. col 425
• (17) 1.16

  Cent. 6. col. 425.
• (18) 1.17

  Cent. 6. col. 426.
• (19) 1.18

  Cent. 6. col. 427.
• (20) 1.19

  col. 427.
• (21) 1.20

  col 428
• (22) 1.21

  col. 428. & 401
• (23) 1.22

  col. 428.
• (24) 1.23

  col 429. And see more col. 430. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438.
• (25) 1.24

  Instit. l. 4. c. 7. sec. 12.
• (26) 1.25

  Confe∣rence. p. 547.
• (27) 1.26

  Cent. 6. p. 289. See Phi∣lippus Nicolai de Regno Chri∣sti. li. 2. p. 67. & 351.
• (28) 1.27

  Cent. 6. p. 290.
• (29) 1.28

  Prot. Appeal. l. 1. sec. 28. p. 31.
• (30) 1.29

  Confer. p. 550
• (31) 1.30

  Ibid. p. 545.
• (32) 1.31

  Ib. p. 549
• (33) 1.32

  In 2. Thess. 2.
• (34) 1.33

  In Iohn. 21.
• (35) 1.34

  Contrae Camp. rat. 6. p 97. FulK in his Answer to a Counterf. Cath. Iewel in his Reply. art. 4. p. 225. 226. 227. Mortons Appeal l 1. c. 2. sec. 29. p. 32.
• (36) 1.35

  De Ec∣clesia l. 2. c. 10. p. 570.
• (37) 1.36

  In his com. Places. part. 4. p. 77.
• (38) 1.37

  Cent. 6. p. 242,
• (39] 1.38

  Cent. 5. col. 774.
• (40) 1.39

  In his Defence. p. 588.
• (41) 1.40

  In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 512.
• (42) 1.41

  Cent. 5. col. 1246.
• (43) 1.42

  Cent. 5. col. 1285.
• (44) 1.43

  Cent. 5. col. 778.
• (45) 1.44

  Confe∣rence. p. 457.
• (46) 1.45

  Ib. p. 383.
• (47) 1.46

  Ib. p. 544.
• (48) 1.47

  Ib. p. 550.
• (49) 1.48

  Ibid. p. 540.
• (50) 1.49

  Ibid. p. 552. 554. 555.
• (51) 1.50

  of the Church. l. 5. p. 284.
• (52) 1.51

  Conse∣cration of En∣gli. Bishops p. 115.
• (53) 1.52

  In Con∣fess Geneu. c. 7. sect. 12.
• (54) 1.53

  In his Conference vvith Hart. p. 50.
• (55) 1.54

  De Con∣ciliis contra Bellarm p. 37.
• (56) 1.55

  Ibid. p. 34.
• (57) 1.56

  Cent. 5. col. 1013.
• (58) 1.57

  Cent. 5. col. 778.
• (59) 1.58

  Cent. 5. col. 779.
• (60) 1.59

  Cent. 5. col. 780.
• (61) 1.60

  Cent. 5. col. 779.
• (62) 1.61

  Cent. 5. col. 781.
• (63) 1.62

  Col. 782
• (64) 1.63

  Conf. p. 563.
• (68) 1.64

  Ib. p. 562
• (69) 1.65

  Cent. 5. col. 12. 62.
• (70) 1.66

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 283. 285.
• (71) 1.67

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 294. 295.
• (72) 1.68

  Resp. ad Bellar. par. 1. p. 594.
• (73) 1.69

  Ibid. p. 313.
• (74) 1.70

  Cent. 5. col. 778.
• (75) 1.71

  Cent. 5. col. 780.
• (76) 1.72

  Cent. 5. col. 779.
• (77) 1.73

  Cent. 5. col. 1274. & M. Symondes vpō the Reuel. c. 5. p. 58.
• (78) 1.74

  Cent. 5. col. 778. And Symondes vpon the Re∣uel. p. 57.
• (79) 1.75

  In his Tryal of the Popes Title. p. 117.
• (80) 1.76

  Cent. 5. col. 778.
• (81) 1.77

  In his Def. p. 342.
• (82) 1.78

  In his second Reply. part. 1. p. 510. VVhitguift in his Def. p 344 Sarauia de diuersis gra∣dibus &c. p. 493.
• (83) 1.79

  Cent. 5. col. 774.
• (84) 1.80

  Cent. 5. col. 775.
• (85) 1.81

  Art. 4. Diu. 21.
• (86) 1.82

  Decades in English. on the page next before the first Decade.
• (87) 1.83

  In his Def. &c. p 345
• (88) 1.84

  The Estate of the Church p. 137.
• (89) 1.85

  In his Reply part. 1. p. 502.
• (90) 1.86

  The Estate of the Church p 137.
• (91) 1.87

  Vpon the Reuel. c. 5. p. 54. and See Cent. 4. col. 550
• (92) 1.88

  Cent. 4. col. 1367. & col. 532.
• (93) 1.89

  In his Tryal of the Popes Title. p. 117.
• (94) 1.90

  In his 2. Reply. par. 1. p. 510.
• (95) 1.91

  De Con∣ciliis quest. 2. p. 42. 43. 44.
• (96) 1.92

  Resp. ad Bellarm. part. 1. p. 595.
• (97) 1.93

  In his 2. Reply. part. 1. p. 501.
• (98) 1.94

  Cent. 4. col. 529.
• (99) 1.95

  Vpon the Reuel. c. 5. p. 53. And see Mornay of the Church in English. p. 264.
• (100) 1.96

  Cent. 4. col. 530.
• (101) 1.97

  Cent. 4. col. 550.
• (102) 1.98

  Cent. 4. col. 550. & 530
• (103) 1.99

  Cent. 4. col. 735.
• (104) 1.100

  col 737 & 742.
• (105) 1.101

  col 739. 740.
• (106) 1.102

  col. 529 And see D. field of the Church l 5. p. 178.
• (107) 1.103

  De Re∣gno Christi. l. 2. p. 149.
• (108) 1.104

  Act. Mon. l. 1. p. 1.
• (109) 1.105

  Ibid. p. 8.
• (110) 1.106

  In his Regiment of the Church. p 158.
• (111) 1.107

  Cent. 4. col. 747. & Theodoret. hist. l 2. c. 8.
• (112) 1.108

  Carion in his Chron. p. 282.
• (113) 1.109

  Cent. 4. col. 764.
• (114) 1.110

  Ibid.
• (115) 1.111

  Epitome p. 294.
• (116) 1.112

  Antich. Disp. bipart. p. 31. sect. 103.
• (117) 1.113

  Instit. l. 4. c. 7. sect. 9.
• (118) 1.114

  In his com. places in English. p. 4. p. 39.
• (119) 1.115

  Palma Christiana. p. 30. 122. 124.
• (120) 1.116

  Cent 4. p. 294.
• (121) 1.117

  Palma Christiana p. 35.
• (122) 1.118

  Ibid p. 34.
• (123) 1.119

  Fidelis Relatio &c. p. 19.
• (124) 1.120

  Cent. 1. c. 36.
• (125) 1.121

  Cent. 4. col. 549.
• (126) 1.122

  Cent. 4•• col. 550.
• (127) 1.123

  Cent 3. col. 168.
• (128) 1.124

  Apo∣calypsis &c. c. 7. p. 193,
• (129) 1.125

  Cent. 3. c. 7. col. 168.
• (130) 1.126

  Cent. 3. col. 84.
• (131) 1.127

  Ibid.
• (132) 1.128

  Vpon Iude p. 285.
• (133) 1.129

  Cent. 3. col. 84. And See Brightman in his Apocalyp∣sis in c. 13. p. 343.
• (134) 1.130

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 294. 295.
• (135) 1.131

  In his ansvver to the 2. par. of the Reasons of Refusal to Subscription p. 105.
• (136) 1.132

  In his Defence &c. p. 510.
• (137) 1.133

  Cont. Duraeum l. 7. p. 480. FulK in his Ansvv. to a counterf. Cath. p. 36.
• (138) 1.134

  Ibid.
• )139) 1.135

  In Sillog. Thes. Theol. p. 165
• (140) 1.136

  Against Iohn de Al∣bines in his Answer to the Preface. And see Osiander cent. 2. p. 87. & 96.
• (141) 1.137

  Pref. ad Princip. Condensem. before his Translation of the New Testament.
• (142) 1.138

  Of the state of the Church p. 47
• (143) 1.139

  A∣gainst the Rhem. Test. in 2. Thess. 2. sec. 9. p. 659.
• (144) 1.140

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 300.
• (145) 1.141

  Cent. 2. c. 7. col. 159.
• (146) 1.142

  De Traditioni∣bus col. 528.
• (147) 1.143

  In the Alphabeti∣cal Table of the 2. Cent. at the word, Ireneus.
• (148) 1.144

  Cent. 2 col. 172.
• (149) 1.145

  In his Answ to A Counterf. Cath. p 35.
• (150) 1.146

  Pa∣pisto-Mastix p. 200.
• (151) 1.147

  De Scrip. Auth. l. 2. c. 20. fol. 166.
• (152) 1.148

  An∣tichristi l. 2. c. 8. p. 79.
• (153) 1.149

  Pa∣pisto-mastix. p. 193.
• (154) 1.150

  De Regno Chri∣sti p. 221.
• (155) 1.151

  Catal. Testium ve∣ritatis. Tom. 1. p. 27.
• (156) 1.152

  De Concil. p. 37.
• (157) 1.153

  Resp. ad Sado∣letum.
• (158) 1.154

  In Assertione 7. aduersus Luther. Art. 2.
• (159) 1.155

  Engl. Puritan. p. 16. And Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. p. 235.
• (160) 1.156

  Rea∣sons taken out of Gods word p 5.
• (161) 1.157

  Cent. 4. col. 549. And see Carthwright in Wh••tguift Def. p 700. See Osiand. cent. 4. p. 477. Amā∣dus Polanus Symphonia p 841. & 849.
• (162) 1.158

  Of the Estate of the Churcb p. 99
• (163) 1.159

  Ibid. p. 93 And see the A∣bridgement of Fox his Acts & Mon. p 67.
• (164) 1.160

  In the sayd Abrid∣gement p. 66
• (165) 1.161

  Nap∣per. vpon the Reu••l. p. 145.
• (166) 1.162

  Frigi∣uilleus Gan∣uius in his Palma Christ. p. 35.
• (167) 1.163

  Cent. 4 col. 4••0.
• 168) 1.164

  Chron. p. 274. And Lubbertus de Concilijs.
• (169) 1.165

  Cent. 5. col. 663.
• (170) 1.166

  l. De Antichristo p. 21.
• (171) 1.167

  In his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 508. See Gracerus his Historia Antichristi p. 11.
• (172) 1.168

  In Apoc. c. 12 p. 345.
• (173) 1.169

  In Apoc. c. 13. p. 362.
• (174) 1.170

  In Reuel. c. 11. ser. 46. f. 142
• (175) 1.171

  Prot. Appeal. l 2. p. 144.
• (176) 1.172

  Of the Church. 9. p. 286