keth mencion in hys Epistles whiche hee wrote in hys iourney to Rome, going toward his martyrdome, and commended to him the gouernmēt of his church at Antioche, wherby it appeareth that Polycarpus then was in the ministery. Likewise Ireneus writeth of the sayd Polycarpus after this maner. He alwaies taught (said he) those thinges which he learned of the Apostles, leauing them to the church, and are onely true. Whereunto also al the churches that be in Asia, and al they which succeeded after Polycarpus to this daye, beareth wytnes. MarginaliaThe Epistle of Policarpus to the PhilippiansAnd the same Ireneus wytnesseth also that the said Policarpus wrote an Epistle to the Philippians, which whether it be the same that is nowe extent & red in the name of Policarp⁹, it is doubted of some: notw^tstāding in þ^e said epistle diuers things are foūd very wholsome & Apostlelike: as wher he teacheth of Christ, of iudgemēt, and of the resurrection. MarginaliaIustification by fayth.Also he writeth of faith verye worthely, thus declaring that by grace we are saued, & not by workes, but in the wyl of God by Iesus Christ.MarginaliaEx Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20.
Ireneus conuersant with Polycarpus.In Eusebius we reade in like maner a parte of a pistle, written by Ireneus to Florinus, wherein is declared how that the sayde Ireneus being yet young, was with Policarpus in Asia: at what time he saw and wel remembred what Polycarpus did, and the place where he sat teaching, his whole order of lyfe and proportion of his body, with the Sermons and woordes whych he sayd to the people. MarginaliaPolicarpus conuersant with the Apostles.And furthermore, he perfectly remembred how that the said Policarpus often times reported vnto him those things which he learned and heard them speake of the Lorde, hys doinges, power, and doctrine, who heard the woord of life w^t their own eares, al which wer most consonāt & agreable to þ^e holy scripture. Thus w^t much more hath Ireneus, concerning Polycarpus.

MarginaliaThe autoritye of Policarpus in the churches of Asia.Ierome also, writing of the same Policarpus, hath how he was of great estimation through out al Asia, for that he was scholer to the Apostles, and to them which did see and were conuersant with Christ himself, wherby it is to be coniectured his autoritye to be muche, not onely with them of his own church, but with all other churches about him.

MarginaliaPolicarpus cam to Rome.Ouer and besides, it is witnessed by the sayd Ireneus, that Policarpus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus bishop of Rome about the yeare of our Lord. 157. in the raigne of Antoninus Pius, whose cause of his comming thither appeareth to be about þ^e cōtrouersy of Easterday: wherin the Asians and the Romanes somthing disagreed among thē selues. MarginaliaPolicarpus conferreth wyth Anicetus.And therfore the said Policarpus in the behalfe of the brethren and church of Asia, tooke his long iourney thether, to come and confer with Anicetus. MarginaliaTheast churche and Romayne churche, differ about easter dat
Ex Nicepho. lib. 4. cap. 39.Wherof writeth also Nicephorus lib. 4. declaring that Policarpus and Anicetus somthing varied in opinions and iudgemēt about that matter. MarginaliaDifference of ceremonies caused no breache of charitye in the primatiue church.And that notwithstanding yet both friendly communicated either with the other, in so muche that Anicetus in hys church, gaue place to Polycarpus to minister the Communion and Sacrament of the Lordes Supper for honour sake, which may be a notable testimonye nowe to vs, that the doctrine concerning the free vse and liberty of ceremonies, was at that time retayned in the church without any offence of stomacke, or breache of Christian peace in the Church.

This Polycarpus (as is aboue mēcioned) suffred his martyrdome euen in his own church at Smyrna, wher he had labored so many yeares in planting of the Gospel of Christ, which was aboute the yeare of our Lorde 170. as Eusbius reconeth in his Chronicle, & in the. 7. yeare of Antoninus Verus his raigne: MarginaliaSocrates deceiued in hys tripert. hist.wherby it appeareth þ^t Socrates in historia tripartita was much deceued, saying þ^t Policarpus suffered in þ^e time of Gordianus.

¶ To comprehend the names and number of all the Martyrs that suffred in all these. x. persecutions (whichare innumerable) as it is vnpossible, so is it hard in such variety and diuersity of matter, to keepe suche a perfect order and course of yeares and times, that either some be not left out, or that euerye one be reduced into hys right place, especially seing the autors them selues, whō in this present worke we follow, doo diuerslye disagree, both in the times, in the names, and also in the kinde of Martyrdome of them that suffred. MarginaliaDisagremēt in autours touching the liues and times of martyrs.As for example, wher the common reading and opinion of the Churche, and the Epistles decretal do take Anacletus to succede after Clement next before Euaristus: Contrarye Eusebius, lib. 3. et lib. 5. cap. 6. making no mencion of Cletus, but of Anacletus, sayth that Euaristus succeeded next to Clement. Likewise Ruffinus and Epiphanius, speakyng nothing of Anacletus, MarginaliaLinus Bishoppe of Rome
Cletus and Anacletus both one.make mencion of Linus & Cletus, next before Clement, but saye nothing of Anacletus, wherby it maye appeare that Cletus and Anacletus were both one. Sabellicus Enead. 7. lib. 2. speaketh of Linus and of Cletus, and sayth that they were ordayned helpers vnder Peter, while he laboured in his Apostleship abrode, and so sayth also Marianus Scotus. Contrary Irenæus lib. 3. contra hæres. speaketh of Anacletus, making no mencion of Cletus. Wherby it may appeare by the way, what credit is to be geuen to the decretal epistles, whom al the latter histories of the Popes church do follow in this behalfe. &c. Moreouer, wher Antoninus, Vincentius, Iacobus in Supplemēto, Symoneta, Aloysius, with other, declare of Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, Alexander, Bishoppes of Rome, that they died Martyrs. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical history writing of thē, maketh no menciō.

MarginaliaClemēt bishop counted a Martyr.And first as touching Clement (whom Marianus Scotus calleth þ^e first bishop of Rome after Peter) they say that he was sent out in banishment of Traianus, beyonde Ponticus, with. 2000. Christians, wher he opened to them a welspring, which in the wildernes wer condemned to the mynes. Afterward being accused to the Emperour, he was throwne into the sea with a milstone fastened about his necke, and that no longer after hys body was cast vp and buried (as Platina sayth) at the place where the well was made. Some saye it was founde firste in the dayes of Pope Nicolas the firste, fascicul tempor. But forasmuch as I finde of hys martyrdome no firme relation in the auncient autors, MarginaliaThe lyues of Martyrs painted out wyth fayned myracles.but onelye in suche newe writers of later times, which are wont to paynt out the liues and histories of good men, with fayned additions of foreged miracles, therfore I count the same of lesse credite, as I doo also certayne decretall Epistles, vntruly (as may seeme) ascribed and intituled to his name. Eusebius in his third booke, writing of Clemens geueth no more of him, but thus: that after he had gouerned the church of Rome. ix. yeres, the sayd Clement left the succession therof to Euaristus.

MarginaliaEuaristus bishop of Rome MartyrOf which Euaristus next bishop of Rome, thus we finde in Irenæus lib. 3. cap. 3. Peter and Paule (sayth he) committed the charge of that Churche to Linus. After whom came Anacletus, then succeeded Clemens, next to Clemens followed Euaristus, after whom came Alexander, and then Sixtus the sixt bishop of Rome after the Apostles. After Sixtus sat Telesphorus, then Higynus, then Pius, then Anicetus. And when Soter tooke the place after him, then the twelfe bishop of Rome was Eleutherius. Thus after Clement followed (as is sayd) Euaristus in the second or thirde yeare of Traianus, as sayth Eusebius, or as Nicephorus saythe, the fourth yeare of the said Emperour. But howsoeuer the count of the yeares stand, litle or nothing remaineth of the actes and monumentes either of this, or of other byshops of Rome in those dayes. Wherby it may appeare that no great accompt was then made of Romane byshops in those daies, whose actes and dedes wer then either so lightly reputed, or so slenderlye committed to hi-