same And in order and office he confesseth that all Byshopps of the worlde are equall as Hierome sayeth ad Euagrium and Cyprian De vnitate ecclesâ—e but not in authoritie But seeing he rehearseth the testimonie of Hierome imperfectly I will set it downe at large that you may see whether it will beare his distinction He writeth against a custome of the Church of Rome by which the Deacons were preferred abooue the Priestes whome hee proueth by the Scripture to be equall with Byshoppes excepte onely in ordaining Quid enim facit exempta ordinatione Episcopus c. For what doth a Bishop excepting ordination which a Priest or Elder doth not Neither is it to be thought that there is one church of the city of Rome and an other of the whole worlde Both Fraunce and Britayn Africa and Persia and the East and India all barbarous nations worship one Christ obserue one rule of truth If auctoritie be sought the world is greater then a citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tunis he is of the same worthines of the same Priesthoode Power of riches basenes of pouerty make not the Bishop higher or inferior But they are all successors of the Apostles And lest you should thinke he speaketh onely of equalitie in order office not in authority He doth in an other place shew that the authoritie of euery Priest is equall with euery Bishop by Gods disposition that the excelling of one Bishop aboue other Priests came only by custom In Titum cap. 1. Sieut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subiectos it a Episcopi nouerint se magis consuctudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maieres Therefore as Priestes do know that by custom of the Church they are subiect to him that is set ouer them so let Bishops know that they are greater then Priests rather by custom then by truth of the Lordes appoyntment If the authoritie then iurisdiction of Bishops dependeth vpon custoÌ„ not vpon gods appointment Peter was not by our lords appointmeÌ„t preferred in bishoplik authority before the rest of y e Apostles nor the Bishop of Rome before other Bishops Priestes but only by custom as Hierom saith S. Cyprians wordes also inferre the same Episcopatus vnus est cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Bishops office is one whereof euery man doth partake the Bishops office wholy Now if authoritie iurisdiction doe pertayne to the Bishops office euery Bishop hath it wholy as to follow M. Sanders example whatsoeuer is incident to the nature or kind of a man is equally in euery man But now the greatest matter resteth to proue how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles and that he taketh on him to proue by this reason Peter loued Christ more then all the rest of the Apostles therefore he gaue him greater authoritie in feeding his sheepe then to the rest But I deny the argument For Peter loued Christ more then the rest because Christ had forgiuen him greater sinâ—es then to the rest Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof he required greater diligence in doing his office but gaue him not a greater charge or authoritie Now where M. Sander reasoneth that Peter loued Christ most because Christ first loued him most and Christ loued him most because he would make him gouernour of his Church it is a shamefull petition or begging of that which is in question For the nearest cause of Peters greater loue was the greater mercy which he founde which mercy proceeding from the loue of God as the first infinite cause can haue no higher superior or former cause But Peter in respect of greater loue shewed to him in that greater sinne was forgiuen him was bound to shewe greater loue toward Christ which he required to be shewed in feeding his sheepe yet this proueth not that greater authoritie was giuen him or that he did feede more then all men For S. Paule sayth truly of him selfe I haue labored more then they all 1. Cor. 15. 10. wherby it appeareth that Peter as a man was not equall with Christ in the effect of excellent loue which was in him in comparable And whereas M. Sander talketh so much of his commission of feeding I say these words feede my sheepe c. be not wordes of a newe commission but words of exhortation that he shew exceeding diligence in the commission equally deliuered to all the Apostles As my father hath sent me so I send you Ioan. 20 21. But the auncient fathers expound it so that it might seeme to be a singular commission to Peter It can not be denyed but diuers of the auncient fathers otherwise godly and learned were deceyued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue which appeareth not in the Scriptures but was chalenged by the Bishops of Rome which seemed to haue a shew of some benefit of vnitye to the Church so long as the Empire coÌ„tinued at Rome the Bishops of that â—â—ie retayned the substance of Catholike religion yet did they neuer imagine that such blasphemous tyrannicall authoritie yea such false hereticall doctrine as afterward was mayntayned vnder the preteÌ„ce of that prerogatiue shoulde or ought to haue bene defended thereby But let vs see what M. Sander can saye out of the aunâ—ient writers August in Hom. de past cap. 13. writeth Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe There were many Apostles and it is sayde to one feede my sheepe God forbid there should now lacke good pastors but all good pastors are in one they are one This maketh nothing for Peters authority ouer the rest but only the author supposeth the vnitie of all Pastors to be allegorically signified in that Christ speaketh that to one which is common to all good sheepeheardes namely to feede his sheepe And againe de sanct hom 24 In vno Petro c. The vnitie of all pastors was figured in one Peter So might it wel be without giuing Peter authoritie ouer all Pastors Chrysostom is the next lib. 2. de sacerdotio who sayth that Christ did aske whether Peter loued him not to teache vs y t Peter loued him but to enforme vs quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura howe great care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock Here he would haue vs marke that Chrysostom calleth it a rule gouernment of the flock which Christ intendeth Yea sir we see it very wel but you would make vs blind if we could not see that Chrysostom speaketh not of a general rule graunted to Peter only but of the gouernment of euery Churche by euery Pastor And therefore you daunce naked in a net when you alledge the words following absolutely as though they pertayned to Peter
tyme as many thousands aliue could disproue him for any affection to that heresie whereto the baptisme of Constantine pertayned nothinge in the worlde As for the stones and pillers of marble in which any such matter is grauen bearing the name of his baptistry except Maister Sander could proue that they were sette vppe in his tyme are simple witnesses against the historye of Eusebius which lyued in his tyme. Nether the forged pontificall of Damasus nor the writings of Beda Ado Marianus Gregorius TureneÌ„sis Zonarus Nicephorus late writers following the fable of the Romish Church are of any credit in respect of Eusebius and the eldest writers of the Ecclesiasticall story that agree with Eusebius that he was not baptised many yeares after Syluester was deade And concerning the donation of Constantine it is too absurd for any wise man to defend which hath bene so long before disproued by Laurentius Valla no enemy of the Romish religion although a discouerer of that fable Agayne his forsaking of the citie of Rome and building of Constantinople is as great a fable for although he bewtified Byzantium and made it an imperiall citye as placed conueniently to keepe the Orientall Empire yet he forsooke not Rome but still retayned it as the chiefe see of his Empire so did the Emperours that followed him vntill after it was wasted by the barbarous nations they made lesse accompt of it And therefore although Constans the Nephew of Heraclius could not conueniently remoue thether yet he remoued froÌ„ thence what he thought good by which it appeared he had authoritie in the citie by the prouidence of God and not by chaunce as M. Sander dreameth that he was prohibited by Gods prouidence in respect of the Popes supremacie or els the world should be gouerned by chaunce But leauing Constantinus the father we must come to Constantius his sonne which was an Arrian of whom Athanasius complayneth that he had no reuerence of the Bishop of Rome Ep. ad Solit. vit agen nether considering that it was an Apostolike see nor that Rome was the mother citie of the Romane Empire There were other Apostolikes sees beside Rome and the Christian worlde was larger then the Romane Empire therefore this maketh nothing for the singular prerogatiue of that see But the noble Emperours Gratianus Valentinianus Theodosius made a law lege 1. Cod. de summ trinit That all their people should continue in that religion as the religion which is vsed from S. Peter vnto this day doth declare him to haue deliuered to the Romanes and which it is euident that Bishop Damasus doth follow and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolike holines This law proueth that the Emperours had authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes And that they ioyned the Patriarch of Rome with the Patriarch of Alexandria not because he of Alexandria agreed with him of Rome but because they both agreed with Peter and Peter with Christ. From these Emperours he commeth to Bonifacius who writing to the Emperour Honorius and humbly desiring his ayde to appease the tumults of his Church vseth these wordes Ecclesiae meae cui Deus noster meum sacerdotiuÌ„ vobisres humanas regentibus deputauit cura constringit ne causis eius quamuis adhuc corporis incommoditate detinear propter conuâ—ntus qui à sacerdotibus vniuersis clâ—ricis Christianae plebis perturbationibus agitantur apud aures Christianissimi principis desim The care of my church to which our God hath deputed my priesthood while you gouerne the affayres of men doth bind me that although I am yet withholden by infirmitie of bodye I should not be wanting to the causes thereof in the hearing of a most Christian Prince by reason of the meetings that are held of all the Priestes and the Clergie with the perturbations of the Christian people These words shewe that the Emperour was supreame gouernour in causes Ecclefiastiâ—â—ll for he writeth concerning the election of the Bishop To whom the Emperour answereth making a lawe against the ambitious labouring for succession that if two Bishops should be chosen they should be both banished out of the citie Con. To. 1. dist 97. I haue set downe the wordes at large to shewe the shamefull salsification of M. Sander who setteth them downe absolutely thus Mihi Deus noster mewn sacerdotium vobis res humanas regeÌ„tibus deputauit Our God hath appoynted my priesthood to me whereas you doe gouerne worldly matters As though he had denied to the Emperour all gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes wheÌ„ he flyeth to his authoritie in a cause Ecclesiasticall and doth not onely acknowledge him to be a conseruer of ciuill peace as M. Sander would haue it To Honorius he ioyneth Galla Placidia the Emperesse in her epistle to Theodosius set before the councell of Chalcedon Assirming that Peter ordayned the primacy of the Bishoply office in the see Apostolike Thus wrote the Emperesse or her Secretary and so it was taken in that time The like sayth Valentinianus in his Epistle to Theodosius his father that antiquitie gaue the chiefâ—y of priestly power to the Bishop of the citie of Rome And Martianus with Valentinian confesse that the Synode of Chalcedon inquired of the faith by the authoritie of Leo Bishop of the euerlasting citie of Rome Adde hereunto that the councell it selfe confesseth Act. â— that Leo was ouer them as the head ouer the members All these proue in deede a primacy of the Bishop of Rome acknowledged in those dayes but not such a primacye as is now claymed For the same councell and Emperours decreed that the see of Constantinople in the East should haue the same authoritie that the see of Rome had in the West the title of senioritie onely reserued to the Bishop of Rome Although the Bishop of Rome Leo by letters and his legats in the councell cryed out against it as lowd as they could Cont. Chal act 16. namely Lucentius cryed Sedes Apostolica c The Apostolike sea ought not to be abased in our presence c. but all the synode and the Iudges continued in their decree The saying of Iustinian in cod de summ trinit is examined and aunswered in the 69. article of M. Sanders treatise which is the true Church before his booke of Images as also the sayings of the Bishop of Patara of Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and Gregory Bishop of Rome The report of the councell of Sinuessa is too full of corruption and confusion to be credited for authenticall authoritie And yet it is playne that Marcellinus the Bishop of Rome was conuicted by witnesses to haue committed Idolatry before he confessed the sinne and receiued sentence of condemnation and accursing of the Synode howsoeuer that patche is thrust in after the Actes of the councell prima sedes c. the first see is not iudged of any which in euery counterfait decretall epistle almost must haue a place To proue that Phocas did not first make the see of Rome heade of
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
of equall auctority with the worde of God but in that they agree with the same in condemning the heresies of Arrius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutiches That proude scoffe of Parliament religion bewraieth the stomake of a Vauntparler not the spirit of a diuine or good subiect Popery was also confirmed by Parliament in Queene Maryes time therefore it was Parliament Religion But where as he would compare the laste rablement of Trent in all pointes with those ancient holy Councels he doth euen as much as if he would goe about to proue an Ape to be a man But I may not omit that in shewing the necessitie of the Popes confirmation of Councels out of Annianus Marcellus Lib. 15. Hee helpeth the matter with falsifying the writer sor he deliuereth his wordes thus auctoritate qua potiâ—res aternâ—e â—â—â—â— Episcopi with the authoritie in which the Bishops of the eternall city are better whereas the word is poâ—iuntur by that authoritie which the Bishops of Rome haue or doe enioy But if we shall beleue Marcellinus an heathen writer Liberius Bishop of Rome was of the same mind in condemnation of Athanasius that the rest of the Bishops were which proceeded against him but that he thought it not reason to subscribe to his condemnation before he had seene and heard him For thus Ammon writeth Hunc per subsâ—riptionem abiicere sede sacerdâ—tali parâ—a sentiens câ—eteris iubente principe Liberius monitus perseucranter renitebatur nec visum hominem nec auditum damnare nefas vltimum sâ—epe exclamans apertè sâ—ilicet recalcitrans imperatoris arbitrio Id enim ille Athanasio scmper infesius liâ—et sâ—iret impletum tamen auctoritate qâ—â—a potiuntur aeternâ—e vrbis Episcopi firmari dâ—siderio nitebatâ—r ardente This man speaking of Athanasius condemned before by a Synode of Bishops Liberius being of the same opinion with the rest warned by the Princes commaundement did stiffly refuse by subscription to cast out of his priestly seate crying out often tymes that it was extreme wickednes to condemne a man being nether heard nor seene so openly kicking against the Emperours pleasure Who although he which being alwayes an enemy to Athanasius knew that it was already fulfilled yet he labored with earnest desire to haue it confirmed by the authoritie which the Bishops of the eternall citie haue There can nothing els be gathered of this but that Constantius knowing Athanasius to be depriued by a councell of Bishops of the East would haue Liberius Bishop of Rome to consent to his condemnation because Athanasius was one of the foure Patriarchs was not to be condeÌ„ned but by the rest of the Patriarches Not that it was then thought that all councels were insufficient except they had the Popes confirmation as Bristow doth dreame But Bristow sayth the Protestants regarde no councells because they suffer Lewys Euans in a naughtye booke to cal the councel of Chalcedon a blasphemous proude sacrilegious Antichristian Councell This Lewys Euans while he was a Papist and did write from Louayne in defence of Papistrye was accompted of you a learned man a sober man a godly man but now that God in great mercye hath opened his eyes to see and acknowledge the light of the Gospell you rayle on him and slaunder him at your pleasure For if you had bene able to iustifie your reproche you woulde haue noted in which of his bookes seeinge he hath written many and in what leafe and lyne he had written so vnreuerently of that Councell Howsoeuer it be he is able to aunswer you him selfe Although if he haue erred in the name or iudgement of that councell it were small reason to charge all the Protestantes in England with one priuate mans error The last is that Councells were S. Augustines motiue because he writeth that euen prouinciall Councells must giue place without all doubt to generall Councells De bapt cont Dâ—n lib. 2. cap. 3. but what writeth Augustine immediatly after Ipsáque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod claâ—sum erat cognoscitur quod latebat sine vllo trpo sacrilegae superbiae sine inflata ceruice arrogantiae sâ—ne vlla contentione liutdae inuidiae cum sancta humilitate cum pace Catholica cum charitate Christiana Who knoweth not sayth Augustine That euen generall Councells are often tymes the former corrected by the later when by any tryall of thinges that is opened which before was shutte and that is knowen which before was hidde without any swellinge of sacrilegious pride without any swellinge stubbernes of arrogance without any contention of spightfull enuye with holye humilitie with Catholike peace with christian charitie What saye you Sainct Augustine haue generall Councells often erred that the former were corrected by the later If you mayntayne this saying you shall be no longer of Bristowes religion The 14. motiue is the 26 demaund The fathers Pelagians aliue in Protestants The fathers S. Augustines motiue Protestants be ashamed of their fathers Of what religion and authoritie the fathers were L. Humfries opinion of Iewells chalenge of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the Calender Bristow woulde haue it considered whether euer any Catholike man in matters of fayth did obstinately refuse to beleue the olde fathers consenting in one and agreeing together but onely such as were heretikes I aunswer Bristow playeth the captious and yet foolishe Sophister For in this first demaunde he seemeth to vnderstand all the olde fathers consenting together but in the rest of the chapter he playnely speaketh but of some of the olde writers nowe there is great difference betwene all and some For we denye nothing that all the olde fathers did consent vpon although we denye some thing that some of the olde fathers did allowe For example we denye prayers for the deade which some of the olde writers did allowe But if Bristow woulde breake his heade in peeces with studye he shall neuer be able to proue that all the olde writers did mayntayne prayer for the deade the like I saye of prayer vnto Sainctes and of some prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops of some ceremonies c which being the dregges of a great quantitie of good liquor contayned in the vessells of diuerse of the olde writers and yet of the later sorte of them the Papistes haue onely sucked out letting all the good liquor to runne beside them And like impudent dogges yolpe barke against vs that the fathers are all of their side and contrarye to vs with as good reason as one that hath gotten the excrementes of a man shoulde boast boast that he hath the same man in possession I thinke the reader can not but laughe when he readeth it so often noted by Bristow Pelagians aliue in Protestantes When of all olde heresies we are further from none nor Papistes nearer to any then to the heresie of the Pelagians But why troe ye are Pelagians aliue
t the straungens thereof so long as the trueth of the little flock the falshod of the reuolted multitude are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures The conclusion of all his Preface is that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superfluous Yea verely all Scriptures Doctors and Councelles be needlesse where there is such a person alwaies at hand who cannot erre in any thing that he commandeth men to beleeue or doe And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures doctors couÌ„cels Learning Tounges c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth But what saye you M. Sander did there neuer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre Was that See neuer voyde many dayes many monethes and many yeeres togither And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes who sat in Peters Chaire You will say one of them but which you cannot tell Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar The one cursed the other absolued the one commannded the other forbadde Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire and vnitie thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth and with his glorious appearance and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse for euer and euer Amen The first Chapter THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after him VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope and of S. Peter he sayth we deny all primacie and chiefe gouernment in the Church Wherevpon he rayseth three questions to intreate of Whether it be against the worde of God that there should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe authoritie Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church that we affirme there is a spirituall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ which neuer was giuen to Peter nor to any mortall man Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches there is must be a primacie of order which is temporall according to the disposition of the Church And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime but that he had it not alwayes it appeareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers consent was President and Primate and vpon the controuersie beeing throughly debated pronounced the definitiue sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia Syria and Cilicia was written in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren But concerning S. Peter M. Sander moueth newe questions First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter whiche is a stone or Rock Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise wheÌ„ he chose him to be an Apostle Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke the question is whether Peter himselfe be that Rock vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church or Christ himselfe or the fayth and confession of peter M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists passing ouer the second question that is whether Christe himselfe whom Peter confessed by this rock denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter not barely confirmed but in respect of the promise past the present confession and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection of which foure conditions the Protestantes hee sayth doe lack no lesse then three But what doe the Papists lack when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ the only foundation then the which none other can be layde 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone I wil franckly yeelde vnto him that which he coulde neuer win by force that Christ saying to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building for then hee should put him selfe out of place but one of the prâ—ncipall stones of the foundation euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were for so the holy Ghost speaketh Ephe. 2. vers 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted groweth vnto an holy temple vnto the Lord. Nowe let vs consider whether any singular authority was committed to peter when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea because it was sayd to him alone feede my sheepe and no particular flock named it must needes be ment the whole flocke Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock Christ saide onely to Peter come after me Satan for thou art an offence to me c. Therefore Peter onely was an enemie of Christe If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him let him take the other also Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter 5. Heere is no particular slocke named therefore he meaneth the whole vniuersall flocke But he vrgeth farther that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors But if labouring in preaching the gospel be the feeding of Christes flock not Peter but Paule laboured more then he and all the rest of the Apostles 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe that by thrise confession and iniunction to feede he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship from which he deserued to be depriued M. Sand. liketh not for three causes First he sayth hee had not lost his Apostleship because his fault was not externally proued nor confessed in iudgment nor stubbernly defended c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell had neede of externall proues or a Commissaries court to depriue Peter of his office O blockish reason Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme that hee was altogither excluded from his office by his fault but
that he deserued so to be and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the other Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution if he had lost it is superfluous Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were but at this time especially confirmed as his speciall case required His last reason is that admit Peter had not beene restored before this time yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority then any other Apostle had receued at any time and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes he aunsweareth by distinction forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship and yet Peter was chiefe of tâ—e Apostles and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high â—â—yshop wherein they were all inferiours to him and â—â—ee was their Primate and their heade and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be and in the same respecte is a straunge Logition Fynally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock deny the honor to his successors he will proue that the Byshop of Rome and none other hath all that authoritie which Peter sometime had and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature condition of Antichrist then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe The seconde Chapter THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ though not properly a Lordlynesse or heathenish dominion And in what sort this Eâ—clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmeÌ„t ofseculer princes and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared That there â—as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes The high Priest is preferred before the King by Gods law The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes That Moyses was a Priest THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a ministery or seruice by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion but altogether as vnlike to it as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth That no man properly can tâ—e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ. he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist â—ut also an Anabaptist For the coÌ„mon seruice that we oâ—â—e vnto Christ hindereth not but that a Christian man â—ay be Lord King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar to eche in things that belonged to them that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles like to the princes of the nations Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church some kind of primacy also it is cleerer by the scriptures then that it neede any proofe especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth namely where he citeth this text Feed my sheepe to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion iust measure of victuals in coÌ„uenient time which thing neither Peter did nether was he able to doe And much lesse any man in succession to him which is not equal in gifts with him And therefore the example of a stuarde who may prouide for a competent number of one family is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde beside him that is almightie For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse 23 they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos which hee calleth Exortem quandam eminentem potestatem A certaine peerelesse and highe power And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time c. True Euery seuerall Pastor or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority yet in that he argueth that the like should be in the whole church militant which is in euery parish it is out of all compasse of reason For that which is possible in the one is altogeather impossible in the other And the argument is no better then if we should say there is one steward in euery Colledge or greate house therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world And wheras he would proue his matter good by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles calleth Peter the first it is to childish friuolous For in euery nomber one or other must be the first it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship therefore his primacy was of order not of auctority Nether is he alwaies first named for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is of the dignity of the Apostles Iames is named before Cephas or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem by consent of most auncient writers neither doeth it folow that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi A prince of the people therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people as M. S. seemeth to say neither had Peter by those wordes feede my shope any auctority committed vnto him more then to the rest of the Apostles As for the name of Lord or tearme of dominioÌ„ sometime geueÌ„ by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment we striue not about it so there be no such dominion by him excercised
25. Salomon did the like about the temple He deposed Abiathar the high Priest set Zadoc in his roome 1. Reg. 2. 27. 35. And such are y e examples of all the godly kinges of Iuda which being coÌ„mended in the Scripture are not vncertayne deceitful or vnknown in their circumstances but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters then this text w c he citeth Feede my sheepe to forbid them But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no I answer by propriety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is Neuerthelesse admit Peter to be a sheepeheard and the king to be his sheepe what then forsooth it is against the lawe of nature for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard and the other a sheepe But I aske of him is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard if he doubt Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe If he deny it let the Apostles speake for them selues let euery soule be subiect c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes You may then see what a wise argumeÌ„t he hath made that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor as in other respect he is vnder him M. Sander will goe forward for all this putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required he would not yeeld vnto what could the Emperour doe to him He coulde not excommunicate him And if he imprisoned him or put him to death he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing I might put the like case of his holinesse What if a Christian man should come to him c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe hee might imprison him as Annas did the Apostles hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy and Ananias Paule c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde haue come to the Emperour had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie he being found an heretike to haue condemned him therefore In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius and Donatus and not as Nero with Peter and Paule But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures or the auncient times who can deny but that in a cause of faith in a cause I saye of fayth Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours not Emperours of Bishops And who sayth the contrarye but that in causes of faith the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops and not the Bishops of the Emperour Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religion to doe what he will when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde the knowledge whereof especially in difficult matters he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law although he be bownd to see iustice executed But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop I aunswer if his cryme be apparant euen as Salomon deposed Abiather if it be doubtfull by order of iudgement and tryall according of ciuill Iudges if it be a ciuill cryme and Ecclesiasticall if it be heresie that he is accused of if he can not be condemned vpon iust tryall he is to be absolued if this will not satisfie the king he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy and if he proceede further he exerciseth tyranny And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the importunitie of the Donatists which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops deputed by the Emperour they would neuer be satisfied but still appealed to the Emperour accused the Bishops that were appoynted their Iudges before the earthly king M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently that he calleth Constantine an earthly king and yet he is so blinde that he will not see that the same earthly kinge which assigned those Bishops to be Iudges was still acknowledged of all partes to be the supreame gouernour Ep. 48. But omittinge the wordes of men he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of euery degree of men according to their dignitie And first beginneth with the highe Priest next whom is the whole people thirde the Prince and last of all euery priuate man There is no doubt but the highe Priest as he was an image and figure of Christ was chiefe in dignitie Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince as Aaron was to Moses Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon The like is confessed of euery minister of the Gospell and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt might haue bene spared And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince Abiathar in the temple at the altar in the holiest place and sacrificing was greater then Salomon yet was he iustly deposed by SalomoÌ„ for his treason Maister Sander chargeth vs to affiâ—me that the euill life of a Bishop taketh away his authoritie w c he denieth to be so as long as the Church doth tollerate and permitte them in their places whereupon he concludeth that though the Bishop of Rome haue neuer so much abused his office yet he can not leese his primacye In deede the abuse of the man taketh not away the authoritie of the office but if the office be peruerted from the right vse and degenerated into an heathenish tyrannye as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene many hundreth yeares the name of a Bishop onely and that scarsely remayning we iustly affirme that such dignitie as that sea had by consent of men it hath cleane lost by abuse of their authoritie Moreouer he sayth it hath no coullour of truth that we affirme the Pope to gouerne not as a Pastor but to beare a soueraintie as Princes of the
AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te I wil build my church vpon thee Behold sayth M. Sander the church promised to be built vpon a mortall man If he say true Christ sayth in vaine that flesh and blood made him not Peter But the same Hieronyme interpreteth that power there geuen to Peter to perteyne to euerie Bishop and Priest as much as to Peter And contra Ioninian lib. 1. he writeth At dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolâ—s fiat cuncti â—laues regni caelâ—rum accipiant ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo sâ—lidetur tamen propterea inter duâ—decim vnus eligitur vt capite coÌ„stituto seisinatis tollatur occasio But thou sayest the church is founded vpon Peter although in an other place the same is done vpon al â—â—â—â— Apostles they al receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the strength of the church is grounded equally vpon theÌ„ yet for this cause one is chosen among the twelue that the heade being appoynted occasion of diuision might be taken away You see now that Peter is no more a rock or fundation then the rest neither hath any more auctoritie of the keyes then the rest alâ—hough by his iudgement he was chosen to be the chiefe or first in order to auoyde strife not in dignitie or auctority Chrysostom is cited ex Var. in Math. Hom 27. Princeps c. Peter Prince of the Apostles vpon whome Christ sounded the church a verie immoueable rocke and a strong confession M. Sander woulde haue vs note that Peter is called confession that when he sayth the church is builded vpon faith confession we might vnderstand no mans saith and confession but Peters As though all the Apostles had not the same faith made not the same coÌ„fession But notwithstaÌ„ding that Chrysostom doth ofteÌ„ acknowledge Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles yet he willeth vs to coÌ„sider that his principallity was not of auctority but of order Iam illâ—d considera quà m Petrus agit omma excommuni disâ—ipulorum sententiâ— nihil auctoritate sua nihil cum imperio Now also coÌ„sider this how euen Peter doth all things by the coÌ„mon decree of the disciples nothing by his owne auctority nothing by commaundement Ex. Act. Ho. 3. Also in 2. ad Gal. he doth not only asfirme that Paule was equall in honor with Peter but also that all the rest were of equall dignitie Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod herum vnusquis q parem sortitus sit dignitateÌ„ And now Paule sheweth him selfe equall in honor with the rest neither doth he coÌ„pare him selfe with the rest but euen with the highest himselfe declaring that euery one of theÌ„ hath obteined equal dignity Now followeth Epiphanius in Anchor Ipse dominus c. The Lord himselfe did constitute him chiefe of the Apostles a sure rocke vpon which the church of God is built and the gates of hell shall not preuayle agaâ—nst it now the gates of hell are heresies and auctors of heresies for by all meanes faith in him was established which receaued the keye of heauen That Peter was chiefe of y e Apostles in order we striue not that he was a sure rocke we graunt but that he alone was the rocke of the church we deny The same Epiphanius acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be fellow minister with euery Bishop and no better and therefore setting forth the epistle of Marcellus to Iulius Bishop of Rome he giueth this superscriptioÌ„ Beatissimo coÌ„ministro Iulio Marcellus in Domino gaudium To his most blessed fellow minister Iulius Marcellus wisheth ioy in the Lord. The place of Cyrillus which followeth I haue sette downe and aunswered iu the chapter before After him Theodoretus alleageth Psellus In Petro c. In Peter the prince of the Apostles our Lord in the Gospells hath promised that he will build his Church Damascâ—n and Euthymius later writers are alledged to the like effect all which proue nothing but that Peter is a rocke which we confesse as euery one of the Apostles is TheÌ„ followeth Augustine in his retractations which leaueth it to the choyce of the reader whether he will vnderstand Peter figuring the person of the Church to be the rocke spoken of by Christ or Christ whoÌ„ he coÌ„fessed But that Peter as Bishop of Rome should be the rocke he sayth nothing Againe leauing it to the readers choyse he sheweth he had no such perswasion of the rocke of the Church as M. Sander teacheth After him Prosper Aquitanicus Leo with Gregory two Bishops of Rome say nothing but that Peter was a rocke which we graunt without controuersie Last of all the councell of Chalcedon is cited Act. 3. Petrus Apostolus est petra crepido Ecclesiae Peter the Apostle is a rocke and a shoare of the Churche which M. Sander translateth the toppe of the Church In deede the legats of the Bishop of Rome vttered such words which may be well vnderstoode as all the rest of the fathers that Peter was one of the twelue foundations of the Churche But that the councell acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to haue such authoritie as is pretended appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalcedon councell where notwithstanding the B. of Romes Legats reclaymed Leo him selfe refused to consent yet by the whole councell it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should haue equall authoritie with the Archbishop of Rome in the East onely the title of prioritie or senioritie reserued to the Bishop of Rome To conclude M Iewell sayd truly for all M. Sanders vaine childishinsulting impudent rayling y t no mor tall maÌ„ but Christ only is the rocke foundation of the Church albeit that Peter all the Apostles in respect of their office doctrine were fouÌ„dation stones wheron the Church was builded Iesus Christ being the corner stone and onely one generall foundation The sixt chapter THe diuerse reasoÌ„s which the fathers bring to declare why S. Peter was this rocke do euidently shew that he was most literally this rocke whereupon Christ would build his Church How Peter beareth the person of the Church THat he was a stone or rocke wheron the Church is builded hath bene often graunted but that he onely was such a stone is stil denyed First Basil aduersus Euno lib. 2. is cited with his reason Petrus c. Peter receyued the building of the Church vpon him selfe for the excellencye of his faith I aunswer so did the other Apostles for the excellencye of their fayth for continuance whereof Christ prayed as well as for Peters faith Iohn 17. The 2. Hilarie de trinit lib. 6. sayth Supereminentem c. Peter by confession of his blessed faith deserued an exceding glory And so did the rest of the Apostles by their confession of their
blessed faith obtaine an exceding or passing glory vltra humanae infirmitatis moduÌ„ beyond y e measure of mans infirmitie w c wordes also Hilary hath left you should thinke he preferreth Peter in auctoritie before y e other Apostles For Peters fayth confession he did before interprete to be the rocke of the Church w c because it was common to all the Apostles he maketh their authoritie equall Vos ô sancti beati viri ob sidei vestrae merituns claues regni caelorum sortiti ligandi aique soluendi in caelo in terra ius adepti O you holy and blessed men which for the worthines of your faith haue obtayned the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and haue attayned to auctoritie to bind and loose in heauen and in earth And if you vrge that Peter spake when all the rest helde their peace yet is that primacye but of order not of authoritie for they all beleued as Peter confessed and Peter confessed in the name of all the rest The 3. Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae est vna c. The Churche which is one is founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one which hath receyued the keyes of it This reason sayth he can beare but one such rocke for if there were more rocks at once there should be more churches But it is reason that Cyprian should expound him selfe which by founding meaneth the beginning of the foundation as he sayth de simplicitate pr elat Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum c. The Lorde speaketh to Peter I say to thee sayth he that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuayle against it To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen And to the same after his resurrection he sayth Feede my sheepe And although he giueth to all his Apostles after his resurrection equall power and sayth as my father hath sent me so also doe I sende you receyue the holy Ghost Whose sinnes you forgiue they shall be forgiuen and whose sinnes you retayne they shall be retayned yet that he might shewe the vnitie by his authoritie he disposed the beginning of the same vnitie beginning at one For verely the rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power but the beginning procedeth from vnitie that the Church might be shewed to be one Thus farre Cyprian By which we see that there is but one beginning yet all the Apostles are equall This vnitie of beginning of building Tertullian also lib. de pudic sheweth to haue bene in Peter when he was the first that preached after the ascention of Christ. The 4. Augustine Hom. de pastoribus Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe there were many Apostles and it is say dâ— to one feede my sheepe Here he will haue Peter to represent Christ the onely good shepeheard although the wordes importe no such thing but onely a mystery of vnitie which is but friuolously gathered by the author of that booke or homely vntruly ascubed to S. Augustine where yet he will not haue Peter to be the head but to beare a figure of the body of Christ which is the Church Whereupon his wordes follow soone after Na n ipsum Petrum cui commendauit oues suas quasi alter alteri vnum seâ—um facere volebat vt sic ei oues commendaret vt esset ille caput ille figuram corporis portaret id est Ecclesiae tanquam sâ—onsus sponsa essent duo in carne vna For he would make euen Peter to whome he commended his sheepe as one to another one with him selfe that he might so commend his sheepe to him that he him selfe might be the heade and Peter might beare the figure of his body that is of his Church and so they might be as the bridegrome his spouse two in one flesh These words shew how vaine M. Sanders collection is for Peters headship beside that he citeth the wordes otherwise then they are in the author euen as his note booke serued him The 5. reason is vttered by Hierome aduersus Iouinianum lib. 1. aunswering the obiection of Iouinian and intending to proue that Iohn the virgine was as excellent as Peter the maried man At dicis c. But thou sayst the Church is built vpon Peter Albeit the selfe same thing in another place be done vpon all the Aposiles all doe receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the strength of the Church be grounded equally vpon them yet therefore one is chosen among twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Here he woulde haue three thinges to be noted First that the Church is so built vpon Peter the rocke that in the same place where it is built vpon Peter the like is not done vpon the other Apostles But seeing he him selfe before vrged the future tence I will build this collection is false Christ promiseth that he will builde his Church vpon Peter but when he buildeth he vseth all the Apostles as well as Peter Secondly that the church is equally built vpon all the Apostles therefore not more on Peter then on the rest Thirdly that one is chosen head to auoyde schisme But if all be equall he as keth how one may be head I aunswer euen as the foreman of the Iury in some respectes is chiefe and yet they are all equall But he aunswereth they are equall in authoritie as Apostles but not as Bishops But seeing the office of euery Apostle is aboue the office of euery Bishop it will followe that euery Apostle as Apostle is aboue Peter as Bishop of Rome which were a perilous matter for Maister Sander to admitte Howbeit concerning this distinction of his more is to be sayd in a more proper place In the meane tyme he vrgeth that Peter was chosen of Christ to be heade to auoyde strife and schisme which reason seeing it holdeth alwayes there ought alwayes one heade to be chosen to be a heade and perpetuall rocke by succession I aunswer the reason of auoyding schismes may gayne so much that in euery Church such as the first of the Apostles was such an head for such purpose may be chosen but it will not inforce one heade being a mortall man ouer all the Churche which no one man can keepe in vnitie and how conuenient the headship of the Romish Church is to auoyde schismes let so many schismes as haue bene made euen for the attayning of the same headship beare witnes Whereof one continued 39 yeares As for Leo Bishop of Rome it is well knowen hee was too much addicte to maintaine the dignitie of his Sea and yet he was farre from the tyranny which
of the holy Ghoste and by no ordinary authoritie 17 After the sending of the holy Ghost Peter aboue all the rest firste taught the fayth Chrysostome and Cyrill sayth he did it by the consent of all the rest who all stoode vp togither with him although one spake to auoyde confusion when the Apologie was made to answere the slaunderous scoffers But before that they taught euery one a like 18 The multitude conuerted said to Peter and to the other Apostles but to Peter by name VVhat shall we doe If this proue any thing it proueth the equallitie of the Apostles that hauing heard one man preach they demand not of him alone but of all the rest with him what they shall doe 19 Peter made aunswere for all that they should repent be baptised It was good reason seeing he made the apologie for all 20 Peter did the first miracle after the comming of the holy Ghost and by healing the lames feete shewed mystically that he was the rocke to establishe the feete of other I aunswere Iohn healed him as muche as Peter by Peters owne confession Act. 3. 12. and the lame mans acknowledging the benefit to be receiued equally from both in holding Peter and Iohn 21 Peter cōfessed Christ first not only before priuate mē but at the seate of iudgement Act. 4. It is false that Peter cōfessed Christ first before priuate men and at the seate of iudgement he confesseth equally with Ihon. 22 Peter alone gaue sentence with fullnesse of power vpon Ananias and Saphyra Not by ordinarie power but by speciall reuelation and direction of the holie Ghost whatsoeuer Gregorie a partiall iudge in this case doth gather 23 Peter was so famous aboue the rest that his shadow was sought to heale the diseased This was a singular and personall gift which the Pope hath not therefore it perteineth nothing to him 24 Peter did excommunicate enioyne penance to Symon Magus the first heretike Peter denounced Gods iudgement against him but not by way of excōmunication yet the argumēt is naught as all the rest are though the antecedents were graunted 25 Peter was the first that raised a deade body to life namely Tabitha after Christs ascētiō This is neither proued to be true neither if it were should Peter thereby haue greater auctoritie then his fellow Apostles which likewise raised the dead and peraduenture before Peter although S. Luke make no mention of them 26 Peter had first by vision that the Gentiles were called to beleue in Christ. This is false for Paule had that in vision before him Act. 9. 26. 17. 27 God chose that the Gentiles shoulde first of all heare the worde of the Gospell by Peters mouth and shoulde belecue Actes 15. This is false for Peter sayeth not first of all but of olde tyme. And the Eunuche of AEthiopia was baptised by Philippe before Cornclius of Peter 28 Prayer was made for Peter by the churche which was not so earnestly made for any other Apostle that we read of Their earnest prayer for Peter is set forth to shewe that God at their prayer deliuered Peter not that Peter was thereby shewed to be greater in auctoritie 29 Paule and Barnabas came to Ierusalem to the Apostles to fitch a solution from Peter Act. 15. as Theodoret noteth But S. Luke noteth that they came to all the Apostes and Elders at Ierusalem and not to Peter onely nor for his solution but for the solution of the councell 30 In the councell Act. 15. Peter did not onely speake first but also gaue the determinate sentence Both the partes of this proposition are false for Sainct Luke testifieth there was greate disputation before Saincte Peter spake also Sayncte Iames as President of the councell gaue the definitiue sentence accordinge to whose wordes the synodicall Epistle was written in the name of all the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem 31 Sainct Paule came to Ierusalem to see Peter as Chrysostome sayeth because he was primus first or chiefe But Sainct Paule him selfe affirmeth in the same place and diuerse other that he was equall with Peter and the highest Apostles Galathians 2. 8. 2. Corinthians 12. 11. 32 Peter was either alone or first chiefest in the greatest affaires of the church The greatest affaire of the church was the preaching vnto the Gentils in which Peter was neither alone nor first nor chiefest But Paule chiefest Gal. 2. 33 Peter was sent to Rome to occupie with his chaire the mother church of the Romane prouince and chiefe citie of the worlde and there vanquished Symon Magus the head of heretikes c. All this is vncerteyne being not founde in the Scriptures but those stories which reporte it conuinced by Scriptures to be false in diuerse circumstaunces 34 Peters chaire and succession hath bene acknowledged of all auncient fathers c. Although the see of Rome appoynted for the scate of Antechrist hath of olde bene verie ambitious yet it is a fable that hath bene acknowledged by all auncient fathers to haue the auctoritie which the Bishoppes thereof haue claymed For Irenaeus rebuked Victor for vsurping All the Bishops of Africa in councel withstoode Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius and Caebastinus alleaging for their auctoritie a counterfaite decree of the councell of Nic◠as we haue shewed before in the first treatise the like may be sayed of the councells of Chalcedon of Constantinople the 5. c. which withstoode the Bishoppe of Romes auctoritie in such cases as he pretended prerogatiue To cōclude neither any one nor altogether of these 34. reasons proue Peter to be greater in auctority then the rest of the Apostles and much lesse the Bishoppe of Rome to be greater then Bishops of other seates The tenth Chapter THat the Apostles beside the prerogatiue of their Apostleshippe had also the auctoritie to be particular Bishoppes which thing their name also did signifie in the olde time ALthough the Apostles had all such auctoritie as euerie particular Bishop hath yet had they not two offices but one Apostleship No more then a King although he haue all auctoritie that euerie Constable hath is thereby both a King and a Constable but a King onely Neither doth their staying or as he calleth it residence in some particular citie proue that the Apostles either were or might be Bishops that is geue ouer their generally charge and take vpon them a particular or still reteyning their generall charge to exercise the office of a Bishoppe any longer then vntill the churche was perfectly gathered where they remayned For although the holy Ghost distinguished their vniuersall charge into seuerall partes to auoyde confusion as in making Peter chiefe Apostle of the circumcision and Paule of the Gentiles yet were they not thereby made Bishoppes And although the consent of writers is that Iames was Bishoppe of Ierusalem yet following the course of the Scriptures we must hold that Iamesby decree of the holy Ghost was appoynted to stay there not as a
to the former doctrine of Peters primacie namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade because they were not in dauÌ„ger of error the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring hath continued in Peters successors more then in the successors of all the Apostles Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle that he might confirme his brethren I haue often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter was proper to Peters person therefore can not be drawne to his successors And what madnes is it to defend that the Pope can not erre when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant. But M. Sander concludeth to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship but by the appoyntment and will of Christ Peter was heade to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest is one as a kingdom one by hauing one king in it Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ ouer all his Church to make it one in the holy Scriptures when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely then was not Peter his superiour in any respect That Paule reprehended Peter M. Sander sayth he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship If that be so why may not euery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike If you graunt they may then haue you so many Canones against you as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession But this fault you say with Tertullian was of conuersation not of preaching that Peter might not seeme to haue erred in doctrine Neuertheles it can not be excused but Peter also erred in doctrine Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe or of Christian libertie but of bearing too much with the Iewes in preiudice of the Gentils whom he compelled to Iudaisme in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine which dissimulation he entred not into for any worldely respect but because he was dâ—ceyued in opinion thinking that in that case he ought so to haue done before he being reprehended by Paule sawe the inconuenience and then myldely yelded to the correction But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles seeing Christ had sayde he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser In deedâ— he shewed herein such greatnes as Christ commendeth but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren Cyprian ad Quintum sayth he did not iudge this reprouing of Peter to be an argument against his supremacie but a witnes of his humilitie but he giueth vs this much to vnderstande that if he had chalenged primacie he had taken vpon him arrogantly his wordes are these Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For nether did Peter whome our Lorde chose the first and vpon whome he builded his Church when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward chalenge any thinge insolently or take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the primacie and that he ought rather to haue bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers nether did he despise Paule for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche but he did admitte the counsell of truth The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye De bap cont Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis c. VVe haue learned in the holy Scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence when he vsed to dâ—e otherwise then the truth required about circumâ—sion was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order not of dignitie and authoritie But Gregory much later then Augustiue graunteth to Peter not onely a primacie bâ—t also a maioritie in Ezech. Hâ—m 18. Quatenus c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship should be chiefe also in humilitie And agayne Eâ—ce à minore c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser and he disdayneth not to be reproued Nether doth he call to minde that he first was called to the Apostleship These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise then that he was first called to the Apostleship which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther Zwinglius Caluine c. and their bitter dissentions shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles It is not to be doubted that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues if they come not nearer to them then the Pope and his pompous Clergye let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vpon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized he aunswereth that proueth no more their equalitie then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop to go about busines of the chapter it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the CanoÌ„s But by his fauor where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines to be inferior to the whole chapiter as Peter Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles though the Bishop or Deane in other respects be superior to the Canons and Peter and Iohn were equall to euery one of the Apostles Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vpon a false supposition that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles if they had fallen as Iudas did therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right but by concession election or vsurpation The 12. chapter THat S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the other Apostles is most manifestly seenâ— by his chiefe Bishoply power Howe Christ loued Peter aboue others M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter superior to the Apostles not in their Apostleship but in his Byshoply degree doth yet againe distinguish the order and office of a Byshop from the authoritie and iurisdiction of the
onely Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to euery Priest shewing how careful he ought to be in his office in respect of his high calling the excellent dignitie thereof sayth Etiam ne nune nobisium contendes fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse quiper eam vniuersis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus quuÌ„praesertim ea agas quecuÌ„ Petrus ageret illuÌ„ Christus auctoritate predituÌ„ esse voluit ac reliquos item Apostolos longeÌ„ praecellere Wilt thou then stil contend with vs that this fraude hath not happened well luckely to thee which by it art to be made ouerseer of all the goods of God almightye especially when thou doest those thinges which when Peter did Christ would haue him to be endued with authoritie also farre to excel the other Apostles Here M. Sander wil haue vs note 3. things 1 Peters authoritie 2. passing the Apostles 3. farre passing We marke them all that they are directly ouerthrowing M. Sanders rocke of the popish Churche For they declare that Peter in doing those things was endued with authoritie farre passed the other Apostles euen as euery Priest to whoÌ„ Chrysostom speaketh when he doth the same thinges is endued with the same authoritie farre passeth all other men So that here is none other authority nor excelleÌ„ce of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in executing their charge and was common to all the Apostles when they did the same things that Peter did For Chrysostom proueth to Basil that he did him no hurt when by pollicie he caused him to be called to the ministery against his will seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithfull wise seruaunt and equall in authoritie with Peter if of loue towardes Christ he would diligently feede his flocke So that Leo had no iust cause to saye that in respect of any greater authoritie Peter had a speciall care of feeding the sheepe committed to him but rather in respect that he had greater cause to loue Christ which had so mercifully forgiuen him so shamefull a fall But Arnobius is a lesse partiall witnes then Leo a Bishop of Rome he vpon the Psal. 138. writeth thus Nullus Apostolorum nomen c. None of the Apostles receiued the name of a Pastor For our Lord Iesus Christ alone saide I am the good pastor againe my sheepe follow me Therefore this holy name the power of this name after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting And he that was thryse denyed gaue to his denyer that power which he had alone Arnobius saith he noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a pastor giuen to him by Christ beside S. Peter alone But I demaund of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word euer For he sayth y t Peter had this name after y e resurrection w c none of y e Apostles had before He writeth against the Nouatians w c denied helpe to such as repented after baptisme prouing by exaÌ„ple of Peter that they are to be receyued seeing Christ gaue him greater dignitie after his repentance then he had before his fal But that Peter had greater authoritie theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles he neuer thought or sayde M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tayle In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appeare for thus he writeth Dicis certâ— baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur qui est Episcoporum Episcopus maiâ—r gradus additur ploranti quam sublatus est deneganti Quod vt doceam illud est endo quod nullus ApostoloruÌ„ nomen Pasioris accepit c. In deede thou sayst that such as repent being baptised ought not to be helped Beholde the Apostle repenting is helped which is a Bishop of Bishops and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying Which that I may teach this I shew that none of the Apostles receyued the name of a sheepeheard c. Againe in the ende following the wordes before cited by M. Sander he sayth vt non sâ—lum recuperasse quod amiserat probaretur verum etiam multo amplius poenitendo quam negandâ— perdiderat acquisisse He gaue his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had That he might be proued not onely to haue recouered that which he lost but also to haue gotten much more by repenting then he lost by denying This speaketh Arnobius of the general authoritie which Peter had ouer all the Church as euery Apostle had likewise was a Bishop and ouerseer of Bishops as well as Peter and a Pastor of the vniuersal Church which thing Arnobius neuer did deny These therfore be M. Sanders arguments none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christes resurrection ergo they neuer had it Peter was called to greater dignitie after his fall then he had before ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles Again Peter was a Bishop or an ouerseer of Bishops ergo he was Bishop ouer the Apostles Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first ayd that Peter was euery where ether alone or first And theÌ„ vpon these words Peter doost thou loue me sayth Dominus interrogat c. Our Lord asked net to learne but to teach whoÌ„ he beeing to be lâ—fted vpp into heauen did leaue to vs as the Vicare of his loue For so thou hast â—â— Simon thou sonne of Iohn doest thou lâ—ue me Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee Iesus sayth to him feede my lambes Peter being priuy of a good conscience doth testifie his owne affection not taken for the time but already well knowen to God For who else were able to professe this thing of him selfe Aâ—d because he alone amongst all professeth he is preferred before all M. Sander omitteth the conclusion Maior enim omnibus charitas For the greatest of all is Chariâ—ie So Peter is heereby declared to haue the greateste loue but not to haue the greatest authoritie M. Sander vrgeth that he is the Vicar of Christes loue and pastorall office The one indeede Ambrose sayth the other Sander sayeth but is not able to proue no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose that Peter had committed to him to feede not onely the Lambes with milke as at the first nor yet the little sheepe as at the seconde time but the sheepe to the end that he beeing more perfect might gouerne the more perfecte For euery one of the Apostles hadde the same charge to feede the sheepe of Christe and not the Lambes or little sheepe onely Neither doth the woorde of gouernment helpe him For euery Apostle had the like gouernment ouer the whole flock w c Peter hath and there is an ordinary gouernment in euery particular church 1. Co. 12. w c
The church which is one was founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one which receaued the keyes thereof And againe de simplicitat praelat Quamsis c. Although Christ after his resurrection geueth equall power to all his Apostles and sayth as my father sent me so do I send you receaue the holy Ghost If you remit to any man his sinnes they shal be remitted And if you râ—teine them they shal be reteined yet that he might shew the vnitie he disposed by his auctoritie the originall of that vnitie beginning of one But Cyprian proceedeth Hoc erant c. Vere by the rest of the Apostles were the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowshippe both of honor and of power but the beginning proceedeth from vnitie that the church might be shewed to be one These wordes are playne to declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth no inequalitie of the Apostles in respect of any auctoritie they had Also that the building of the church vpon one and the receauing of the keyes of one was not an ordinarie office to discende by succession but a singular priuiledge for that one tyme to shewe the beginning and not the continuaunce of the power to proceede from one but to be helde alwayes of one which is Iesus Christ without any shadowes of one Bishoppe on earth to signifie the same when Christ is reuealed with open face vnto vs nowe sitting in heauen 2. Cor. 3. 18. The like thing teacheth Optatus lib. 2. de schism Vt in â—na c. That in one chaire in which Peter sate vnity might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles shoulde euerie one challenge a chaire to him selfe so that he shoulde nowe be a schismatike and a sinner that agaynst a singular chaire should place an other Therfore in that one chaire which is chiefe in giftes Peter sate first His meaning is to defende the vnitie of the churche against the Donatistes but of the auctoritie of Peters chaire ouer all other Bishoppes chaires if he had spoken any thing M. Sander would not haue concealed it which doth vs great wrong to thinke that we can not distinguishe a chaire of vnitie from a chaire of auctoritie The place of Hierom cont Iouin lib. 1. hath bene aunswered once or twise shewing that among the Apostles which were equall Peter was chosen to be primate to auoide contention which was a primacy of order and not of auctority As for the collection of Lco Bishoppe of Rome that Peters primacy was a platforme for other Bishops to vnderstaÌ„d that they must haue a Bishop ouer them if the very Apostles had an head among them sauoreth of the ambition incident to that see which was appoynted to be the seate of Antichrist Although neither Leo him selfe challeÌ„ged so much as the Pope doth nowe neither the Bishops of his time would yeeld vnto him in so muche as he challenged For beside the whole generall councel of Chalcedon that concluded against him about the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople wherein they made him equall with the Bishoppe of Rome the title of seniority onely reserued it appeareth by his Epistles that many Bishops acknowledged not such primacy ouer them as he claimed whereof he complameth in diuerse of his Epistles The place of Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 3. that heresies haue sprong because one Iudge is not acknowledged in steâ—de of Christ for the time to whom the whole brotherhood might obey He can not deny but it is ment of Cyprian of one Iudge in euery diocesse But he reasoneth a fortiori that there ought to be much rather one Iudge ouer all the world Howbeit I haue shewed the in consequence of this argument by example of one Phisitian one Schoolemaister one Iudge in temporall matters ouer the whole worlde to whom it is as impossible to discharge suche an office ouer all as it is profitable for one suche to be in euerie towne He sayth that particular flockes are voluntarie and likewise particular pastors but one flocke and one pastor is of absolute necessitie on earth In deede the limites of particular flockes and the persons of particular pastors are left to the appoyntment and choise of the church But that there should be particular flockes and pastors it is of Gods ordination though God by his Apostles appoynted it to be so yet is it of as absolute necessity while the church is dispersed in diuerse places of the world as that there is one flocke and one shepheard ouer all Iesus Christ and yet he is not ashamed to challenge vs pag. 298. Let the text be named where Christ did institute many parishes Whereas he him selfe pag. 294. quoteth Tit. 1. Act. 14. which places proue that Christ did institute many parishes except he will say the Apostles did it without the institution of Christ which he confesseth they did not without the speciall inspiration of the holy Ghost or else will say that the inspiration of the holy Ghost in the ordinaunce of many parishes differeth from the institution of Christ. But he that wrangleth thus impudently and vnreasonably agaâ—nst the playne institution of many parishes by Christ bringeth a playne text where it is sayd Feede me sheepe to one pastor Hath this man any foreheade thinke you that calleth this a playne text to proue that there shoulde be one sheepehearde vpon earth ouer all the flocke because Christ vpon speciall occasion exhorted one man to feede his flocke Are all thinges that were spoken to him singular vnto him Christ sayd to him and to none other of the Apostles come after me Satan thou art an offense to me for thou sauerest not the thinges that are of God but of men Christ sayed to Peter and to none other put vp thy sworde into thy scaberd Christ sayed to Peter and to none other thou wilt denye me thrise O paynted rocke of the Popishe Churche that hathe no better grounde then this saying feede my sheepe when he that challengeth auctoritie hereby of all other feedeth least and poysoneth most But let vs returne and see what auctoritie of olde fathers he hath to proue one pastorall preheminence ouer all the churche Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 8. Deus vnus est Christus vnus vna ecclesia Cathedra vna super petram Domini voce fundata There is one God and one Christ and one churche and one chaire founded vpon Peter by our Lordes voyce Heare I say first of all that he doth falsifie Sainct Cyprians wordes turning peâ—ram into petrum so that his saying is There is one chaire by our Lordes voyce founded on the rocke An other altar or a new Priesthoode can not be appointed beside one altar and one Priesthoode Whosoeuer gathereth elsewhere scattereth abroad c. But if the worde were petrum and not petram yet the whole discourse of that Epistle sheweth that Cyptian meaneth by these wordes to set forth not the past orall preheminence of one man ouer the whole church but one
out of the counterfait Egesippus of Simon Magus flying in the ayer the Emperour Nero his great delight in his sorcerye The credit of Egesippus he desendeth by blaming his translatour for adding names of cities which had none such when Egesippus liued But that Simon Magus shewed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero as this counterfait Egesippus reporteth it is plaine by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. natur Histor. who shewing how desirous Nero was and what meanes he had to haue triall thereof yet neuer could come by any It was a practise of old time to fayne such fables for loue of the Apostles as Tertullian witnesseth de baptis of a Priest of Asia that was conuicted confessed that he fained for the loue of Paule a writing vnto Tecla in which many absurd things were contayned Againe so many Apocriphall gospells epistles itineraryes and passions as are counterfaited vnder the name of Apostles and auncient fathers who knoweth not to be fables and false inuentions Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death he preuenteth the objection because he continued not his storye so farre which doubt sayth he he woulde not haue omitted if he had gone so farre foâ—ward in his story But seeing he brought Paule to Rome both in his iorney and in his history why maketh he no mention of Peters being there which if their story were true must haue sit there twenty yeares before To omit therefore the foure causes why Peter should dye at Rome whereof three are taken out of a counterfait August de sa ctis hom 27. the 4. out of Leo Gregory Bishops of Rome he commeth to decyde the controuersie betwene the Greekes Latines who was first successor of Peter Linus or Clemens taking parte with them that affirme Clemens although Irenaeus the most auncient writer of any that is extant name Linus who was not a Grecian farre of but a Frenchmam at Lyons neare hand to Italy whose authority although he reiect in naming Linus to be ordayned Bishop by both the Apostles yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Churche of Rome Maximam antiquissimam c. The greatest and the most auncient knowen to all men founded and setled by two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule And agayne Adhanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church by reason of the mightier principalitie euery Church that is the faithful that are euery where must needes agree But he proceedeth and sheweth the cause why In qua semper ab hys qui sunt vndique conserâ—ata est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio In which alwayes that tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies kept of them that are round about M. Sander calleth it willful ignorance in M. Iewel that sayth the mightier principalitie spoken of in Irenaeus is ment of the ciuill dominion and Romane Empire whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation that it was the greatest and the most auncient the greatest he sayth because it was fownded by Peter the greatest Apostle but so sayth not Irenaeus for he sayth it was founded by two most glorious Apostles and not by Peter alone It was then greatest because the greatest number of Christians were in Rome as the greatest citie But howe is it the most auncient but in respect of Peters senioritie for otherwise Ierusalem and Antioche were auncienter in tyme. I aunswer two wayes first it is sophisticall to vrge the superlatiue degree grammatically as when we saye potentissimo principi to the most mightye prince doctissimo viro to the best learned man c. We doe not meane that no Prince is equall or superiour in power nor that no maÌ„ is equall or superiour in learning to him whome we so commende but to shewe the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great Secondly I aunswer that Irenaeus speaketh coniunctly it is sophisticall to vnderstande seuerally He saith there is no Church of such greatnes so auncient and so well knowen as the Church of Rome From this blinde collection out of Irenaeus he commeth downe groping to Cyprian who speaking of certayne factious heretikes that sayled from Carthage to Rome to complayne of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Afrike to Pope Cornelius Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent ad Petri c. They dare cary letters from schâ—smaticall and prophane men vnto the chayer of Peter and the principall Churche from whence the priestly vnitie beganne Nether consider that they are Romanes whose fayth is pray sed by the report of the Apostle vnto whom falshod can haue none accesse In this saying we must note the priuiledges of S. Peters supremacie to be at Rome 1. This is S. Peters chayer that is his ordinary power of teaching c. Nay rather the Bishops seate which he and Paule did set vp there as Irenaeus sheweth li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the Apostles Nay rather because it is the greatest Church being gathered in the greatest citie of the world as IrenÄ™us also calleth it 3. The priestly vnitie beganne not in Rome but in Peter therefore there is the whole authoritie of Peter The argument is nought the beginning of vnitie proueth not authoritie 4. this worde vnitie doth import that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe sheepeheard so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power This argument is of small importance for nether had Peter alone such power nor any of his successors 5. where he sayth infidelitie can haue no accesse to the Romanes what other thinge is it then to saye in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed Luc. 22. Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles and of all his Disciples to the ende of the worlde Ioan. 17. Beside this Maister Sander translateth perfidia which signifieth falshood or false dealing infidelitie secondly that which Cyprian sayth of all the faythfull Romanes he draweth to his Pope thirdly where Cyprian sheweth howe longe they shall continue without falshoode namely so long as they retayne the fayth praysed by the Apostle he maketh it perpetuall to the sea of Rome whereas the Romanes them selues write to Cyprian of those prayses of the Apostle quarum laudum gloriae degenerem fuisse maximum crimen est Of which prayses and glorye to be growne out of kinde it is the greatest cryme Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Churche of Rome coulde not erre he woulde neuer haue mayntayned an opinion against them as he did in rebaptisinge them that were baptised by heretikes The 6. We must adde heareto that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem the mother roote of the Catholike church lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there we find that Cyprian his fellowes exhorted all such troublesome
persons as went ouer sea caried false tales Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matriceÌ„ radiâ—em agnoscerent tenerent that they woulde acknowledg holde the mother and roote of the Catholike Church by which wordes they disswaded them from ioygninge with schismatikes who being condemned in one Church would gad vp and downe for absolution in an other The 7. did not S. Cyp. confesse Cornelius to haue receiued the appellation of Rasilides lawfully out of Spaineâ— li. 1 Ep. 4 There is no word of any such confession or appellation in that epistle But rather if you suppose an appellation a restitution by the Byshop of Rome Cyprian 36. bishops with him determine the same restitution to be voide of none effect Neque rescindere ordinationem iâ—re perfectam potest quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta conscientiam propria confessione nudatam Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit vt ambiret reponi se miustè in episcopatum de quo fucrat iustè depositus Haec eò pertinent vt Basilidis non tam abolita sint quam cumulata delicta vt ad superiora peccata eius etiam fallaciae circumuentionis crimen accesseris Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptuÌ„ quam hic execraÌ„dus qui fraudulenter obrepsit Obrepere auteÌ„ hominibus Basilides potuit Deo noÌ„ potest cuÌ„ scriptâ— sit Deus non irridetur Neither can it make frustrate the ordination lawfully made y Basilides after his crimes were detected his coÌ„scieÌ„ce opened by his owne confession going to Rome hath deceiued our fellow bishop Stephan being farre of ignoraÌ„t of â— matter of â— truth â— he might aÌ„bitiously seeke to be vniustlye restored into his bishoprick froÌ„ wÌ„ he was iustly deposed These things tend to this ende that the offences of Basilides are not so much abolished as increased so that to his former sinnes the cryme of deceifulnesse and circumuention is added For neither is he so much to be blamed who was negligently deceiued as he is to bee abhorred which did craftely deceiue him But if Basilides could deceiue men he coulde not deceiue God seeing it is written God is not mocked Heere is no lawefull appellation spoken of but the Bishope of Romes sentence pronounced voyde and he blamed for his negligence and rashnesse to medle with matters whereof he coulde haue no knowledge by meanes of distance of place But if M. San. reply that he is not reproued for taking such appellations he must heare what Cyprian sayth of such appellations which began to be vsed in his daies vnto Cornelius B. of Rome immediatly after the woordes cyted by him lib. 1 epi. 3. of those schismatikes that were so bolde as to sayle to Rome and carry letters as aboue Quae autem causa veniendi pseudoepiscopum contra episcopos factum nunciandi Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt in suo scelere perseuerant aut si displicet recedunt sciunt quo reuertantur Nam cum statutuÌ„ sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter iustuÌ„ vt vniusâ—uiusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat vnusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet vtique eos quibus presumus non circumcâ—rsare nec episcoporum concordiam coherentem sua subdola fallaci â—emeritate collidere Sed agere illic causam suam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint nisi paucit desperatis perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum qui iam de illis iudicauerunt eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctaÌ„ iudicij sui nuper grauitate damnaruÌ„t But what cause had they to come and to report that a false Byshop was made against the Byshops For either that which they haue done pleaseth them they continew in their wickednesse or if it displease theÌ„ and they goe back from it they knowe whether they shoulde returne For wheras it is decreed of vs all is also meete and right that euery mans cause should be hard there where the crime was committed and a portion of the flocke is committo euery Pastor which euery one ought to rule and gouerne as he that shall yeelde an account of his doings to the Lord verily it behoueth them ouer whome wee haue rule not to runne about neither by their craftie deceitful rashnes to crase the concord of Byshops agreing togither but there to plead their matter wher they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crime except the authoryty of the Byshops ordeined in Africa seemeth to a few desperate and wicked fellowes to bee lesse which haue already iudged of them and condemned their consciences bounde with the waight of their iudgement in many cordes of their offences This place of Cyprian declareth not onely that the Byshopps of Africa had decreede against such appellations but also that they thought theyr authoritie nothing inferior to the Byshops of Italy nor to the byshop of Rome him self The 8. note out of Cyprian is That he required Stephanus the Pope to depose Marcianus the Byshop of Arles in Fraunce which to dee in an other prouince is a signe that the Pope of Rome is aboue other Bishops If it were true that M. Sander sheweth it might proue the Bishop of Rome to be a Primate or Metropolitane it coulde not proue him to be a Byshop ouer all the world But it is vtterly false that he saith Cyprian required the Pope Stephan to depose him for he was deposed by the iudgement of all the Byshops of the Weste Churche Ab vâ—iuersis sacerdotibus iudicatus condemned of all the Priestes onely hee exhorteth Stephan of Rome which was negligeÌ„t in this behalfe to ioyne with the reste of the Byshoppes of Fraunce in ordering of another Byshopp in his steade who long since hath beene excommunicated and deposed from his place for taking parte with Nouatiane the Heretike And lest you should think the whole mâ—tter to be referred to the Byshop of Rome these are is words in the same Epistle li 3. Ep. 13. Id circo enim frater charissime copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresâ—m facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentauerit subueniant caeteri quasi pastores vtiles misericordes oues dominicas in gregem colâ—igant For therfore most welbeloued brother the bodie or fellowshippe of priestes is plentifull beeing coupled togither by the Glewe of mutuall concorde and the bande of Amitie so that if any of our company shall assay to make an heresie or to rente or waste the flocke of Christ the reste should giue ayde and as profitable and mercifull shepheards
his time of whom he saith Qui noster est socius which is our fellow In this sentence Optatus laboreth to proue against the Donatists which were scismatikes that ther is but one Catholike church froÌ„ which they were departed He vseth the argumeÌ„t of vnitie commended in Peters chaire whom he calleth head of the Apostles in respecte of vnitie not of authority which appeareth by this that in the end he accounteth Syricius bishop of Rome and Peters successor not head of all Churches nor vniuersall Bishop of al Bishops but Socius noster our fellowe or companion as one consenting with him in the vnitie of that Church which was first planted by the Apostles and not as a generall gouernor of the vniuersall Church of Christe Wherefore although Optatus doe more theÌ„ was necessary vrge this argument of the vnitie of Peters Chaire yet his meanining was not to set foorth an vnrepr ouable authoritie thereof such as the Pope nowe challengeth but onely to make it tbe beginning of vnitie At length he commeth to S. Hierome in an Epistle to Damasus out of whiche he gathereth diuers sentences Mâ—hi cathedram c. I thought it beste to aske councel of the Chaire of Peter of the saith praysed by the mouth of the Apostle I speake with the successor of a fisher and with a difciple of the crosse I following none first but Christe am ioyned in communion with thy blessednesse that is with the Chaire of Peter Vpon that Rocke I knowe the Church to be builded VVhosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is vnholy If any man lâ—e out of the Arke of Noe during the time of the Floude hee shall perishe I knowe not Vâ—atis I despise Melitius I haue no acquaintance with Paulinus whosoeuer doth not gather with thee he doth scatter abrode that is he that is not of Christe is of Antichriste The conclusion openeth all the matter as longe as Damasus Byshop of Rome gathereth with Christe that is mayntameth true doctrine Hierome will gather with him who professed before that he woulde followe none as first but Christe For he woulde not haue gathered with Liberius Byshoppe of Rome whome hee confesseth to haue subscrybed to the Arians that were Hereukes in Catal. Script ecclesi What mockery is it then to drawe the commendations of a good Catholike Byshop maintaining true Doctrine to euery Byshoppe sitting in that seate agreeing neither in doctrine nor manners with that Christian predecessor Augustine must succeede Hierome who in his 166. Epistle giueth vs this rule Caelestis magister c. The Heauenly maister maketh the people secure concerning euil ouerseers lest for their sakes the Chaire of healthfuâ—l doctrine shoulde be sorsaken in whiche Chaire euill men are euer constrayned to say good thinges for the thinges whiche they speake are not their owne But they are the thinges of God Heere sayeth Maister Sander wee haue a Chaire of healthfull doctrine and that is afterwarde called the Chaire of vnitie therefore it is not the Chayre of euery Byshop which are many and of which many haue beene Heretikes but the only chayre of the bishop of Rome in which Chaire the Pope be he neuer so euill is constrayned to say good thinges and cannot erre But seeing I haue often proued that many Byshops sitting in that Chayre of Rome haue spoken euill thinges and were fylthy Heretikes it followeth that this is not a wodden Chayre that Augustine speaketh of but the Chayre of true doctrine such as the Chayre of Moses was in which not onely Aaron and his successors but euen the Scrybes and Pharisees did sit hauing the authoritie of Moses while they vttered nothing but that which God deliuered by Moses But when they preached false doctrine they did not sit in the chaire of Moses but in the chayre of pestilence as the Pope all other heretikes doe He talketh much of vnitie in S Peter in his chaire seaâ—e and succession as though any of these were worth a straw without vnitie in S. Peters doctrine which was the doctrine of Christ. But Sainct Augustine Contr epist fundament confesseth that the successioÌ„ of priestes from Saint Peter vnto this present time stayed him in the Catholike Church It is true he confesseth that this succession amonge many thinges was one that stayed him And yet he acknowledgeth that the manifest trueth Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneâ—r is to be preferred before all thinges by which I am stayed in the Catholike Church namely before antiquitie consent of nations miracles succession of Byshops and the name of Catholikes Likewise rehearsing the same things in a manner against the Donatistes which Maister Sander hath not omitted Epist. 165. Hee sayeth Quamuis non tam de istis documentis presumanus quam de Scripturis sanctis Although we presume not so much of these documents as of the holy spriptures Wherefore as the argument of sucessioÌ„ was wel vsed against heretikes so long as there was succession of doctrine with succession of persons so now to alleadge the onely succession of persons where the doctrin is cleane changed is as folish ridiculous as by shewing of emptie dishes to proue abundance of victuals or showing vessels ful of filthy waters to proue that they are full of good wine because meate of olde time hath beene serued in such dishes and wine preserued in such vessels But if the authoritie of one man as Saint Augustine was seeme little M. San. bringeth the two councels gatheredin Africa Numidia against the PelagiaÌ„s which sent their decrees to the Sea of Rome That the authori-of the Apostolâ—ke Sea might be giuen to them Epi. 19. if they required the B. of Rome to agree with theÌ„ in the truth what pretogâ—tiue of supremacie do they grauÌ„t vnto him Nay rather they do pâ—iuâ—ly reprehend him that he had so long suffred the Pelagian poyson to be spread vnder his nose in Europe and the doctriue neither called to examination nor confuted yea rather seemed to coÌ„sent to the den of the bishops of the East that Pelagius was iustly absolued But Pope Innocentius himselfe praiseth them Ep 91. that they had kept the customs of the olde tradition in referring the matter to his Sea and sayth That the sathers not by humaine but by diuine sentence haue decreed that what soeuer was done in the prouinces a farre of they should not account it before to be ended except it came to the knhwledge of this sea where whatsoeuer had beene iustly pronounced should be coufirmed by the authoritie of this sea and those other churches should take it as it were waters which should flow from their owne natiue fountain We know the ambitious Ep. of Innocentius if it be not counterfeted because many patches therof are found in other decretal epistles but we deny that y e authoritie which he pretended was acknowledged by these two councels yes saith M. S. the fathers of the Mileuitan councel say
Arbitramur c. VVe think these men that haue so pernitious and froward opinions will giue plaâ—e more easily to the authority of your holines beeing taken out of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our lord Iesus Christ which â—ouchâ—â—feth to rule you when you consult to heare you wheÌ„ you pray by these words they shew that they hope y e here tikes being reproued by the B. of Rome out of the woâ—d of God wil the rather giue place w t out imagining that the B. of Romes authoritie is so stablished by the scriptures that whatsoeuer he decre coÌ„trary to thescriptures the same should be imbraced But a farther confirmatioÌ„ of the epistle of Innoce he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith Pope Innocent did write an answere to the Bishops in althings as it became the prelate of the Apostolike sea But these words neither proue that epistle to be written by Innocent nor if it were do allowe his pretended auth ority because that was no matter whereof they required his answere But to put it out of dout Both these Councels haue decreed against the vsurpation of the Romish sea As the councel Mileuitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa vnder paine of excommunication The laste authoritie cited out of Augustine is Epistle 162. speaking of the Churche of Rome In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus In which alwayes the principalitie of the Apostolike chaire hath flourished A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine aduanced the Church in wealth dignitie esteemed the church of Rome as the principall Sea in dignitie but not in absolute authoritie such as in processe of time the Byshops of Rome claymed and vsurped For euen the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yeelde to the Bishop of Rome clayming by a counterfaire Canon of the Councell of Nice to haue authortie to receaue appeales out of Africa Epi. con Aphr. ad Bonifac whiche they couâ—pte an intollerable pride and presumption and in Epist. cont Aphri ad Coelestiâ—â—m fumosum typum seculi A smokey pride of the worlde which the Pope claymed and an absurde authoritie that one maÌ„ should be better able to examine such causes then so many Byshops of the prouince where the controuersie began and by the olde Cannons shoulde be ended To Augustine he ioyneth Prosper Bishop of RhegiuÌ„ in Italie which affirmeth in lib de ingrat that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius which Rome being made head vnto the worlde of pastorall honor holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it doth not possesse by warre And againe Rome through the primacie of the Apostolike Priesthoode is made greater by the castell of religion then by the throne of power First how vntruly he boasteth that the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the heresie of Pelagius you may ease y see by that the councel of Africa did before condemne it had somwhat a doe to perswade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it Whereby you see that Prosper was ouer partiall to the see of Rome to whome yet he ascribeth a principallity or primacy of honor not of power or auctority The testimonies of Leo Gregory Bâ—shops of Rome as alwaies so now I deeme to be vnmeete to be heard in their owne cause though otherwise they were not the worst men yet great furtherers of the auctoritie of Antichrist which soone after their dayes tooke possessioÌ„ of the chaire which they had helped to prepare for him The last testimonie out of Beda which liued vnder the tyranny of Antichrist I will not stande vpon M. Sander may haue great store of such late writers to affirme the Popes supremacie The 16. Chapter THat the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke theÌ„ selues to be the supreame heads of the church in spirituall causes but gaue that honor to Bishops Priests most specially to the sea of Rome for S. Peters sake as well before as after the time of Phocas A Priest is aboue the Emperour in Ecclesiastical causes The othe of the royal supremacy is intollerable Constantine was baptised at Rome Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches COncerning the supremacy of our soueraigne which this traiterous Papist doth so maliciously disdaine although it be expounded sufficiently by her Maiestie in her iniunction not to be suche as he most slaunderously doth deforme it yet I will here as I haue done diuerse times before in aunswere to these Papistes professe that we ascribe no supremacie to our Prince but such as the worde of God alloweth in the godly Kinges of the old Testament and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperours and Princes vnder the new Testament First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power in any Ecclesiasticall causes suche as the Pope challengeth but subiect vnto the rules of Gods worde Secondly we ascribe no supremacie of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince but affirme that she is to learne of the Bishops and teachers of the church both in matters of faith and of the gouernment of the church Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings that the Prince should presume to preach to minister the Sacramentes to excommunicate c. which perteine not to her office But the supremacie we admit in Ecclesiasticall causes is auctoritie ouer all persons to coÌ„maund and by lawes to prouide that all matters Ecclesiasticall may be ordered and executed according to the word of God And such is the true meaning of the othe that he calleth blasphemous and intollerable And as for examples of honor geuen to the Bishoppes by Christian Princes which he bringeth forth they deny not this supremacy nor make any thing against it The first is of the Emperour Philippus counted of some for the first Christian Emperor although it be not like to be true yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so This Prince without due repentance offered him selfe to receaue the holy misteries being refused by the Bishop of the place tooke it pacieÌ„tly submitted him selfe to the discipline order of y e church I answer this example toucheth not the auctority he had in ecclesiasticall causes For in receauing of the Sacramentes the Prince differeth not from a priuate person But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument called a dilemma If the Priest in these causes be superior to y t Emperor other causes be greater or lesser then these If they be greater the Emperour which is not supreame gouernor ouer the lesser causes can not be in the greater if they be lesser then the Priest w c gouerneth the Emperor in greater causes must nedes gouern him in lesser causes These hornes are easily auoyded not by distinctioÌ„ of the causes but of the gouernments The gouernment of
all Churches when the history is plaine he did M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledgged before which acknowledged a certaine primacie of the see of Rome And certaine it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas tyme affected a great primacie which of many was acknowledged but yet neuer absolutely neuer without coÌ„trouersie vntil Phocas for a great summe of money receyued of Boniface the thirde strake the stroke and made the decree for which in all popish writers he is highly praised although in the Greeke church his decree was not long obserued Touching the examples of Emperours and Princes of later times although I could shewe they haue often resisted the Pope yet I know many may be alledged that haue submitted them selues to his Antichristian tyranny which I will not staÌ„d to examine because they can be no preiudice to the truth approued by examples of the eldest age As for the history of Lucius king of Britayne that sent to Eleutherius for preachers if it were true it maketh nothinge for the supremacy of the romish Bishop I will therefore conclude this chapter with a saying of Socrates in proe lib. 5. to shew what authoritie he iudged them perours to haue in Ecclesiasticall matters Etipsos quidem Imperatores hac historia continua complectimur prâ—pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt res Ecclesiasticae pendent maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia congregatae sunt congregantur And in this continuall history we comprehend the Emperours them selues because that vpon them since they began to be Christians the matters of the Church depend and the greatest synods haue bene gathered are gathered by their authoritie The punishment he threatâ—eth to them that forsake the Church of Rome shal one day fall vpon them that take part with â— Church of Rome as in part it doth already The 17. chapter THeir doctâ—ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be Aâ—â—ichrist him selfe is confuted by the auctoritie of Gods worde and by the consent of auncient fathers VVhy Antichrist is permitted to come AFter he hath shewed his opinion what maner a one Antechrist shalbe alleaged â—â—â—â— cause of his coÌ„ming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men haue not receaued the loue of the truth that they might be saued God shal sende theÌ„ the working of error y t they may beleue lying c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants for that they can find no place to setle Antichrist in but in the see of Rome so beautified dignified by Christ and all the primitiue Church But seeing Antichrist is appoynted to sit in the temple of God which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer it is no meruayle if Satan haue thrust him into that see which of olde tyme was accompted the toppe and castell of all religion But let vs see his reasons taken out of Gods word by which it is proued that the Pope can not be Antichrist him selfe The first is because in S. Paule he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man of sinne which signifieth one singular man and not a number of men in succession and this is affirmed to be the Greeke article in this worde man by Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how frendly Cyrillus was deceaued you shall see by some examples euen out of the new Testament In S. Mathew cap. 12. 35. you haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart and an euill man out of the euil treasure of his heart bringeth c. where no one singular man is ment In S. Mark cap. 2. verse 27. The Sabboth was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man not man for the Sabboth In S. Luke cap. 4. verse 4. Not with breade onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man shall liue but by euery woorde of God S. Paule 2. Tim. 3. ver 17. That the man of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be perfect and prepared to euery good woorke These places and an hundreth more which might bee brought doe proue howe vaine the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke article Nether is Hierom or any of the auncient writers to be heard without authoritie of the Scripture which supposed that Antichrist should be one man Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man as Christ was Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. sayth we must not thinke that Antichrist should be a Deuill but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell This proueth not that he should be a singular man no more then the fourth beast which signifieth the RomaÌ„e Empire out of which he should rise should be one singular Emperour No more doth it proue that because Antiochus was a figure of him he must be but one man And as litle that Ambrose in 2. The. 2 sayth Satan shall appeare in homine in a man which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince and last Antichrist meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last may agree to a whole succession of men in one state as well as the wordes king and beaste to a whole succession of Emperours in Daniel To conclude there is not one whome he nameth that denyeth Antichrist to be a whole succession of meÌ„ in one state of deuilish gouernment And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Romane kingdom lib. 5. The second argument is that Antichrist is called the aduersary therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ denying Iesus Christ to be God and man or to be our Mediatour I aunswer the Pope doth so denying the office of Christ although with the deuills he confesse in wordes Iesus to be the holy one of God and to be Christ the sonne of God Marke 1. 24. Luke 4. 41. his diuinitie the Pope denieth by denying his onely power in sauing his wisedom in his word to be onely sufficient his goodnes in the vertue of his death to take away both payne and guylt of sinne which he arrogateth to him selfe by his blasphemous pardons Christes humanitie he denyeth by his transsubstantiation his mediation in which he is principally Christ he denyeth by so many meanes of saluation as he maketh beside Christ videlicet mans merits ceremonies inuented by man pardons a newe sacrifice of the Masse c. The third argumeÌ„t is that Antichrist shall not come before the Romane Empire be cleane taken away For that which Saint Paule sayth ye knowe what withholdeth c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Romane Empire yet following the olde writers that so vnderstood it I say the Romane Empire was remoued before Antichrist the Pope was throughly enstalled For beside that the see of the Empire was remoued from Rome the gouernment it selfe was in a manner cleane remoued the title of the Romane Emperour onely remayning at last an
naming of all his progenitors from Adam vnto his time so there is no doubt but the Church hath had a perpetuall succession in the world from y e beginning thereof vntil this day although she can not name a particular succession of persons in any one place for all ages that are past But euen as by the Scriptures we are taught that Adam is our naturall father although we can not name all our auÌ„cestors that haue bene betwene vs and him right so by the Scriptures we are taught that the Church is our heauenly mother although we can not frame such tables of succession as the Papistes require vs to shew which they can not performe them selues For although they can name a number of Bishops whereof some haue taught at Rome some haue sitten and slept in their chayer at Rome and some at Auynion some haue played the deuill therein an hundreth of the last being no more like to a score of the firste in doctrine and life then God whose children the first were is like the deuill whose derlings the last were yet what is this to shewe a succession of their Church And howe doth this proue them to be the true Churche can not the Churche of Constantinople and other Churches in Greece doe the like vnto this daye Yet doe the Papistes count all them for heretikes and scismatikes Whatsoeuer therefore Optatus Hierom Augustine Tertullian or any other haue written of succession of Bishops in the Apostolike sees they meane so large and so farre forth as they continue in succession of Apostolike doctrine Otherwise woulde not Hierom haue embraced Arrianisme because it was receyued by Liberius who sate in the Apostolike see of Rome and coulde name his predecessors from Peter Nor Optatus haue receyued Eutychianisme because it was defended by Dioscorus which satte in the Euangelisticall see of Alexandria and coulde name his predecessors from S. Marke the disciple of S. Peter Nether woulde Augustine haue consented to Arrianisme because it was mayntayned by Eulalius and Euzoius Bishops of the Apostolike see of Antioche althoughe they were able to shewe their succession by many Bishops euen vnto S. Peter him selfe who planted his chayer at Antioche by all Papistes confession seuen yeares before he came to Rome You see therefore howe farre the motiue of succession may drawe or driue any man to haue regard vnto it euen as long as there is succession of doctrine as well as of place and person and not longer nor further The 23. motiue is the 44. demaund Apostolike Church The Communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians Apostolike Church is the Romane Church Apostolike Church as the Romane is S. Augustines motiue Succession of the Bishops of Rome the motiue of Optatus S. Augustine and S. Irenaeus This motiue in effect is all one with the former and in a maner so confessed by Bristow him selfe But thus he takâ—th his principle of their singing in the Masse our saying in the communion of the creede in which we confesse that we beleue one onely Catholike and Apostolike Church This one Catholike Church sayth Bristow is our Church that is Apostolike because it agreeth with the faith of the Church of Rome which is the sea of an Apostle holding on to this day by succession and to which was written an Epistle by an Apostle I aunswer it is not the popish Romane Church because that Church is departed from the vniuersal Church of Christ planted by the Apostles through out the worlde and holdeth not on in succession of the doctrine of the Apostle which did write that epistle to the Romanes But Bristowes wise reasoning is to be noted S. Peter was an Apostle That is true he was the first Bishop of Rome It is a great doubt whether he euer came at Rome and it is out of doubt by the Scriptures that he taried not there so longe as the histories affirme and last it is false that he was a Bishop of a particular Church which was an Apostle ouer all the world and specially ouer the circumcision There is a citye in the worlde named Rome And that citye by the Scripture is the seat of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. vers 18. S. Paules epistle to the Romaines is extant and euen that epistle will proue the Church of Rome at this day to be not apostolicall but apostatical as in many articles so in the article of iustification Rom. 3. vers 28. Are not those causes why a Church is called Apostolike sayth Bristow No verily but onely because it holdeth and mayntayneth the Apostolike doctrine which if it doe in all necessary articles then is it Apostolike hath succession and plantation of the Apostles or els not although it be gathered in such cities in which the Apostles haue preached planted and to whome they haue written But Tertullian doth so define Apostolike Churches sayth Bristow I say it is vntrue for Tertullian against newe heretikes sendeth vs not to the emptye chayres of the Apostles which had written to such cities but vnto the the testimony of their doctrine receyued from the Apostles and continued vntill that time So he sendeth them that are in Achaia to Corinthe such as are in Macedonia to Philippi those that are in Asia to Ephesus them which be neare Italy to Rome from whence they of Africa had their authoritie not by excellency of that Church aboue other Apostolike Churches but by nearenes of place Therfore he saith Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es à Macedonia habes Philippos Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adieceris habes Romam vnde nobis quaeque auctoritas presto est statuta Is Achaia nearest vnto thee thou hast Corinthe If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi If thou canst goe into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thoulye neare to Italy thou hast the Church of Rome from whence vnto vs also in Africa authoritie is setled nearer at hand Tertul de praeser But Bristow sayth that the auncient fathers when there were many Apostolike Churches standing they did principally and singularly direct men alwayes to the Church of Rome This you see to be false by the place of Tertullian last ciâ—ed But that they did more often direct men to the testimony of the Church of Rome it was for that by meanes of the Imperiall citie it was more notorious and best knowne Otherwise it is a very lye of Bristow where he sayth that when the fathers name the Apostolike church they do meane the Romane church by excellency as the Poet signifieth Vergil and the Philosopher Aristotle A like lye it is that no Church remayneth in the world founded by any of the Apostles but onely Rome For many Churches remayne to this day that were planted by the Apostle Paule who from Hierusalem to Illyricum filled all the contryes with the doctrine of the Gospell of which
Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word Which because the Papists dare not atteÌ„pt Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation priuiledge of the sayd libell to shew a bad shift better then none at all why they wil not answere it For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing we require no approbation nor priuiledge dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it haue approbation priuiledge The 29. motiue Protestantes them selues take thinges vpon our churches credit The churches auctority S. Augustines motiue VVhat Sor. pture the Protestants deny Although we did receaue such things as he reherseth vpon their churches credit it followeth not that theirs is the true church for we receaue nothing from them without dew exammation The Scriptures we receaue not vpon the only credit of the Popish church but vpon the credit of y e vniuersall church of Christ. The creedes articles of doctrine tearmes of person trinitie consubstantiality Sacraments c. we receaue because they be consonant to the Scriptures not because the church of Rome tellâ—th â—s they be true As for the auctoritie of the church which he sayth was S. Augustines motiue to beleue the Gospell was not a single or sole motiue but a commotiue or an argument that with other argumeÌ„ts did moue him for the sayth not moueret but commoueret and so it is with vs. Prouided alwayes that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholike or vniuersall church VVhat then sayth Bristow was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine ment or can you hold laughter when the question is asked No verily for when the Protestants church that it is now so called in this age like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustines time is a member of the Catholike vniuersall church of Christ and so proued by the holy Scriptures it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an hereticall assembly departed from the vniuersall church long since Augustines departure out of this life But Bristow will proue that the church at whose commanndement Augustine beleued the Gospell was not the ProtestaÌ„ts church because that church commaunded him to beleue the bookes of Toby Iudith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees to be canonicallscripture which the church of Protestantes doth denye But what it Augustine were deceiued to thinke he hearde the voice of the Catholike church when he did not shall the Protestantes churche be condemned S. Hierome who if the church of Rome were the Catholike church was more like to heare her voice because he was a Priest of the church of Rome telleth vs a cleane contrary tale For thus he writeth In praefat in Prouerbia Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam Therfore as the Church in deade readeth the bookes of Iudith and Tobias and of the Macchabees but yet she receiueth them not among the Canonicall scriptures so she may reade these two Bookes speaking of the booke of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the common people but not for confirming the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall doctrine Doth the Church of Protestants iudge otherwise of these Bookes then that Church which thus instructed Hierome What then I must say as Bristowe doth S. Hierome and the Catholike Church in his time of our Religion The Church of Rome now is of an other iudgement then the Church of Rome was then ergo it is not now that it was then But whereas Bristowe chargeth vs to to deny or at least to leaue indifferent the Canticles of Salomon The Epistle to the Hebrues The Epistles of Saint Iames S Peter S. Iohn Sainct Iude with the Apocalips it is a diuelish slaunder as God knoweth and the woâ—ld can beare vs witnesse The 30. Motiue is the 36. and 37. demaÅd Storehouse of the Scriptures Tht Iewes Religion chaunged into ours by Christ. The Churches learning and wisdome The Church store S. Irenaeus motiue Bristowe demaundeth whether the Popish Church receiuing the Scriptures of the olde and newe Testament from Christ hath not kept them faithfully without adding minishing or corrupting I aunswere no for the Popish church receiueth none of Christ but the catholike church of Christ. Againe the popish Church hath added whole bokes to the canon which the chuch of the Iewes neuer receiued nor the vniuersall Church of Christ. But those Bokes saith Bristow hath the Protestants church robbed vs of w c are allowed by approued Councels You heard in the last motiue Hieromes iudgement of those bookes whervnto agreeth the couÌ„cel of Laodiâ—ea cap. 59. Augustine receiueth the boks of Macchabees but with condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Augâ— consec â—pist Gaudent cap. 13. Last of al the popish church either of fraud or negligence hath corrupted an exceeding great number of textes of the scripture in her vulgar latine translation w c she receueth as only authentical The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied For wheras the trueth is Ipsum contret caput â—â—â—â— the same seede shall broose thine head the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman Gen 3. Wheras he saith the Protestants church for this 100. yeeres as we coÌ„fesse our selues occupyed no bible nor had any thing to do with the scriptures he lieth out of al measure for the church of Christ hath alwaies had the scriptures in euery nation where it was it had theÌ„ in their mother toung How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchmeÌ„t 3 or 4. hundreth yeeres past in the English toung beside other in the Saxon language The like are to be proued to haue ben in al places where the Churches were gathered as in France Italy Bohemia c. Finally whatsoeuer he bableth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures trueth the like may be said of the greke Church which they coÌ„demne as schismaticall hereticall therefore this storehouse is no Motiue to proue the Romish Sinagogue to be the church of God In the 37. demaund he asketh whether as wel Protestants as other doe not condemne the old writers errors other heresies of Heretiks which made great shew of scriptures by the rule of y e popish churchs faith I answere the Protestants out of the scriptures do can disproue such shew of scriptures made by maisters of error are no more moued by the popish churches authoritie then the Apostles were moued by authoritie of the Iewish Synagogue to reproue all the grosse Idolatrie and snperstition of the Gentiles Therfore the popish Church is not Depositorium Diues that rich storehouse of trueth which was S. Ireneus motiue The 31. motiue is the 41. demaund Sending and teaching of all diuine
Neither doe we beleue that the papists haue any such what iugling or counterfaiting of miracles soeuer is among them their forgery hath to often beene tryed to their shame To conclude our Church hath Christ and his spirit and therefore all graces blessings whatsoeuer Christ hath promised to be perpetuall in the same to the saluation of his elect and the glory of his name The 39. motiue is in parte contayned in the 48. demaund Teaching the narrowe way and liuing after it VVho be Bristow nowe followers of Protestants VVhy there bee so many â—itheisti in England England beware of destruction The doctrine of Purgatory and satisfaction of Gods wrath by workes of our owne or of other mens The doctrine of pardons the doctrine of Grace giuen by sacraments Exopere operato The sacrifice of the masse c. are doctrines that teach the brode way leading vnto destruction while they bring men into securitie and confidence in vaine helpes And that is the cause that Papists and Popes themselues of all other haue beene and are the most wicked The number of Atheists that are in England are not made but discerned by the preaching of the Gospel And yet neither are there so many nor so impudent professors of Atheisme in England as there be in Italie and euen in Rome it selfe Where the Pope hath beene condemned in generall councell for an Atheist as Iohn the 23. in the councell of Constaâ—s Where Pope Leo counteth the Gospell for a fable of Christ. Pope Iuly will eate hogges fleshe in despight of God The sinnes I confesse of England are greate and such as call to God for vengeance without heartie repentance and the greatest sinne is ingratitude in the multitude refusing sincerly to imbrace the Gospell and in other hypocrisie which abusing the name of the Gospell haue an outwarde shewe of godlynesse but deny the power thereof Yet is there bothe in the state whiche Bristowe moste traitorously doth slaunder and in the Church of England yea in the Realme of Englande more sinceritie fidelitie honestie Charitie humilitie Chastitie and godlinesses and lesse Athesme infidelitie crueltie pride ryote whoredome swearing and foâ—swearing Couetousnesse sacriledge and all manner of wickednesse more I say of vertue and lesse of vice in England at this time then is or hath beene at any time with in those fiue hundred yeeres in Rome or Italie So that if a Booke were made as Bristow seemeth to threaten of the behauiour of the worst and moste counterfaite Protestantes in Englande yet shall it neuer bee founde so vile and abhominable as are the lyues of the moste of the Popes themselues set foorth not by Protestants in our dayes but by all popish storyes before we were borne The 40. motiue hath no speciall demand aunsvvering to it Obedient subiects In what Church is Christianitie of all lawes which was Sainct Augustines Motiue Obedience of the Catholikes to their superiours bothe ecclesiastieall and temporall Protestantes be malignours of higher powers If this Motiue had beene sette foorth before the Rebellion in the North or if so many trayterouse practises from Rome hadd not beene openly discouered peraduenture Bristowe might haue moued some mountaines by it But nowe Quis tulerit Gracchum de seditioue loquentâ—m Who canne abide the Papistes to bragge of Obedience Yet both the ciuill Lawe and the common Lawe of Englande are made to serue popishe Religion if wee will beleeue Bristowe God bee thanked they bothe serue the Church of God not onely in Englande but in all other Realmes and states that haue embraced the Gospell the ciuill and municipall Lawes without any alteration of the state saue for the aduancement of Gods glory But Protestants hee sayth bee Maligners of the higher powers such as Sainct Iude calleth contemners of Lordeshippe and blasphemers of Maiestie Or else the Papistes be such in that blasphemouse Bull for which Felton was hanged in which are so vile opprobrious and contumelious slanders of our Prince that for her honour and my dueties sake I will not vouchsafe to name them Hee obiecteth vnto vs Knoxes Booke against the regement of women which was but his priuate opinion and condemned of all our Church and of the Churche of Geneua also Hee obiecteth the ciuill warres in Fraunce in which the Kinges themselues haue alwayes in publique instrumentes discharged the Protestants of all disloyaltie and acknowledged that whatsoeuer they did in taking Armes they did it in the seruice of them and of their Realme As for the murdering of great Personages Wasting of Cities and Countries c. the worlde knoweth whether partie is chargeable with the crime And to seeke no farther proues of the trayterous and disobedient heartes of all wicked and pernitiouse Papistesâ— Bristow him selfe confesseth in this motiue that they be duely discharged from subiection and the Prince from dominion by the soueraigne authoritie of the common Paster of Religion But where in the Deuils name hath your soueraigne Pastor and Prelate of Rome such authoritie From Peter Did Peter discharge the subiectes of Nero from subiection or Nero from his gouernment although he were a moste wicked persecutor of the Church or rather doth he not commaund all persons to obey him 1. Pet 2. 14. 17. O trayterous hypocrites which haue made all whole wheÌ„ you pray for the Princes conuersion so deposed by your Pope The Lord our God defende our soueraigne as well from your prayers as from your practises Another argument of your obedience you shew where you saye that of Catholikes throughly discharged of their fealtic yet for common humanitie for their accustomed vse for their coÌ„tinuall as it were naturall institution the prince is better obeyed and scrued then of the Protestants which in heart are in a manner all Puritants Note heere that Papists professe them selues to be subiects of curtesie not of dutie of custome not of conscience of naturall institution not of the lawe of God Our Lord and sauiour send her maiestie few such subiects and seruants The 41. motiue is the 19. demaund The Church to which Princes doe homage The true Catholike church of Christ is that church of which it was prophecied that Kinges and Queenes shoulde be the nurse thereof and as obedient children doe homage thereto as to the mother of all the faithfull To this church the olde and first Christianed Emperours Constantius Iouianus Theodosius Valentinianus c. submitted them selues as obedient children To this church at this day many Kinges and Queenes doe homage and are nurses thereof as the Princes of England Scotland Denmarke Sueuon Saxonie But Bristow obiecteth against vs y t our Princes are not taught obedience to the Church but truely seduced by the title of heade and supreme gouernours of the Church To this I aunswere that this title of headshippe and gouernaunce of particular Churches is none other but such as they may and ought to holde with their obedience vnto the vniuersall Church Yea their
vacant vniting of two Bishoprikes in one or diuiding one into two may better be done by the auctoritie of those churches with consent of their Princes who seeth and knoweth what is needefull in those cases then by one which sittinge in his chaire at Rome requireth halfe a yeares trauell from some parte of the worlde to him before he can be aduertised of the case and yet must vnderstande it by heare saye and therefore not able to see what is expedient so well as they that are present and see the state of the matter Finally it is against all likelyhoode that Christ woulde make suche a generall sheepehearde ouer all his flocke as many thousande sheepe which liue vnder the Sophi the Cham the Turke can haue none accesse vnto for suche thinges as are supposed necessarie to be had and to be obteyned from him onely Wherefore if the Pope were heade of the churche suche as by crueltie of tyrauntes are cut from him shoulde be cut from the bodie of the church Yea if Hethenish tyrauntes coulde so much preuayle as they do in hindring this gouernment of the Pope pretended to be so nâ—cessarie the gates of hell might preuayle against the churche contrarie to the promise of Christ. The fourteenth Chapter THat the ordinarie auctoritie of S. Peters primacie belongeth to one Bishop alone The whole gouernmeÌ„t of the church tendeth to vnitie COncerning Peters primacie as there is litle in the Scriptures wherupon it may be gathered so I haue shewed that it was not in him perpetuall For there are greater arguments to proue the primacie of Iames. Agayne the greatest shewe of Peters primacy that we reade of in the Scriptures is the primacie or heade Apostleshippe of the circumcision So that if one Bishoppe should succeede him in that primacie he must be chiefe Bishoppe ouer the Iewes and not ouer the Gentiles For the chiefe Apostleshippe ouer the Gentiles was by God committed to Paule Galat. 2. 7. 8. But if M. Sander say as he doth in an other place that the Pope succeedeth both these Apostles and therefore hath both their auctoritie First he ouerthroweth his owne rocke of the church which he will haue to be Peter alone Secondlie his argument of vnitie which he vrgeth in this chapter he subuerteth if the Popes auctoritie be deriued from two heades Thirdly he destroyeth his owne distinction of Bishoplike and Apostolike auctoritie if the Apostolike auctority of Paul should descend to the Pope by succession Nowe let vs consider what weighty reasons he hath to proue the title of this chapter S. Peters auctority was specified before the auctoritie was geuen to the rest of binding loosing Mat. 18. Therfore seeing it was first in him alone it ought to descend to one Bishop alone But let M. Sander shew where it was geuen to him alone or promised to him alone ether For the promise thou shalt be called Peter gaue him no auctoritie nor yet the performance thereof Thou art Peter But still the auctority is promised I will build I will geue I reason as M. Sander doth of the Future tense which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter onely but to all the rest and so all auctoritie is geuen in common Ioâ—an 20. But S. Cyprian ad Iubaianum sayth that Christ gaue the auctority first to Peter Petro primus Dominus super quem aedificauit ecclesiam vnitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit vt id solueretur in terris quod ille soluisset This doth M. Sander translate Our Lorde did first geue vnto Peter c. Wheras he should say Our Lord was the first that gaue to Peter vpon whom he builded his churche and instituted and shewed the beginninge of vnity this power that whatsoeuer he loosed it should be loosed in earth This proueth that the auctoritie came first from Christ but not that it was geuen first to Peter And if we should vnderstand it so that it was first geuen to Peter yet he meaneth not that it was geuen to reside in his person but that in him as the attorney of the rest it was geuen to them also as he saith lib. 1. Ep. 3. Petrus tamen super quem aedificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce respondens ait Domine ad quem ibimus c. Yet Peter vpon whome the churche had beene builded by the same our Lorde as one speaking for all and aunswering in the voyce of the church sayeth Lorde whether shall we goe c. as he spake for all so he receaued for all Which thing if it had bene so as we sinde not in the Scripture yet could it haue beene no ordinary matter to discend to one by succession For the power beeing once receiued by one in the name of the reste and by him deliuered to the rest it should be continued in succession of euery one that hath receiued it and not euery day to be fetched a new from a seuerall heade For that beginning came from vnitie which Cyprian speaketh of when Peter beeing one was the voice mouth of the rest and so receiued power for the rest which being once receiued the church holdeth of Christe and not of Peter or his successors no more then a corporation holdeth of him that was their atturney to receiue either lands or authoritie from the Prince but holdeth immediatly of the Prince Wherfore this argument followeth not although the authoritie had begon in one that it should continue in one The second reason is that the most perfect gouernment is meete for the Church but most perfection is in vnitie therefore there ought to be one chiefe gouernor of all This one chiefe gouernour is our Sauiour Christ ruler both in heauen in earth Who ascending into heauen did not appoynt one Pope ouer all his church but Apostles Euangelistes Prophets Pastors and teachers that we might all meete in the vnitie of faith and grow into a perfect man Eph. 4. 11. 12. The third reason is that the state of the newe Testament must be more perfect then the law but in the law there was one high pastor the high Priest on earth therefore there must be one now also and much rather I aunswere we haue him in deede our chiefe Bishop high Priest of whome the Aaronicall Priest was but a shadow namely Iesus Christ whose gouernment is nothing lesse perfect and beneficiall to his church in that he sitteth in heauen and hath as before is cited lefte an ordinarie ministerie on earth in many Pastors and teachers ouer euerie seuerall congregation and not in one Pope ouer al which could not possibly either know or attend to decide the one thousande parte of controuersies which are determined by y e auctoritie of Christs law and such ministers as he hath ordeyned The fourth reason is of auctority Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae vna est c.
Bishop in euery diocese For he writeth against fiue Elders or Priestes which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatike to be Bishop in Carthage against him But what other malicious ignorance or shameles impudence is this that he peruerteth the saying of Christ of him selfe to the Pope There shall be one sheepefold one shepheard Ioan. 10 Yet see his reason A flocke of shepe is one by force of one pastor therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one the flocke is not one on earth If this argument be good howe is the flocke one vpon earth when there is no Pope For the see hath bene voyde diuerse times many dayes many monethes somtime many yeares Howe was the flocke one when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often and so long together Therefore the flocke on earth is one by that one onely shepheard Iesus Christ whose diuine voice all the shepe heare though in his humanity he be ascended into heauen and not by any one mortal man to whom they can not be gathered nether being so farre abroad dispersed can heare his voyce And the whole order of the church on earth tendeth to an vnitie in Christ not in one man whatsoeuer as one generall pastor For if that one shoulde be an heretike and all the church tend to vnity in him the whole church should be wrapped in heresie with him That diuerse Popes haue bene heretiks as Libeâ—ius Anastasiâ—s Vigilâ—us Honorius Ihon the 23. in knowne condemned heresies it is too manifest by recordes of antiquitie that it shoulde be denyed wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary auctoritie to be limited in one successioÌ„ that it should haue prehemineÌ„ce imisdiction ouer all the churche Seeing vnity is best mainteyned in doctrine by his word in gouernment by the discipline by him appoynted And vnity in truth can not be had at the handes of a man which is a lyer experience sheweth that the iurisdiction which the Bishoppe of Rome hath claimed hath bene occasion of most and greatest schismes and dissentions that haue bene in particular churches wheÌ„ no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome beside so many schismes as haue bene in the same see which haue set all the Christian world together by the cares while they were deuided in factioÌ„s some holding with one Pope and some with an other and some with the third and some with none of them all The 15. Chapter THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinarie pastor who succeedeth in S. Peters chaire and is aboue all Bishoppes according to the meaning of Gods worde VVhy S. Peter dyed at Rome S. Augustines minde touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome THe first reason is that although Peter at the first was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision theÌ„ of the Gentiles yet because he did at length settle him selfe at Rome by Gods appointment and left a successor there he sayeth he may well affirme that the Bishop of Romes primacy is warranted by Gods word A strauÌ„ge kind of warantise for to omit that the primacy ouer the Gentils by Gods worde is giuen to another namely to Paule from whom he can neuer proue that it was taken afterward Where hath he any worde of God to proue that by his appointment Peter setled him self at Rome and appoynted there a successor He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordayned not by Peter onely but by Peter Paule the Apostles who founded the Church there euen as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia was made bishop in Smyrna which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paule and continued by Iohn the Apostles he citeth as witnesses alike with the Church of Rome of the tradition of the Apostles against Valentinus and Marcion which being voyd of Scriptures bragged of the tradition of the Apostles But of Peters primacie or his successors ouer all Bishops Irenaeus sayth not a word No more doth Tertullian whom likewise he quoteth de praescrip but euen as Ireneus would haue the tradition of the Apostles against those heretikes that boasted of it to be tryed by the coÌ„fession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles His second reason is vpon a false supposition that he hath already proued Peter alone to be the rocke to haue chiefe authoritie in feeding c. all which thinges are vntrue That Peter came to Rome he is not content that it be testified by all auncient Ecclesiasticall writers But he sayth it is witnessed by the expresse word of God 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you Although the history of Peters comming to Rome and sitting there 25. yeares testified by so many writers is proued false in many circumstances by the playne worde of God yet I am content to admitte that he came thither towarde the later ende of Ne roes raigne But that in his Epistle he sent salutations from Rome I can not admitte seeing that in such manner of salutations men vse not to write allegorically albeit that in the reuelation of Saint Iohn Rome the sea of Antichrist is mystically called BabyloÌ„ But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write is more probably to be taken for a citye of that name in Egypt where Marke was with him whoÌ„ the consent of antiquitie affirmeth to haue bene Bishop of Alexandria a citie of Egypt also who coulde not haue bene with him at Rome Seeing it is manifest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Galathians and by diuerse of Saint Paules Epistles that if euer Peter was at Rome it was but a short tyme in the later ende of Nero his Empire Whereas Marke dyed in the eyght yeare of his raigne before Peter coulde be at Rome For in the tenth yeare Paule was brought prisoner to Rome Saint Luke accompanying him who would not haue omitted to shewe that Peter was there to haue mette him as the rest of the brethren did if he had then bene at Rome Agayne Paule in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome sending salutations from meane personages would not haue omitted mention of Peter if he had bene there Saint Luke then affirming that he taryed two yeares in prison at Rome which must be vntil the twelfe yeare of Nero it followeth that if Peter came he came very late to Rome within two yeare before his death at which tyme it was not possible that Marke which was dead foure yeares before could be at Rome with him wherefore Babylon in that text can not be taken for Rome Another reason of the Popes supremacy he maketh that Peter not onely came thither but also dyed there A simple reason why the city of Rome should haue that prerogatiue because she murthered y e Apostles Rather might IerusaleÌ„ clayme it in which Christ the head of all dyed After this he telleth the fable