if theire interpretation be none other then the sound of the word doth giue they make the newe Testament to be nothing but a drinking vessel But to discusse his examples the first is this text Matth. 26. This is my body why saith he is this which Christe poynteth to denied to be his body I answere it is affirmed to be his body in that sence that he spake and otherwise then he ment it is denyed to be his body Againe Iames saith Cap. 2. A man is iustified of workes not of faith onely VVhy then are workes denyde to iustifie or onely faith taught to iustifie I aunswere woorkes are not denyed to iustifie before men and onely faith is taught to iustifie before God Rom. 3. The doers of the lawe shalbe iustified Rom. 2. VVhy then teach you the lawe not to be able to be doone Because the Apostle saith that of the workes of the law none shalbe iustified before God Rom. 3. 20. for if the workes of the lawe could be done by any man perfectly as the law requireth he shold be iustified by thē as the text affirmeth By the obedience of one that is Christe many shall bee made righteous Rom. 5. VVhy then are wee denyed to bee really righteous and sayde to bee righteous by imputation onely Because the obedience of Christe is not really our obedience but by imputatiō of God through faith The loue of God is spread in our heartes by the holy ghost which is geuen vs. Rom. 5. This is more then a bare imputing of righteousnesse to vs yea Sir but this is not our iustification but an effect thereof for he saide immediatly before that beeing iustified by faith wee haue peace with God VVhose sinnes ye forgiue they shalbe forgiuē them Ioh. 20 VVhy then are Bishops and Priests denyed to forgiue sinnes We graunt that true Byshops and elders haue authoritie to forgiue sinnes in Gods name but not absolutely He that is great among you let him be made as the yonger Luke 22. VVhy then deny you that one was greater among the Apostles and is stil among the Bishops their successors One was not greater among the Apostles in authoritie for their greatnes was to be the greatest seruaunt to take the most paines to be most humble Mat. 18 Thou art Peter or a rock and vpon this Rock I wil builde my Church Mat. 16 VVhy is the militant Church denyed to be built vponS Peter and his suceessors in that chayre and office The Church is affirmed to be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and so vpon Peter as one of thē in which office he hath no successors Keepe the traditions which yee haue learned either by word or by an Epistle 1. Thessa. 2. VVhy then are traditions so dispised that the name cannot be suffred in the English Bible It may and is suffred in that sense which the holye Ghost vseth it but not to bring in prayer for the deade or any thing contrary to the scripture vnder the name of traditions Apostolike For the Apostle speaketh only of the doctrine which he deliuered to them either by preaching or by Epistle which is none other then is cōtayned in the holy Seriptures For of other traditions pretended to be of the Apostles he biddeth them take heede in the same Chapter vers 2. He that ioyneth his Virgine in mariage doth well and hee that doth not ioyne her doth better VVhy make you mariage as good as virginitie For such as haue the gift of continence we graunt virginitie is better in such respectes as the Apostle teacheth Vow eye and render your vowes vnto God Psal. 75. If thou wilt be perfect go and sel all thinges which thou haste giue them to the poore follow me Mat. 19. There are Eunuches which haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of Heauen Obey your Rulers and be subiect vnto them VVhy thē are the vowes of pouertie of chastitie and obedience counted vnlawful or men cōstrained not to performe thē The first text perteineth to the old Testamēt The second is a singular tryall to that one place The third we graunt in them to whome it is giuen the fourth we neuer made question about it but al these are euil fauouredly patched togither to proue the vowe of Monkery lawfull which is superstitious for want of Gods commaundement blasphemous for the opinion of merite impossible for the frailtie of many mens nature As for compulsion there is none vsed for no man is compelled to be rich vnchaste or disobedient Doe ye the worthy fruites of penaunce Luc. 3. VVhy thē is satisfaction and penaunce desptsed with you This text is Doe ye the fruits worthy of repentance We honour the fruites worthy of true repentance and exhorte all men to bring them forth but popish satisfaction hath nothing like to them For we beleeue that God doth freely forgiue the penitent for Christes sake The husband wife beeing two in one flesh is a greate sacrament or mistery in Christ in the church Ephe. 5. VVhy is then the mariage of faithful persons denied to be a sacrament If you vnderstand a sacrament generally for euery mystery we may graunt you it is a sacrament but if you vnderstand a sacrament specially for an outwarde signe of Gods fauour grace or a seale of our iustification it is none For if it were it should be necessary for all men to receiue it againe it hath the institutiō of God before the fall of man therefore can be no sacrament of y e new Testament to testifie our restitution Your cōmon translation turneth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a holy secret oftentime Sacramentum yet I know you woulde be ashamed to confesse so many sacramentes of the popish church as there be misteries which hee calleth sacramēts as Ephe. 3. the preaching of the gospell to the Gentiles he calleth Sacramentum 1. Tim. 3. So he calleth the incarnation of Christ sacramentum pietatis And are you not ashamed to delude ignorant men with the ambiguous name of a Sacrament VVork your saluatiō with feare trembling Phi. 2. VVhy then are you so presumptuous as euen by faith to assure your selues of you saluation because it followeth immediatly that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to performe according to his good wil for it is no presumtion to assure our selues that the promises of God are true And he may welfeare which is assured to be saued for faith doth not exclude but plant in vs the feare of God though not a seruile feare As for y e deepe secretes of Gods predestination we take not vpon vs to knowe them otherwise then they be reuealed by his worde Finally where you aske whether faith be not an ordinary gift in the Church I answere you w t the Apostle that all men which are in the outward face of the Church and participate
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
faith of that disciple on which the church of Christ should be so established and founded that it should not fall Here is an other principall Doctor ioyning with Chrysostom against M. Sander who affirmeth that the rocke is nothing els but Peters faith After these he nameth Theophylact and Euthymius two late writers but he citeth nothing out of them presently But after shewing the force of Gods promise to be effectual to work al meanes necessarie for the performaunce of it he citeth out of Euthymius in Luc 6. that it was like that in Ioh. 1. Christ promised that Simon should be called Peter in Luk. 6 called him Peter All this needed not we doubt not but Simon was called Peter Yea but Cyrillus sayth in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 64. that he being Prince and heade first cried out saying thou art Christ the sonne c. Therfore he was head before his confession by promise and name I will not here say how contrary M. Sander is to him selfe which in the cap. 3. sayd that his supremacie was graunted to him as a rewarde of his confession But I will aunswere Cyrillus by him selfe in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 28 that Peter was Ordine maior superior in order to auoyde confusion not in degee dignitie or auctoritie And whereas M. Sander vrgeth so vehemently that the name of Peter was not geuen for his confession but was singular to him by promise so that it belonged literally to no Prophet Apostle nor disciple but only to him his successors it is a most fond friuolus matter for the name of Bonarges was specially geuen to the sonnes of Zebedee in respect of their excellent giftes and at the same time that the name of Peter was geuen to Simon which secing it perteineth not to their successors which haue not the same giftes no more doth the name dignity of Peter perteine to any that sit in his chaire if euer he had any fixed chaire among the Gentiles which by Gods ordinaunce was appoynted to be the principall Apostle of the Iewes Moreouer where he laboreth tooth nailc to proue that these wordes vpon this rocke I will build my church are to be referred to Peter as I sayd before I will graunt euen as muche But that Peter by these wordes was made a singular rocke more then all the Apostles vpon which the whole church is builded I vtterly deny neither shall he be euer able to proue it For it is an impudent lye that onely Peter at this time had this high reuelation to acknowledge Christ to be the sonne of God For he aunswered in the name of all the rest who beleued the same which he in their name confessed Did not Andrewe before Peter acknowledge him to be the Messias Did not Nathaniel which was none of the Apostles acknowledge him to be the sonne of God and the King of Israel Ioan. 1. 49. But he reasoneth substantially when he saith thou only art the rocke because thou alone hadst this name c. promised thou alone hadst it geuen thou alone didst confesse me to thee alone I say thou art Peter As though a man may not haue a name whose signification is common to many Salomon alone was promised to be called and was called Iedidiah that is the beloued of God shall we therefore reason that Salomon onely was beloued of God as for that he onely confessed I haue shewed before that it is false for Christ saying thou art Peter meaneth not to say thou onely art a rocke but thou well aunswerest thy name which signifieth a rocke or stone and I wil in deede vse thee as a rocke or stone to builde my church vpon yet not meaning the person but the office and doctrine of his Apostleship But nowe hath M. Sander no lesse then 21. reasons to proue that Peter is the rocke here spoken of w c althogh they may for the most parte be easily auoided yet I will graunt that Peter is one of the twelue stones whereupon the church is builded but not the only stone Therfore his first foure arguments I deny 1. Simon is alone promised to be called Peter 2. he alone is called Peter 3. Christ speaketh to him alone saying And I say to thee c. 4. Christ sayth of him alone thou art Peter therefore Simon alone is the rocke of the church let him proue the cōsequence if he can The next 5. which proue that these wordes are to be referred to Peter although that they be not verie strong yet I graunt the wordes may be aptly referred to Peter the reasons are 1. vpon the pronoune The 2 the worde rocke of which Peter is named 3. the conference of thē together 4. the word I will build 5. the word my church The 10 Argument I denye that Christ. by saying to Peter Feede my Lambes feede my sheepe made him the heade stone of Gods militant Church nexte vnto Christe The eleuenth that Peter is shewed to be the Rocke spoken of by geuing of the Keyes I confesse ebut seeing the keyes are giuen to all the Apostles this proueth Peter to be none otherwise a Rocke then euery one of them That Iohn receued the Keyes I shewed euen now out of Chysostome The twelfth that the propertie of a Rock in constant withstanding of tempests agreeth with Peter I graunt and so it doth to the rest of the Apostles for whome Christ prayed as he did for Peter who also strengthened and confirmed their brethren as Peter did The 13. I confesse that hell gates shall not preuayle against the Church nor against any member thereof which is a small reason to make Peter supreame heade thereof The 14. which is the authorities of those doctors that teach Peter to be the rocke whom he nameth when he citeth their sayings or quoteth their places I will seuerally consider The 15. their reason also when I see them to deriue Peters authoritie to his successors I will waighe likewise The 16. the practise of 1500. yeares I deny The 17. I deny that all generall councells or any generall councell for 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged Peter to be the rocke in that sence the Papistes do now The 18. if the confession of Peter be the rocke yet it is none inconuenience that the church shoulde be builded theron which began to be builded on the same confession offered by Iohn Baptist. The 19. though you confound the diuerse senses geuen by the fathers in your fourth sense yet that proueth not your sense to be true The 20. seeing the Apostles are certeyne foundatiōs and rockes vpon which the church is builded I confesse that Peter must needes be one but that he was the most principall rocke in respect of his name Peter which is a stone I say it followeth no more then that Salomon was best of al men beloued of God because of that name Iedidiah which signifieth beloued of God The 21. that all the Protestantes doe not agree in the interpretation of
proueth not the gouernors to be rulers one ouer another wherefore this collection is not only vaine but also ridiculus that Peter should haue authoritie to gouerne Patriarches Archbishops and Bishops aswell as Parishe priests because he must feed y e sheep of Christ I wil not here stand to discus how properly y e distinctioÌ„ of lambs litle sheep sheep is obserued by Ambrose but taking it according as he distinguisheth it yet heere is nothing giuen to Peter but primacie of loue or as else where he sayth of order but of authoritie singular heâ—re is nothing at al. And that his conclusioÌ„ declareth sufficiently Et idio quasi perfecto in omnibus quem caro iamreueâ— are non posset a gloria passionis corona decernitur And therfore a crown is decreed to him as to one perfect in all things whome the fleshe could not call back from the glory of suffering This conclusion M. S. as his manner is hath left out by which it is apparant that Ambrose inferreth no singularitie of authoritie in Peter as more perfet theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles but as perfect in such degre as the rest of the Apostles which were likewise prepared to martyrdoÌ„ were equal w t him therin The testimony of Bernard a late wâ—iter though he were no flatterer yet I receiue not as of one which was deceiued with the common error of his time But in signe that Peter was generall Shepheard saith M. San. it is not read that he was ordained bishop of any other then of Christ yet did he with two other Apostles ordaine S. Iames byshop of Ierusalem as Eus. lib. 2. cap. â— writeth There is no dout but Iames was acknowlâ—dged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghoste to remaine at Ierusalem though not as a pâ—rticuler bishop but as an Apostle of the whole Church But as we read not that Peter was made Bishop by any man so we read not that he was made Byshop by Christ. Yet Arâ—obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est episcoporum episcopus Behold the Apostle beeing penitent is succoured which is a Bishop of Bishops He asketh if any thing could be spoken more plainly yes verely you had need of plainer speaches then this to proue that hee was byshop of the Apostles For admit that he was an ouerseer of particular bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—ie yet it followeth not that he was â—n ouerseer or Byshop of the Apostles In which sense Clemens also if the Epistle were not counterfaite might iustly call Iames a Byshop of Byshops not as M. Sand. aunsweareth that he was an Archbishop of inferior Byshops but an Apostle ouerseer of particuler Bishops That Cyprian ad Quintum sayth Neque quisquam c Neither doeth any of vs make him selse a Byshoppe of Byshops He aunsweareth that although no man may make himselfe yet Christe may make a man Bishop of Byshopes but where findeth he that Christe maketh the Pope a Byshop of Byshoppes Howe Peter might bee called a Byshop of Byshoppes I haue shewed before But the Councell of Carth. 3. Cap. 26. forbiddeth that the Byshop of Rome or any other Primate shoulde be called the Prince of Priests or highest Priest or by any such lyke name but only the Byshop of the first seate Yet Optatus feared nor to write thus lib. 7. de schism of S. Peter Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit c. He deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles and he alone receiued the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen to be communicated vnto the reste Maâ—ster Sander confessing and truely that the Apostles tooke the Keyes belonging to their Apostolike office immediatly of Christe saith they receiued the Keyes of their Byshoplike office of Peter But what lock was there that they could not open and shut by their Aopstolike Key When Christe sayth Whatsoeuer you binde or loose whose sinnes soeuer you forgiue or retayne which was the power of their Apostolike Keyes If the Apostolike Keyes were so sufficient what neede they any Byshoplike Keyes Into these absurdities both he Optatus doe followe whiles the one will vrge a prerogatiue of Peter the other will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles whereof the Scripture giueth vs no instruction As for Leo and Gregorye Byshoppes of Rome although they were not come to the full pryde of Antichrist yet the mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that seate neere fiue or sixe hundreth yeeres before them and then greatly increased they were so deceiued with the longe continuaunce of error that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the reste of his fellowe Apostles then the holy Scriptures of God against which no continuaunce of error cann prescribe doth either allow or beare with all Wherefore although he haue some shewe out of the olde writers yet hath he nothing directly to prooue that Peter did excell the other Apostles in Byshoplike authoritie and out of the worde of God no one â—ote or tytle that Peter as a Byshop excelled the other Apostles not as Apostles but as Byshops The 13 Chapter THat the pastorall and chiefe Byshops authoritie of Saint Peter was an ordinary authoritie and there fore it must goe for euer vnto his successors where as the Apostolike authoritie beeing extraordinary hath no successors in it The Church neuer lacked a visible rocke THat y e office of Apostles which had general charge to preach ouer the whole world is ceased with the Apostles liues it is in deede graunted of vs but that theyre Apostolike authoritie was extraordinary or that all their authoritie is so determined that it hath no successors in it wee doe vtterly deny For the same authoritie of preaching of ministring the Sacraments of binding and loosing which the Apostles had is perpetuall in the Church in the Byshops and elders which are all successors of the Apostles And if the Apostolike authoritie hath no successors in it what meaneth the Pope almoste in euery Bul and decretall Epistle to brag so much of the Apostolike authoritie to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie By which it is euident that M. Sand. new distinction of Apostolike and Byshoplike authoritie in the Apostles is not acknowledged by the Popes them selues but inueÌ„ted lately by such as he is to haue a starting hole to seeme to auoid such arguments and authorites as proue all the Apostles equall in authoritie But let vs vs see what reasons he hath to proue that S. Peters Pastorall authoritie was ordinary and muste goe to his successors more then the Pastoral authoritie of euery Apostle First S. Peter being but one man was not able to preach to all men at once nor to gouerne nations newely conuerted the refore hee had twelue companions adioyned to him But the worlde beeing conuerted it is easy for the Pope without such fellowes to
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
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
gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church it proueth not your exposition to be true for neither do all the old Doctors nor yet the new Papistes agree in one the same interpretation of this text And oftentimes it may inuincibly be proued that an heresie hath no grounde out of suche a text of Scripture although the true and naturall sense thereof can not be found at all The fift Chapter IT is proued out of the auncient fathers that S. Peter is this rocke whereupon the church was promised to be builded otherwise then M. Iewell affirmeth THat Peter was a rocke or stone vpon which the church was builded is graunted of vs but that he alone was a rock for the whole church to be builded vpoÌ„ we deny and M. Iewell rightly affirmeth that the olde Catholike fathers haue written and pronounced not any mortall man as Peter was but Christ him selfe the sonne of God to be this rocke whereon y t whole church is builded But M. Sander will proue if he can out of the old writers that not onely Christ is the chiefe rocke but Peter also is an other rocke so that the church by his doctrine is builded vpon two rockes and this he will shew 1. by their words 2. their reasons 3. by the same places which M. Iewell alleageth for the coÌ„trary opinioÌ„ The decretal epistles of Anacletus Pius Fabianus c. which in his owne conscience he knoweth to be forged he omitteth and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip aduers. haeres Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicaÌ„dae ecclesiae Petram dictum Was any thing hid from Peter which was called a rocke of the church which was to be builded This is graunted that he was a rocke or stone whereon the churche is builded and the same Tertullian in his booke de pudicitia sayth of this whole text that this was conferred to Peter Personally and perteineth to none other but such as he was namely an Apostle or Prophet Secundum enim Petri personam spiritualibus potestas ista conueniet aut Apostolo aut Prophetae For according to the person of Peter this power shall belong to spiritual men either to an Apostle or to a Prophet Where is then the succession of the B. of Bome But Hippolytus saith Princeps Petrus fideipetra Peter is chiefe a rocke of faith He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rocke whereon faith is builded Origenes in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud c. That great foundation and most sound rocke whereupon Christ hath builded his church But let Origenes expound him selfe in Math. cap. 16. Si autem super vnum illum Petrum arbitraris vniuersam ecclesiam aedisicari à deo quid dicis de Iacobo Ioanne filus tonitrui velde singulis Apostolis Verè ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est Tues Petrus super hanepetram edifiâ—abo ecclesiam meam pertae inferorum non praeualebâ—nt ei tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibus q perfectis fidelibus dictum videtur quoniam omnes sunt Petrus petrae in omnibus aedificata est ecclesia Christi aduersus nullum ecrum qui tales sunt portae preualent inferorum But if thou thinke the whole church is builded by God vpon that one man Peter what sayst thou of Iames and Iohn the sonnes of thunder or of euerie one of the Apostles Therefore it was in deede truly sayd vnto Peter Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will builde my church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile agaynst it yet it seemeth that it was spoken also to all the Apostles and to all the perfect faithfull because they are all Peter and stones and on them all the church of Christ is builded and agaynst none of them which are suche the gates of hell shall preuayle By this you see howe Origen is none of his howe so euer he abuse his name Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. lib. 4. Ep. 9 which sayeth that the church was builded vpon Peter Which we confesse as vpon one of the foundation stones but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum sayth Hoc erant vtique caeters Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscinur vt ecclesia vna monstretur The rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honor and auctoritie but the beginning procedeth from one that the church might be shewed to be one This speaketh Cyprian vpon the very text now in discussing Consequently he citeth Hilarie lib 6. de trinit Petrus c. Peter lieth vnder the building of the church and in ca. Math. 16. O in nuncupatione c. O happy foundation of the church in hauing the new name pronounced and ô rocke worthie of the building of that church which should dissolue the lawes of hell But the same Hilarie sayeth of Christ de trinit lib. 2. Vna haec est foelix fidei petra Petri ore confessa tu es filius Dei viui This is that onely happie rocke of fayth confessed by the mouth of Peter thou art the sonne of the liuing God And agayne lib. 6. Super hanc igitur confessionis petram ecclesiae aedificatio est Vpon this rocke of confession is the building of the church And againe Haec fides ecelesiae fundamentum est per hanc fidem infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae inferorum Haec fides regni caelestis habet claues c. This fayth is the foundation of the churche by this fayth the gates of hell are of no force agaynst it This fayth hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. Therefore not the person of Peter is the rocke for all the church to be built vpon S. Ambrose hath the next place whome he citeth Scr. 66. Si ergo c. If Peter then be a rocke vpon which the church is builded he doth well to heale first the feete that euen as he doth conteyne the foundation of faith in the church so in the man he may confirme the foundation of his members Of the auctoritie of this Sermon I will not dispute it shall sufâ—ice that Ambrose in Ps. 38. sayth Quod Petro dicitur Apostâ—lis diâ—itur non pâ—testatem vsurpamus sed seruiâ—â—s â—mperio That which is sayd to Peter is said to the Apostles we vsurpe not power but we serue vnder commaundâ—ment By this saying of Ambrose Peter is so a rocke and foundation as the other Apostles are not a rocke to beare all the building him selfe S. Basil is alleaged in Concâ—de paenit Petrus petra est c. Peter is a rocke through Christ the rocke For Iesus geueth his owne dignities he is a rocke and maketh a rocke This proueth not Peter to be the onely rocke of the militant church as M. Sander would make him After him he citeth Hierom in 16. Math.
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
the later byshops vsurped and practised vnder pretence of Peters supremacie His words ate cited in Ann. ass ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum c. Vppon this stone this soundnes and strength I will builde an euerlasting temple and the hight of my Church which is to reach to Heauen shall rise in the strength of this Rocke A great extolling of Peter vsuall to the Byshops of Rome but yet no more is saide of him then may be truely faide vpon euery one of the Apostles The 6. reason is vttered by Augustine Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram c. Our Lorde saide to Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church vppon this rocke I will builde my church And againe in Ioan Tr. 124. Ecclesiae c. Peter the Apostle by a generalitie that was figured did beare the person of the Church by reason of the primacie of his Apostleship Heere he maketh much adoe aboute his primacie by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church willing to inferre that because hee was primate of the Apostles and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church therefore he was soueraigne ruler and generall officer of the whole militant Church But it followeth not that euery one which is made an atturney or Proxei to receiue a thing for a whole comminaltie is thereby made generall ruler of al that comminaltie The Papistes them selues in the Councell of Basill discharge vs of this conclusion where they agree to the sentence of Iohn Patriarch of Antiochia which citeth Augustine to witnesse that Peter receiued the Keyes as minister of the Church And Augustine writeth De Agone Christ. cap. 30 Non enim siae causa inter omnes Apostolos huius ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus Huic enim ecclesie clauis regni caelorum datae sunt Et cum ei dicitur ad omnes diâ—itur Aâ—nas me Pasce oues meas For not without cause amonge all the Apostles Peeter sustaineth the person of this Catholike Churche For to this Churche the Keyes of the kindome of Heauen are giuen And when it is saide vnto him it is saide to all Doest thou loue me feede my sheepe By this sentence it is playne that Christe after Augustines minde preferred not Peter in power before all the rest but to receiue equall power with the reste hee made him as it were the Attornye of the rest So that all these reasons duely considered the sayinges of the Doctors which affirme Peter to be a rocke or stone on which the Church is builded doe not prooue that hee was an onely foundation of the whole Church but with the rest of the apostles he was one and the firste of the twelue stones whereon the Church was founded and that in respect of his office and doctrine not of his person as he wasa mortal man The seuenth Chapter THE authorities alleadged by M. Iâ—well to proue that Peter was not this Rock proue against him self that Peter was this Rocke although they proue that there was an other kinde of Rock also beside him which thinge wee denye not THE first authoritie is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc vet test Thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will build my church He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had sayd before Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God M. S. replieth that it is neither said that Peter was not this Rock nor that Christ was this rock But that the confession of Peter was the Rock whiche he graunteth and therefore Peter much rather muste be the rock For his confession which commeth from his soule and heart as from a fountaine or springe is greater then the acte of confession Firste I deny his Argument because Peters confession came neither from his soule nor hart but from God which reuealed the trueth vnto him as Christ saith Flesh and bloode c. Secondly I say Gregory meaneth by Peters confession him which Peter confessed namely Christe which is the onely Rocke of the Church whereon the whole Church is builded as his wordes doe sounde for he had sayde before Thou art Christ c. But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke findeth faulte with M. Iewels argumente comparing it to this There commeth eloquence from a man but he is not eloquent Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is not the Rocke Would a man thinke that a Doctor in Diuitie should either be so ignoraunt in the Arte of reasoning or so impudent in peruerting a good reason that a very Childe might reproue either the one or the other I appeale to Logicians whether this reason of M. Iewels The Rock commeth from Peter by confession Ergo Peter is not the Rock be like this argument Eloquence commeth from Cicero therefore Cicero is not Eloquence and not as M. Sand. inferreth Ergo Cicero is not Eloquent But he hath another Example A mans Oration is eloquent therefore the man him selfe is eloquent So Peters confâ—ssion is the Rocke therefore Peter hâ—â—selfe is the Rocke I deny the resemblance for there is resembled the Adiectiue in the one and the substantiue in the other But thus he shoulde compare them Tuilyes defence of Mylo is an eloquent oration therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration which reasoning is no more absurde then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is the Rocke Contrarywise you may reason Peters confession was the Rock therefore Peter was Rockey or stony The seconde authoritie is Hilarie Haec vna est c. This is that onely blessed rock of Faith that Peter confessed with his mouth M. Sander caueleth that this is not spoken vpon the wordes said to Peter but vpâ—on the wordes spoken by Peter But beside that the whole context of the place is against him both in that lib. 2. De trinit and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifiâ—ato est vpon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church which M. Sand. would auoyde by bringing in of two rocks Christ Peter the particle exclusiue shutteth him cleane out of the dores for Hillarie sayth not that Christe is a Rocke but that he is the onely Rocke Therefore this is but one Rocke and one building and not as M. Sand. sayth two Rocks and two buildings for aswell hee might say two Churches Now where Hilarie vpon Mathew acknowledgeth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church it is answeared before that he was one of the xii foundations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a farre other meaning then Christ is the onely Rock The 3. authoritie is Cyrillus Dial 4. de trini The rock is nothing else but the strong assured faith of the disciple This saith M. S. is that I would haue for this disciple was S. Peter and the rock here spoken of is nothing else but S. Peters faith therfore it is not Christ. Nay rather the rock is nothing but S. Peters faith therfore it is not his
person so no mortall man For those woordes nothing but Peters faith do not exclude Christ because faith cannot be without necessary relation vnto Christ but they exclude the person of Peter as a mortall man because flesh blood reuealed not this confession vnto him but the Heauenly father The 4. authorite is Chrysostome Vpon this Rocke that is vpon this faith and this confession I will builde my church M. San. saith he that beleeued confessed was Peter and not Christ ergo the rock is Peter not Christ. Although this argument haue no consequence in the world yet to admitte that it doth followe I will reply thus but he that beleeued and confessed was not Peter onely therefore Peter onely was not this rock The 5. is Aug. de verbis dom Christe was the rocke vpon which foundation Peter him selfe was also builte M. San. asketh if one Rock may not be built vpon anonother as Peter vpon Christ yes verily but Peter none otherwise then the reste of the Apostles who were all foundation stones laid vpon the great corner stone or onely foundation Rock Iesus Christ. S. Augustine againe addeth in Christes person I wil not builde my selfe vpon thee but I wil build thee vpon me M San. following the allegory of building coÌ„fesseth that Christ is the first greatest stone vpon which by all proportion the seconde stone that should be laide must be greatest that can be gotten next the first If this be so it is meruaile the Angel which shewed vnto Iohn the building of the heauenly Ierusalem shewed him not this second stone by it selfe but the xij stones lying equally one by an other vppon the maine foundation Apo. 21. whereby we see that M. Sand. vttereth nothing but the visions of his owne head The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat. He is â—â—â—â— rock whosoeuer is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththis seÌ„se as not literal seing Peter is a disciple the first he wil proue Peter next to christ to be y e chief rock In deed according to this sense it must needes be that Peter is one principall rock among so many thousand rocks but because he is named first in the Catalogue of the Apostles it is a sory reason to make him so to excel that he is one rock that beareth al the rest But M. Iewel is frantike in M. San opinion that denying any mortall man to be this rock nowe proueth euery mortall man that is Christs disciple to be this Rock Nay rather M. Sand. is brainsick that cannot vnderstand this reason euery Christian is such a rock as Peter was therefore Peter in being a rock was not made Pope or hed of the vniuersal church Origines procedeth vpon such a rock all ecclesiasticall learning is built But S. Peter is such a Rock saith Maister Sander ergo vppon him all ecclesiasticall learning is built VVho would wish such an aduersary as M. Iewel is who proueth altogither against him selfe Nay who can beare such an impudent caueler that findeth a knot in a rush For your conclusion is graunted M. Sand. that all ecclesiasticall learning is builte vppon S. Peter but so it is builte vpon euery true Disciple of Christe by Origens iudgement Againe Origine sayth If thou thinke that the whole Church is built onely vpon Peter what then wilte thou say of Iohn the sonne of thonder and of euery of the Apostles First M. Sand. chargeth the Bishop for leauing out in English this worde Illum so that he shoulde haue saide vpon that Peter whereby he accuseth him to deny that Peter is a Rock whiche is an impudente lye Secondly when this authoritie doth vtterly ouerthrowe his whole building of the popish rocke he can say nothing but that Iohn was a mortall man and so were all the Apostles aswel as Peter therfore M. Iewel saide not truely that the olde sathers haue written not any mortall man but Christe himselfe to be this Rock when Iohn and all the Apostles be rockes As though there were no difference betwene the onely foundation and rocke of the whole Church which is Christ all the other stones that are built vpon it Last of all Origen sayth Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not preuayle onely against Peter or are the keyes of the kingdom of heauen giuen onely to Peter M. Sander aunswereth It is enough that the gates of hell shall least of all preuayle against Peter he hath chiefly the keyes of heauen But what reason hath he for this impudent assertion Peter of all the Apostles first confessed in the name of the whole Church Admit this were true as it can neuer be proued that this was the first time that any of the Apostles confessed Christ yet no primacy of superiority is hereby gayned if the sentence as Origen expounded it perteyneth to euery faithfull disciple What aduauntage M. Sander hath taken of the Bishops allegations let the readers iudge The eight chapter THe conclusion of the former discourse and the order of the other which followeth THe conclusion consisteth of 7. poynctes In the first he repeateth what he woulde haue men thinke he hath gained in his former discourse concerning Peter to be the Rock of the Church where on it is builte In the second for continuaunce of the building promised there must be alwayes some mortall man which beeing made the same Rocke by election and afterwarde by reuelation shoulde make the same confession whensoeuer hee is demaunded or consulted in matters of Religion If this were true there were no necessitie of the holy Scriptures neither yet of Synodes and Councelles if one Pope were abe to resolue all the demaundes mooued by all menne of the worlde In the thirde he sayeth if there muste be some such one Rocke it is not possible it shoulde be any other but the Bishop of Rome First because he alone hath beene the firste and chiefe in all assemblyes Secondly he only sitteth in Peters Chaire Thirdly and the consent of the world hath taken him so euer indeede but by the aduersaryes confession aboue a thousande yeeres But God be thanked the Churche hath no neede of any such Rock neither is any such taught Ephe. the fourth where the order of the building thereof and of all necessary builders of Fayth and doctrine are fully sette foorth And the three reasons are all false in manner and forme as they are vniuersally set downe as in their proper places shalbe shewed In the the fourth he gloryeth that he hath chosen to proue that poynte which of all other is moste hard That all the Apostles were not the same thinge that Peter was And firste he will aske in what Gpspell or holye Scripture it is written that euery other Apostle was the same Rocke which Sainct Mathewe testifyeth Sainct Peter to haue beene I answeare not onely by necessary collection out of many places of Scripture whiche he him selfe acknowledgeth to be the literall
sense as well as that which followeth the sounde of wordes it is proued but also in plaine wordes of Sainct Paul Ephe. the second verse 20. Where the Churche is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophetes Iesus Christ beeing the head corner stone And Apo. 21 verse 14. Where the twelue precious stones the foundations of the wall of the Cittie had on them the names of the xij Apostles of the Lambe The 5. is either thus or nothing at all for it is not noted in him as the other bee If Cyprian or Hierome were alleadged for this equallitie it were sufficient for him to say they were no Euangelists For he sheweth it written thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter You see these men that bragge of the Doctors will be holden by them as long as they liste The 6. whereas all holy Scriptures is on the popish Catholicks side he lamenteth the vnhappines of these dayes in w c men altogither vnlearned in them by the bare naming of Gods word haue among Pedlers won their spurres and amonge the ignoraunt haue gotten the opinion of knowledge As truely as none but Pedles and ignoraunt men imbrace this doctrine which we teach so truely all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side Among so many Princes noble men and excellent learned men as at this day acknowledge this doctrine to be the trueth M. Sanders head was very sleepy when he could see none but Pedlers and ignoraunt persons The seuenth he will take vpon him to shew by what meanes Sainct Peter excelled the other Apostles and sheweth in what order he will proceede which seeing it is contained worde for worde in the titles of the seuen Chapters next following I though it needelesse heere to rehearse The ninthe Chapter THat Saincte Peter passeth farre the other Aposlles in some kinde of ecclesiasticall dignitie THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes peraduenture more then some of the Apostles that he had greate dignity among the Apostles may easely be graūted but that he had auctority ouer them such as the Pope claymeth ouer all Bishops is of vs vtterly denyed Neitherd oeth any one nor all together of M. Sāders 34. argumentes proue that he had one iote of auctority ouer his brethren 1 He was first in order of nombring of the twelue Apostles 2 He was promised to be called Cephas before the twelue were chosen 3. He was named Peter at the time of the choise ergo he hadde the Popes auctoritie ouer them Who would graunt the consequence of these arguments Let vs see what the other be 4 It was sayd to him alone thou art Peter vppon this rocke I will build my Church I deny that it was said to him alone for all the Apostles were likewise rockes vppon which he would build his Church The like I say of the 5. that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were promised to him alone for euery one of the Apostles receiued thē aswel as he being or dained with equal power of binding losing of remit ing retayning sinnes Mat. 18. 18 Ioan. 20. 23. Notwithstanding the wordes at one time were spoken to Peter alone yet did they giue him no singular auctority The 6 Christ payed tribute for Peter as vnder head of his family ergo he was greater then the rest A fond argument This Didrachma was payd for euery man in the City where he dwelt because Peter had a house and a family in the Cytie Christ payed for him with whom he lodged and him selse But if you drawe it into an allegorie These absurdities will follow First that Christ maketh his Church and splrituall kingedome subiect to tribute yea to Moses lawe by which that kind of tribute was due Secondly you deuide Christes church into two householdes Didrachma was to be payde for the heade or firste borne of euery house And you shewe your ignoraunce in referring this payment to Num. 3. which was only for the firste borne wheras this was for all men And for the firste borne was dewe fiue siccles whereof euery one was halfe an Vnee of Siluer at the leaste whereas Didrachma contayning but two Drachmaes whereof euery one was equall with the Romane pennie coulde be but xvj pence at the moste of our monie It is a strong argument that the payment of trybute which argueth subiection should make Peter so greate a Lorde that he should be out of all subiection which if Chrysostome had considered hee woulde not haue grounded Peters primacie vppon so friuolus an Argument The seuenth Christe preached out of Saincte Peters Bote to shew that in his Chaire his doctrine should alwayes be stedfastly professed An Argument to be answeared either with laughing or hissing The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted yet Peters Fayth alone is prayed for This is vtterly false for Christe prayed for all his Apostles fayth Ioh. 17. if specially for Peter it was in respecte of his greater daunger and not in respect of his greater dignitie The 9. Peter firste entred into the Sepulchre ergo he was made pope He entred for farther confirmation of his Fayth concerning Christes resurrection this maye be imputed to diligence but not to dignitie 10 The Angell sayth Tel his Disciples and Peter naming him seuerally because of his shamefull fall he had more neede of comforte The 11. Ambrese thinketh Peter was the first man that saw him Nay rather the Souldiors which kept the graue saw him before Peter the women also which would geue them dignity aboue Peter if firste seeing were a matter to argue dignity or auctority of the seer The 12. onely S. Peter walked on the Sea that signifieth the worlde to be his iurisdiction As he walked by Fayth so by weakenesse of fayth he beganne to sinke And the Sea that he walked on was but a lake or meere therfore cannot well signifie the whole worlde beside the argument is as sure as if it were bound with a strawe 13 S. Peter is shewed to haue loued Christe more then the reste and is alone commaunded to feede his sheepe He had good cause to loue him more because greater sinnes were forgiuen him but it is false that he onely was commaunded to feed Christes sheepe for all the Apostles were likewise commaunded 14 It is saido to Peter thou shalte stretch foorth thy hands and followe thou mee by which a particular kinde of death on the crosse is prophecied A violent death but no particular kinde of death is shewed by these wordes And although it were yet Peter in beeing Crucifyed was made no greater then Andrewe who was crucifyed also if the storyes of both be true 15 Peter aunsweared alwayes for the Apostles ergo hee was chiefe No more then the foreman of the Iewrye although it is not true that he alwayes aunsweared for the rest for sometime Thomas sometime Philip sometime Iudas aunsweared Iohn 14. 16 Peter pronounced Iudas Iscariot deposed That was by speciall instinct
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
Bishoppe but as an Apostle for the conuersion of the Iewes which not onely out of all Iurie but out of all partes of the world came thither ordinarily to worshippe Of S. Peters sitting at Antioch as Bishoppe we finde nothing in the Scriptures and lesse of his remouing to Rome But we finde that when Peter came to Antioche Paule withstoode him to his face and reproued him openly which he might not well haue done if Peter had bene supreame heade of the church in his owne see as M. Sander doth fantasie Where he alleageth the text Episcopatum eius accipiat alter and let an other take his Bishoprike to proue that Iudas and so the Apostles were Bishoppes it is too childish fonde an argument seeing the Greeke word which S. Luke vseth the Hebrue word which the Prophet vseth signifieth generally a charge or office and not suche a particular office of a Bishoppe as nowe we speake of He citeth farther Theodorete in 3. cap. 1. ad Tim. to proue y t the name of an Apostle in the primitiue church did signifie such a Bishoppe But howe greatly Theodoret was deceaued appeareth by this that he citeth for proofe Philip. 2. Epaphroditus to be the Apostle of the Philippensians because S. Paule sayth of him Epaphroditus your Apostle and my helper whereas he meaneth that he was their messenger vsing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the generall signification for a messenger and not for the name of suche an officer as an Apostle or Bishoppe He nameth also Titus and Timotheus which in the Scripture are neuer called Apostles likewise the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem which were in deede the true Apostles of Christs immediat sending and not Bishoppes ordeyned by men And whereas Hierome sayeth that all Bishoppes be successors of the Apostles he meaneth manifestly in auctoritie within their seuerall charges and not that the Apostles were Bishops Likewise where Augustine sayth that the Bishoppes were made in steede of the Apostles it rather proueth that the Apostles were no Bishoppes for then if the Apostles were Bishoppes he should say Bishoppes were made in steede of Bishoppes The last reason is that if the office of Bishoppes had not bene distinct in the Apostles froÌ„ their Apostleship that office woulde haue ceased with the Apostleshippe for the whole being taken away no parte can remayne except it had an other grounde to stande in beside the Apostleshippe as the Bishoppely power had In deede if the Apostleshippe had ceased before Bishoppes had bene ordeyned Bishoplike power woulde haue ceased with it but seeing the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and Elders in euery congregation to continue to the worlds ende the Bishoppes office hath not ceased though the office of the Apostles is expired Wherefore seeing neither by Scripture reason nor Doctors this distinction of offices in the Apostles can be proued when Peter is called heade Prince chiefe first Capteyne of the Apostles by Cyrill or any auncient writer we must vnderstande as Ambrose teacheth a primacie of confession or fayth not of honor or degree de incar dom cap. 4. The 11. chapter HOw farre S. Peter did ether excell or was equall with the Apostles in their Apostolike office VVhere in diuerse obiections are aunswered which seeme to make against S. Peters supremacie BVt that necessity enforceth him M. Sander thinketh it sinne of curiositie to inquire of that equality or inequalitie of the Apostles where as it should suffice vs to follow the present state of the vniuersall Church practised in our time As though the vniuersall Church of any time did euer acknowledge the Pope to be supreame heade although a great part of the world hath of long time so taken him He thinketh it out of contronersie that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles as S. Mathew sayth primus the first Simon which is called Peter And he is not coÌ„tent that he was first in the order of numbring but he will haue him first in dignitie because he is alwayes named first But that is nether true nor a good reason if it were true because he is named first therefore he is of greatest dignitie But Gal. 2. 9 Iames and Cephas Iohn are sayde to haue bene pillers of the Churche and yet Paule equall with them Although if we graunted greatest dignity to Peter yet thereupon did not follow greatest authority For these three Apostles last named were of greatest dignity among the Apostles yet not of greater authoritie then the rest And although the auncient fathers of the worde primus haue deriued the name of primatus or primacy yet haue they also expressed wherin this primacie doth consist namely not in authoritie but in order nether doth those names Prince chiefe heade toppe guide mouth greatest of the Apostles vsed by some of them signifie his authoritie ouer them but his dignitie amongest them But if you aske him wherin Peter was chiefe He answereth â—â—â—â— question is curious For in y e nature order of the apostleship euery Apostle was equall with all his fellowes so is euery Bishop Priest King Duke Knight with euery one of his degree If this be as he sayth then was Peter chiefe nether as Apostle nor Bishoppe But there may be another thinge sayth he coincident to some degree of men not necessary for the being but for their well being One therefore was set ouer the Apostles for vnities sake and to auoyd schismes as Cyprian Hierom write in places before cited This must nedes be a primacy of order and not of authoritie for amonge men of equall authoritie as he confesseth the Apostles were one may be chosen as the President or Primate to auoyd confusion the austeritie remayning equall to euery one but one can not be preferred in authoritie to remayne still equall with his fellowes in auctoritie But wheras Optatus lib. 2. de schism Don. Leo ad Aâ—astas Ep. 82. are cited to proue that the same primacie which Peter some time but yet not alwaies had among the Apostles should be reteyned in succession of his chayre to mayntayne vnitie amonge all men it hath no ground in the holy Scriptures and yet those good men were farre from imagining suche an absolute power of Peters successor as M. Sander defendeth in the Pope although some times he doe handle it so nicely as it might seeme to be a thing of nothing wherein the Pope is aboue his fellow Bishops where I sayd that Peter had not alwayes the primacie of order among the Apostles it is proued both by the 15. of the Actes where Iames was President of the councell Gal. 2. not onely where Iames is named before Peter but also where Peter abstayned and separated him selfe after certayne came from Iames fearing them of the circumcifion left he should haue bene euill thought of as he was before for keeping company with Cornelius and in diuerse other places of the Actes of the Apostles But M. Sander will adde another truth
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
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
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
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.
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
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
denyed a testimony of the booke of wisedom de praedest Non debuit They should not reiect the saying of the booke of wisedom which in the church of Christ hath deserued so long a rew of yeares to be recited in the steppe of the readers of the church of Christ and with worship of diuine auctoritie to be heard of all Christians from the Bishops to the lowest sorte of lay men c. And againe Et Etiam temporibus c. Euen the notable interpreters that were next to the Apostles times when they brought forth that booke for witnes beleued that they brought nothing but a diuine testimonie Touching this defense first I aske of Bristow how he can proue that the booke of Machabees hath had such continuaunce of credit Secondly howe this saying of Augustine coÌ„cerning the booke of wisedom can be true when Hierome plainly reiecteth it as not Canonicall praefat in Prouerb Thirdly I demaunde how Bristow can defend his maior if we admitte this saying of Augustine to be true for not Pelagius as Allen sayth expressely nor any Pelagians as Bristow seemeth to meane but such as defended the Catholike faith against Pelagius reiected this saying of the booke of Wisedome which booke also we refuse although not for that saying and what one article of our doctrine doth that booke impugne nay rather there is testimonies therein manifest agaâ—â—st Images against Purgatory and merites yet can not we therefore allow the writings of Phâ—lo a â—ew since Christes time for the canonicall Scripture of Salomon whose title it salâ—ly beareth But to proceede Luther denyeth the Epistic of S. Iames because it is against his heresie of instfication by faith onely We allowe not Luther neither did he allow him self therein for he retracteth it afterward Yet is not Eusebius counted an heretike which vtterly reiecteth that Epistle Lib. 2. cap. 23. But to goe on Beza doth say that S. Lukes Gospell is falsified because it mainteyneth the reall presence of Christ in the sacramet where he sayth Hic est calix this is the chalice which is shed for you This is an impudent slaunder which I haue aunswered against SauÌ„ders rocke of the church in his ninthe marke of an AntichristiaÌ„ where it is handled at large and thether I referre the Reader To conclude Bristow saith no Scriptures is against the Catholikes but all for them because they must obediently receiue and beleue all Scriptures canonicall But what obedience and beliefe they attribute to the canonicall Scriptures it is plaine by this that they dare not abide the triall by them but flie from them to traditions as Bristow doth euen in the next motiue as though the Scriptures inspired of God were not sufficient both to teache all truth and to confute all errors In the demaund this motiâ—e is handled somewhat otherwise for there we are examined whether in the coÌ„ference of Carthage Augustine and his fellowes did not proue by Scripture that a visible Church should beginne at Hierusalem which shoulde continue visibly to the ende of the world I aunswer they proued sufficiently that the preaching of the gospell beginning at Hierusalem should gather the Church out of all partes of the world and therefore the faction of Donatus which begonne in Africa was not to be found but in a corner of Africa could not be the Church of Christ. But of a visible Church to continue visibly in manner as Bristow demaundeth there was no controuersie in that conference and therefore no proofe thereof brought out of the Scriptures The 9. motiue is the 29 demaund Traditions most certaine The Apostles were of our religion S. Augustine S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Cypriane fasting daies lent masse for the dead prayer for the dead confirmed by the Apostles traditions water mingling mith the wine in the chalice The Masse made by S. Paule S. Paule of our religioÌ„ The true Church sayth Bristow hath alwayes had traditions beside the Scripture and what company soeuer was faine to crye for only Scriptures to deny most certeyne traditions of the Apostles their doctrine was heresie and they heretikes To proue that the church had alwayes traditions beside Scripture he bringeth in the sayings of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. 2. Thess. 3. before the Scripture was all written when it was necessary for the Church to haue much of the doctrine deliuered onely by preaching yet had they no doctrine of faith but such as was coÌ„firmed by scriptures of the olde testament as is manifest 2. Pet. â— But for the certaintye of popishe traditions what proofe hath he First Basil de sp sancto cap. 27. sayth Dogmata c. Matters of doctrine which are kept and preached in the church we haue partly by doctrine committed to writing partly by tradition of the Apostles which are of like force vnto godlines c. But the same Basil writeth contrary to him selfe and agreeable to the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture in that it is not of faith is sinne And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he requireth euen newe planted Christians to be instructed in the holy Scriptures both for their full perswasioÌ„ in godlines also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be not acquainted with mens traditions Furthermore sayth Bristow Augustine Epiphanius the Protestants them selues condemne Heluidius for an heretike for denying the perpetuall virginitie of Marye the mother of Christ contrary to the Churches tradition Nay rather for troubling y e church with contention about that in which he hath no grouÌ„d out of the Scriptures Now let vs see how they are proued to be heretikes that refuse traditions of the Apostles are fayne to cry for onely Scriptures First that Maximinus the Arrian did so ergo whosoeuer doth so is an heretike according to Bristowes logike And yet he belyeth Maximinus for he refused not traditions of the Apostles but such wordes as were beside the Scripture meaning Homousion such like termes which were theÌ„ newly vsed but yet conteyned no newe doctrine but euen that which alwayes was approued according to the Scriptures The same thing did the decree of the heretical Emperour Constantius forbid not traditions of the Apostles of which was no controuersie betwene the true Christians the Arrians But that the Scriptures onely are of sufficient authoritie to confute heresies Augustine declareth euen against the same Maximinus lib. 3. cap. 14. Sed nunâ— nec ego Niccnum c. But now must not I bring forth the councel of Nice nor thou the couÌ„cel of Ariminum to make any preiudice but by the authoritie of Scriptures not being proper to ether but coÌ„mon witnesses to vs both let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason Likewise he and his fellow Bishops sayd vnto the Donatists in the conference of Carthage Si tantummodo id qu. crerctur quâ— vel rbi esset Ecclesia nihil se acturos publicis gestis sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo
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
in Protestants Because Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth of the fathers Quâ—d credunt credo c. That which they beleue I beleue also I holde that they holde I teache that they teach I preach that they preach and lib. 2. quos oporâ—ct c. Christian people ought to prefeâ—re the auncient holy truth before your profane nouelties and chose rather to sticke to them then to you And are Pelagians aliue in Protestants because Augustine recâ—iueth the olde writers that were agreeable to the scriptures Did not the Pelagians alledge the authority of the old writers also Lâ—b cont Iul cap. 2. 3 But what should I contend about that which is so cleare in Augustine De baptism câ—nt Dâ—natâ—si cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat â—anctam scripturam canonicam tam râ—t ris quam noui testaâ—â—â—â— â—ertis sâ—is terminis contineri camque omnibus postericribus Episcopâ—rum literis it a praeponi vt de ill a omnino dubitari d. s epâ—ari non pâ—ssâ—t vtrum verum vel vtrum rectuÌ„sâ— quiâ—quâ—â— in ea sâ—riptum esse constiterit Ep sâ—â—porum autem literas que post confiâ—matum canâ—nem vel scriptâ—e sunt vel sâ—riâ—untur per sermâ—nem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in care periti râ—s per alioruâ—n Episâ—â—porum grauiorem auctoritatem doctâ—orumque prudentiam per conâ—ilia liâ—ere reprehâ—ndi si quid in â—is forte à veritate deuiatum est iâ—sa concilia c. Who knoweth not that the holy canonical scripture both of the old and new testament is conteyned in their certeine bands and that the same is so preferred before all later writings of Bishops that of it there can be no doubt or question at all whether that be true or right whatsoeuer is knowen to be written therein But as for the writings of Bishops which since the canon is confirmed haue bene written or bâ— nowe in writing that by some speach perhaps more wise of any man that is more skillfull in that matter and by the more graue authoritie of other Bishops and wisedom of them that are better learned and by councells they may be reprehended if any thinge perhaps in them is gone a straye from the truth and that euâ—n those councells which are helde in euery region and prouince without all controuersie doe giue place to the authoritie of generall councels which are made out of all the Christian worlde and that euen the generall councells are often tymes corrected the former by the later c. as in the 13. motiue By which saying you may playnly see howe the olde fathers were S. Augustines motiue euen none otherwise then they are our retentiue to staye vs in Christian truthe which they write agreeable to the holye Scriptures and therefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristowe bothe where he saythe that in our preachinge and writinge we thinke it not necessary to alledge the tâ—stimonies of tâ—e olde fathers and also that in familiar talke amonge our selues we are not afearde plainely to confesse that the fathers all were Papistes As vayne a cauill it is that the Protestantes are ashamed of their fathers When we acknowledge no fathers vnto whose iudgement we will stande absolutely in all controuersies but the Prophetes and the Apostles and God him selfe by whose spirite they did write As for Simon Magus Eunomus and suche olde heretikes we detest more then the Papistes doe But AErius Vigilantius and Iouinian were playnely of our opinion and of them we are ashamed And doe you Papistes beleeue nothinge common with AErius Vigilantius Iouinian Doe you in no poynte holde that which Arius Macedonius Eutyches did holde Doe you mayntayne no opinion which was taught by Mahomet him selfe you will aunswer that there neuer was heresie but it hâ—lde and taught many articles of truthe which if you holde as they did you are not therefore their children in suche articles wherin they were heretikes Euen so we aunswere you of AErius Vigilantius Iouinian we are not ashamed to beleue any truth which they helde their errours we leaue vnto them selues But I know you will replye that among the errours of AErius the denyall of prayers to profit the deade was one accompted by Epiphanius and Augustine Then it is your parte to shewe what argumentes out of the holy Scripture they bring to proue this opinion to be an errour Otherwise their auctoritie alone is not sufficient to make it a truth Vigigilantius is baighted only by Hierome of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man and a learned As for Iouinian we take not his parte if in all respects he made mariage equall with virginitie which in some respect the Apostle preferreth But we must see of what religion and auctoritie the fathers were First sayth Bristow you may perceaue by Iewells challenge that for Purgatorie prayer for the dead and to Saincts merite of good workes c. there is somthing conteined in the olde fathers which liued within 600. yeares after Christ because he durst not make his challenge of these articles but of the Masse the Pope the eucharistie c. But I pray you Bristow are not these greater matters among you then the other If therefore you be not able to proue your greatest mysteries of antiquitie out of any one father for so many ages what great matter is it if you haue them fauourable in a fewe articles of lesse moment But Bristow with wayght of reason will beare vs downe that all the fathers are on their side wholly and against vs in all poynctes of our controuersie And this is his reason who are driuen to mayteyne the fathers credit and auctoritie Papistes or Protestantes Not Protestantes verily but Papistes ergo the fathers be all for Papistes and against Protestantes A mightie reason of mayne force Dioscorus and Eutyches in the councell of Chalcedon boasted of the auctoritie of the holie fathers and stoode much in defense of their creditte therefore the fathers were whollie on their side But let vs heare L. Humfreys opinion out of his booke of B. Iewells life of Iewells challenge of the fathers and of the Saincts in the calender Nay rather let vs heare Bristow yelping like a little curre agaynst so great a lyon First he snatcheth peeces of his sentences gnawne from the rest and then squeleth out as though he had hearde some maruelous straunge soundes D. Humfrey sayth Iewell gaue the Papistes too large a scope when not content to haue beaten them downe with the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures he made his challenge vpon the testimonie of the fathers and that so many hundreth yeares after Christ. And herein he was iniurious to him selfe that refusing that meane by which he might more easely more straightly haue maynteyned his cause after a maner he spoyled him selfe and the church This is his opinion of Maister Iewells challenge Howe followeth his opinion of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the calender
no Protestantes let them aunsweare for them selues If he calles them Puritanes which desire to haue the Church thorowly reformed there is no such dissention betweene them but that they all agree in the Articles of Faith maintayne brotherly concorde one with an other notwithstanding in diuersitie of opinions concerning the matters and manner of reformation But what an impudent attempte is chaunge of Religion hee will shewe vs out of Luther which writing againste the Anabaptistes Anno 1528. affirmeth that much Christianitie and true Christianitie is vnder the Popedome If chaunge of Religion bee so impudent an attempte why were the Papistes finding Religion quietly establyshed by lawe so impudent in Queene Maryes time not only to attempte but also to bring to passe in deede an alteration of Religion But the Popish Religion was true Christianitie by Luthers confession I aunswere Luther did meane nothing lesse by that confession then to defende any parte of Popery to bee Christianitie but writinge against the Anabaptistes which woulde haue all thinges abolyshed which the Papistes vsed he sheweth that such partes and Articles of Christianitie which in generall confession and acknowledging of the authoritie of the Scriptures the Papistes haue common with vs are not therefore to bee reiected because of them they haue bene abused Otherwise it is a poore Moâ—iue vnto Popery that Luther by these or any other woordes did euer minister vnto you The 17. Motiue is the 11. Demaunde The Catholike faith in England mightely planted lightly changed S. Augustine the Apostle of Englishmen of what Religion and authoritie Miracles for our whole Religion Sainte Bede of our Religion His story to be read of Englishmen Images and Crosses confirmed by miracle Prophecyes and visions for our Religion The Catholike Faith was purely planted in this Island by the Apostles euen in the raigne of Tiberius as restineth Gildas sixe hundreth yeeres before Augustine came from Rome bringing in deede with him the principall groundes of Christianitie and with all much Monkish superstition But that the Religion of Papisâ—rie differeth in as many pointes from that which Augustine planted as Augustines doth from oures I haue prooued abundantly in aunsweare to Stapletons Fortresse and breefely in the Table of differences And in such poyntes wherein wee differ from Augustine I haue proued that Augustine differed from the Apostles As for his Miracles affirmed by the Saxons and denied by the Briton writers shall still remaine in controuersie for me As also his prophecie so tearmed by the Saxons which the Britons affiâ—me to be a threatening of crueltie which he himselfe procured to be executed on the poore Students â—â—ergie of Bangor In the demaunde Bristow would knowe of vs whether the Britains by Eleutherius were coÌ„uerted to one faith and the Saxons by Gregory and Augustine vnto an other But I haue shewed before that the Britanes were not coÌ„uerted by Elutherius although perhaps the Church which was more then an hundreth yeares of age in his tyme might by him of charitie be confirmed in truth or admonished to beware of such heretikes as then troubled the Church abroade But I deny that Eleutherius maynteyned all that superstition which Augustine brought in And I affirme that â—â—â—â— Britons church in Augustines tyme differed in more things then in the celebration of Easter from the Romish Churche as I haue shewed in that confutation of Stapleton euen by testimony of Bede him selfe Although I will not deny but there might be some corruption euen amonge the Britayns also as there were that maynteyned the heresie of the Pelagians Wherefore into that Catholike faith which was first mightely planted in this lande by the Apostles of Christ and not of Gregorie through the most weightie argumentes taken of the auctority of the holy Scriptures is this realme by the great mercie of God returned from the schiâ—me and heresie of Antichrist so I hope shall remaine euen vntil the second comming of Christ. The 18. motiue is the 3. demaund Going out S. Optatus motiue The churches practise is alwayes infallible The vnitie and constancie of the Bishops of England Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing We like Optatus Motiue well for going out of the Church into any other faction But it may not be drawn contrarie to his meaning against those which goe out of Babilon into Ierusalem He saith VVe must see who hath remained in the roote with the whole worlde Verely not the Papists which are departed from the doctrine of the Apostles which is the roote of the Church by them planted in all the worlde VVe must see who is gone foorth which Bristow doth rightly referre to that saying of Saint Paule Discedent quidam à fide Some shall departe from the Fayth But who are those They that teache the doctrine of deuilles forbidding to marrye and commaunding to abstaine from meates Nowe whether Papists or protestants be such let the worlde iudge Optatus will haue it farther considered VVho is set in an other Chayre that was not before Verely none so manifestly as the Pope who sitteth in a Chayre that none of the Apostles nor Apostolike men for many hundreth yeeres after Christe did knowe Againe VVho hath sette an Aultar against the Aultar who but the Papists which haue erected the Sacrifice of the Masse to ouerthrow the Aultar of the crosse of Christ Finally VVho hath made an ordination the other before ordayned beeing whole sounde Quis ordinationem fecerit saluo altero ordinato Which Bristow hath falsely traÌ„slated thus VVho hath placed Bishops there where others were placed before which are yet aliue As though it were a faulte to putte out false Bishoppes and to supply the roomes with true Bishoppes where as Optatus meaneth of Heretikes which are gone from true Byshoppes and sette vppe Heretikes in schisme the true Bishoppes still remayning as the Papistes did in Queene Maryes time vntyll they had burned vppe almoste all As for the vnitie and constancy of the popishe deposed Prelates which hee commendeth is sufficiently knowne to the worlde which although they were all saue one obstinate in the beginning of her Maiesties raygne because they hoped by trayterous practises foolish prophecies deuilish coniuration to see an alteration shortly aswel for religion as also for the whole state of the common wealth and withall had experience of the mercifulnes and compassion of the Kinges of Israell so that they were not in feare of their liues or any great hazard of their goods yet had they all or the most part of them such was their good constancy reuolted from popery and sworne against the Pope in the raygne of Kinge Henrye and King Edward As for the decaye of Protestants and professors of the truthe of Gods word which the cold prophet foreseeth by some trayterous deuise whispered among his pewfellowes at Louayne or Dowaye it shall haue such successe and euent by Gods grace as hitherto the like treasonable practises haue obteyned
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
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
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
will proue that it is first with the Papistes For if by Gods word we meane the written letter of the Bible they are before vs because we haue none assured copies thereof which we receyued not of them for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered Gods word to the Romaines the Church of Rome hath alwayes kept it without leesing or corrupting I aunswer we meane not by Gods worde the written letter onely but receyuing and obeying the true and playne sense thereof to be the marke of the Church Againe I deny that we had any assured copies of the olde and new testament of the popish Church but the one of the Iewes in Hebrue the other of the Greeke Church in Greeke And whereas he talketh of a certayne daye in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered the Scripture to the Romains it sauoreth altogether of a popish fable finally how the Romish Church in these last dayes hath kept the Scripture from corruption although I coulde shew by an hundreth examples yet this one shall suffice for all the very first promise of the Gospell that is in the Scripture Gen. 3. that the seede of the woman shoulde breake the serpents heade the popish Church hath ether willfully corrupted or negligently suffered to be depraued thus ipsa conteret caput iuum she shall breake thyne heade referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressely to the seede of the woman The second marke is that the Papistes acknowledge more of the Bible then we doe by the bookes of Toby Iudeth Wisedom Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees I aunswer in that you adde vnto the word of God it is a certayne argument that you are not the true Church of Christ for the true Church of Christ hath euer accompted those bookes for apocryphall witnesse hereof Hieronym praef in prouerb Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritateÌ„ EcclesiasticoruÌ„ dogmatum confirmandam Therefore as the Church doth in deede reade the bookes of Iudith Tobias and of the Machabees but she receyueth them not among the canonicall Scriptures so she may reade these two bookes meaning the booke of Wisedom and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall opinions Nether is Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. whoÌ„ M. Sander quoteth of any other iudgement but prescribeth rules how the canonicall Scriptures are to be knowne And cont Gaudent epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesseâ—h plainely that the booke of Machabees is not accompted of the Iewes as the law the Prophets and the Psalmes which our Sauiour Christ admitteth as his witnesses yet it is receyued of the Church if it be read or heard soberly Whereby it is manifest that the Church in his tyme receyued it not absolutely as part of the Canonicall Scripture but vnder condition of a sober reader or hearer As for the decree ascribed to Gelasius it hath no sufficient credit of antiquitie and much lesse the late councels of Florence and Trent which he quoteth Beside that the same decree of Gelasius admitting but one booke of Esdras excludeth the Canonicall booke of Nehemias and receyueth but one booke of the Machabees which will doe the Papistes but small pleasure The third marke the popish Church receyueth not only the hebrue text of the old testament the greeke of the new but also the greeke translation of the septuaginta and the common Latine translation to be of full authoritie whereas we giue small credit to those translations except they agree with the first Hebrue and Greeke copies Therefore the Papists haue Gods word in more authenticke tongues and copies then we haue I aunswer The Tridentine councell alloweth none for authenticall but the common Latine translation that is the worst of all but in that the popish Church admitteth differing translations from the originall truth of the Hebrue and Greeke text to be of full authoritie with the truth it appeareth plainely that she is not the Church of Christ which ether willfully confoundeth error with truth or els lacketh the spirite of discretion to know the one from the other And for more authentike copies it is impudently sayd that the Papistes doe receiue for we receiue not onely all these which he nameth but also the most auncieÌ„t Chaldee Paraphrastes the Syrian text of the new testament yea the Arabicall text of the whole Bible beside all vulgare translations of English French Dutch Italian Spanish which the Papistes can not abide All those I saye we receyue as authenticall copies for Christian men to vse but so that the tryall of all translations be made by the originall truthe of the Hebâ—ue and Greeke texts in which tongue the olde and newe Testament were first written Fourthly the Papistes doe translate and expounde Gods worde in all maner of tongues better then we because they haue not onely internall vocation but also externall vocation and commission from the Apostles by lyneall succession of Bishops and Preestes whereas we haue no commission but â—rom the common wealth which hath none authoritie to make Preestes c and yet how shall they preache if they be not sent Rom. 10. I aunswer concerning translations of the word of God into all tongues I neuer saw any nether is there any translation to be shewed of any Papist into any vulgare tongue And as for the externall calling of the Papistes I say it is not from any lawfull succession of the Apostles and auncient Church whose faith and doctrine they do not follow in their interpretations for if lyneall succession of Priestes and Bishops coulde make interpretations good the doctrine of Arius Nestorius Macedonius and many other heretikes whose externall calling was according to the lyneall and ordinary succession of Bishops and Priestes might be auctorised for Catholike Yea the Papistes might not refuse whatsoeuer Luther Bucer Cranmer and other haue taught which had the same lyneall succession that M. Sander doth nowe bragge of And as for our externall calling he sayth falsly it is of the common weale c whereas it is of the Church and therefore ordinarye and lawfull and the saying of S. Paule whom he citeth Rom. the tenth is of the inward calling and sending by God whereof our doctrine agreeable with the Scripture and our whole intent to set forth the glory of God is a sufficient profe the one to satisfie men the other to aunswer our owne conscience Fiftly he sayth it is no perfection at all on our side that we reade Gods word to the people in our Church seruice in the vulgare tongue for thereby we lacke the vse of the better tongues as of the Greeke and Latine O maister of impudencie what vse is there of the Greeke and Latine tongues to be read to the people
of saluation brought in by the Pope then S. Paule deliuered to the Galathians we hold the Pope theÌ„ iustly accursed But we iustifie them sayth he by the word of God not written I am sure but by your counterfeit word of traditions as you say by bookes of auncient fathers and yet not by bookes of the most auncient fathers in whome is litle or nothing at all of suche drosse and chaffe amonge a great deale of good corne But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like thinges sayth he but keepe the olde humilitie obedience and vnitie is our fault if we haue any O fautles hypocrites if the older truth had neuer bene reuealed vnto you against your olde heresies your faults had bene the lesse but nowe your darkenes being conuinced of the light your pride rebellion and schisme from Christ and his Church is and appeareth most haynous and manifest Now seeing M. Sander dare not encounter with vs in this very poynt of our contention he sayneth an Idoll of an aduersary to shew his manhood vpon before his friendes that they may prayse him for a worthy champion He imagineth that we reply that Luther and Caluine did so change popish religion as Christ and his Apostles did chauÌ„ge the Iewish religion and then he layeth on lode that Luther and Caluines authoritie is not like to Christes whereas we make no such comparison but affirme that these godly preachers were sent of God so to reueale and discouer the idolatry corruptions mayntayned in the Church as Elias Elizeus Oseas and the other Prophets were sent to restore and reforme the true worship of God corrupted and decayed amonge the Israelites reprouing and reforming all thinges according to the infallible rule of Gods worde And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech I say it is horrible blasphemy to make any successors vnto Christ in â—â—â—â— priesthood which the holy Ghost sayth he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as passeth not from him by succession to others because he liueth for euer And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin in Psal. 33. de ciui Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont adu leg lib. 1. cap. 18. reade the places who will and he shall finde that these fathers speake not at all of any propiciatory sacrifice of Christes very body and bloode in the sacrament but of the sacrifice of thankes giuing which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God in the celebration of the holy mysteries for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blinde and obstinate Papists to see the bookes margent paynted with quotations of doctors by them which peraduenture neuer turned the bookes them selues but borowed their quotations of other men But M. Sander sayth whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine doe all things according to Gods worde they are the more to be abhorred not only because the one is contrary to the other but also because they pretende to haue their doings figured and prophecyed in the Gospel whereas there is but one Christ which hath bene borne dyed but once therefore these men haue no power to abrogate the Masse or to take away the key of auncient religion To their dissention I aunswer it is not in many poyntes but in one that not of the greatest weight as for their pretence of theyr doinges to be figured or prophetied in the Gospell it is a dreame of M. Sanders drousie head for they make none such but they shew the abuses of the Romish church by the doctrine of Gods word by the same they shew the way to reforme them and this to the glory of Christ who dyed but once they abrogate the Masse by which it should follow if it were of any force that he should dye often for without death sheding of bloud there is no sacrifice for remission of sinnes Heb. 9. 22. 26. If we deny the Masse to be that they say it is he aunswereth that as he doeth not reade that the Iewish priestes did erre concerning the substance of their publike sacrifice So is it lesse possible that the vniuersall church of Christ should erre in that publike act wherin Christ is sacrificed Here is a wise argument hauing neither head nor foote nor any ioynt to hange togeather For whatsoeuer M. Sander readeth we reade that Vrias the high Priest made an heathenish altar in the Temple at the commaundement of the king Achas offered sacrifice theron 2. Reg. 16. VVe reade also in Iosephus that Caiaphas diuers other of y e high Priestes were Saduces which could not but erre in the substaÌ„ce of their publike sacrifice when they beleued not the resurrection Seeing the end of theyr sacrifices was to signifie y e eternall redâ—ption by Christ. Now to the second parte of the argument I say the vniuersall church dyd not erre though the schismaticall synagogue of Rome departed froÌ„ Christs institutioÌ„ But M. SaÌ„der chafeth vs away with this double negatiue no no maisters Antechrists you may be christ you caÌ„not be Gods curse light on him that would haue any other Christ theÌ„ Iesus the sonne of God Mary which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heaueÌ„ But it is your Antechrist of Rome that vsurpeth not only the office but also receiueth the name of Christ God of his AntechristiaÌ„ Canonists w c I know you will not deny though your face be of brasse because â—â—â—â— boks may be shewed to any maÌ„y list to se theÌ„ After his large excursion he returneth to D. Parker whome he would aduise to reuolt to the popish church but he God be thanked hauing ended his dayes in the catholike church of Christ on earth is now receued into the fellowship of the tryumphant church in heauen I passe ouer how maliciously he â—ayleth against the blessed martyr Tho. Cranmer for defence of whose learning and godlines I refer the reader to his story faithfully set forth by M. Fox All other Archbishops of Canterbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Gregory were of their popish profession Of a great number it is as he sayth but not of all For the opinion of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament was not receiued in the Church of England for two or three huÌ„dereth yeeres after Augustines arriual as that Homely which that reuerend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury caused to be translated and imprinted doth manifestly declare And whereas hee sâ—orneth at the persecuted congregation of Wickleue Husse and the poore men of Lyons boasting of the externall pompe and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church I haue sufficiently aunsweared before that bothe the apostacy of the church of Antichrist the persecution of the church of Christ was so described proficied before that neither the one nor the other should trouble any mans conscience w
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
as Christ his Apostles forbiddeth as we see to be vsurped and practised by the Pope of Rome his clergy howsoeuer M. Sander in tearmes of distinction would seeme to shadow it But he will shewe out one of these places which we alleadge as if it did vtterly forbid all superiority amonge the Disciples luc 22 that the ecclesiasticall primacy is cleerely establyshed and confirmed First he sayth most vntruly that we deny all superiority amonge the Discyples of Christe as though we denyed all gouernmente amonge Christians excepte hee doe childishly vnderstande the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiasticall onely and yet wee denye not all superioritie among them but that kinde of primacie which the Pope claymeth and tyrannically vsurpeth Secondly he maketh a longe preamble before he come to the matter that althoughe the Apostles did diuerse times striue for the primacie as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 vpon the request of Zebedees wife Mark 10. after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ neuer denyed that there should be one greater among them and often signifyed that the same shoulde be S. Peter especially when he sayde thou arte Peter and vppon this Rock I will builde my Church If you demaunde why they stroue for supremacie when hee had determined it he yeeldeth a substantial reason because while Christe lyued vpon Earth it was in his free choise to haue appoynted it otherwise vntill at the last in the 21. of Iohn he saide vnto him Simon thou sonne of Iona. c. By these it appeareth that M. Sander confesseth that no text of Scripture proueth the supremacie of Peter more directly and playnely then this of Iohn 21. which when euery Childe seeth howe little force it hath to proue it you may easily iudge that the Papists them selues againste their owne consciences doe inforce all other Textes vttered before to establishe it And namely this of Luke 22. in which he sayth that Christ taking vppe the strife that was among his Apostles about the primacie ended his talke at laste with Simon Peter shewing him to bee that one that was greater then the rest What Asse if he coulde speake with mans voyce would reason thus that because Christe conuerting his speache from exhorting all his Apostles to admonishe Peter of his speciall daunger he stoode in by his infirmitie signifyed that Peter was greater then all the Apostles But wee muste heare him compare these words of Christe Luke 22. with the words of S. Mathew and Marke in other places which he sayth the Magdeburgen cent doth huddle vp as they were alone wheras they differ much The wordes of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these VVhosoeuer among you wil be greater let him be your seruitor And whosoeuer among you will be first shall bee your seruant In Sainct Luke 22. He that is greater among you let him be made as the younger and he that is chiefe as he that ministereth M. Sander will haue greate difference to be in these sayings First generally that the former sentence speaketh not of the greatnesse among ecclesiasticall officers but all Christians which is vtterly false because this kinde of greatnes is prescribed vnto them to whome external dominion is forbidden But that is not to all men but vnto the Apostles onely and their successors therefore this kinde of greatnes is proper only vnto them For he speaketh not of greatnes by humilitie onely but of greatnes without forraine dominion and worldly dignity and ioyned with seruice which is peculier to the ministery ecclesiasticall Secondly he maketh sixe friuolous differences which either are false or else make no diuersitie in the sence of the places The first Mathew and Mark speake of any man VVho soeuer S. Luke of one man which by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pointed out If the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe alwaies pointe one certaine man it is somwhat that M. Sand. saith but If ten thousaÌ„d times and more as euery man meanely learned in the Greeke toung doth know it signifieth not one certaine man then is this a fond difference The second the other speake of a desire to be great VVho so would be great S. Luke of the effect already present he that is greater But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver 4. ouerthrow this differeÌ„ce with the former for ther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greateste is taken for any one that shall humble himselfe as a Childe and not for one made primate of the Church The third difference is that the letter speake of him that would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great S. Luke of him that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greeke phrase But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the others signifyeth the greatest according to the Hebrue phrase it is manifest by the word vsed by both which call him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or chiefest of all Therfore these three differences are not worth three chippes The fourth S. Matthew calleth him that woulde be great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seruaunte S. Luke giueth no name of seruice to him that is greater but he is willed to be youÌ„ger or vnderling Yet S. Luke in another place Cap. 9. vers 48. calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the least which shall be the greatest But what fonde quarrelling is this Doth not the Pope call himselfe seruaunt of the seruantes of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest seruice belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dignitie though indeede he yeelde no seruice but vsurpeth all tyranny Is M. Sander nowe ashamed of that seruice that the Pope by solemne title hath so longe professed As for a preeminence of order we deny not but it was among the Apostles must be in euery seuerall company although it be not necessary that it should be perpetual in one man but as euery Church shall ordaine but a primacy of authoritie ouer all the Church we vtterly deny that euer it was graunted to Peeter or any man by our Sauiour Christe M. Sand. citeth Ambrose in Luke 22. to proue it Qui lapsus es c. Thou which didst slide before thou didst weepe after thou haste wepte art set vpright that thou shouldesirule others who before haddest not ruled thy selfe Loe sayth he Peter did rule others A great myrracle but doth it follow that either he ruled al meÌ„ or that he ruled his equals the Apostles of whome the same Ambrose sayth De spiritu Sancto lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Paulus inferior Petro quamuis is ecclesiae fundamentum hic sapiens architectus sâ—iens vestigia credentium fundare populorum Neither was Paule inferiour to Peter although hee was the foundation of the church Paul a wise builder knowing howe to founde the steps of the people beleuing And again in his boke de incarnatione Domini ca. 4. Hic inquam vbi audiuit vos â—utem quid
Apostles had I aunswer the kinges supremacie is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had For although he haue authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall according to Gods word yet is he no Ecclesiasticall officer but a ciuill Magistrate hauing chiefe authoritie in all causes not absolute to doe what he will but onely what God commaundeth him namely to prouide by lawes that God may be truely worshipped and all offences against his religion may be punished And whereas M. Sander inferreth that an Ethnike Prince or Turke may be supreame heade of our Church we vtterly denye to any such the name of an head which can not be a member but euen an Ethnicke Prince or a Turke may be chiefe Magistrate ouer the faithfull and make lawes for the mayntenance of Christian religion as an hypocrite Christian may They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God Nabuchadnezer Darius Cyrus Artaxerxes which were heathen Princes made godly lawes for the true worship of God furtherance of his people as in the prophecie of Daniel the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah it is manifest S Paule appealed to Nero the Emperor Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24 that the Christians in a matter of a Bishopps election and for a Bishops house were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperour And this notwithstanding the Church is alwayes vnder the soueraigne authoritie of Christ and the spirituall gouernment of her seuerall pastors and teachers when Christ ascending into heauen ordayned for her edification and vnitie and not one Pope ouer all Eph. 4. 13. But now he will enter one degree farther and suppose that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortall man to be or as any Bishop and Priest is yet he can nether baptize consecrate forgiue sinnes praise excommunicate blesse nor be Iudge of doctrine by his kingly authoritie If he can doe none of those he can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes I denye this argument For his supremacie is not to doe those thinges or any of them but to prouide and commaund that they may be doon as they ought to be But he riseth vp againe and sayth that whosoeuer hath soueraigne authoritie either in ciuill matters or Ecclesiasticall he may in his owne person execute any of those thinges which any of his inferiours may do So he saith the king if he wil may be Iudge in VVestminster hall shrieue and constable yea he may play the tayler maister Carpenter or tanner It is maruell he sayth not that he may be both a king and subiect Likewise the primate he might as wel say the Pope may helpe a Priest to Masse cary the crosse in procession digge a graue c. I deny this rule to hold in all thinges For there are some thinges that the Prince may not doe for lacke of knowledge and some thinges for lacke of calling and yet he may commaund both to be done For controuersies of lawe he may not decyde except he haue knowledge of the law nor minister Phisick except he haue knowledge in phisicke yet he may command both Lawyers Phisitions to doe according to their knowledge likewise to preache baptize c. he may not because he lacketh calling for none may doe those thinges lawfully but he that hath a speciall calling but he may commaund those thinges to be done to be well done according to Gods lawe whereof he ought not to be ignorant and for that purpose is especially commaunded to study in the booke of Gods lawe that not onely in matters concerning his owne person but in matters concerning Gods honor he may cause all men to doe their duetie Deut. 17. 18. So did Dauid Salomon Iehosaphat Ezechias Iosias commaund the Priestes to offer vp the sacrifices and to doe their duetie which it was not lawfull for their kinges to execute And is it so straunge a matter that a popish king may not commaund his Chaplayne to saye Masse or to saye his Masse reuerently and orderly as the lawes of popery doe require if he may commaund ouer tho e matters which yet he may not doe him selfe let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth that whosoeuer hath authoritie in any matters may doe all thinges him selfe which any of his inferiours may doe or which he may commaund to be done whereupon he concludeth that the king hath no right or supreame power at all in Ecclesiasticall causes vnlesse it be committed to him from the Bishop so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary may doe that by M. Sanders exception w c nether by commaundement of God nor his kingly power he hath auctoritie to doe Another argument he bringeth as good as this that the lesser authoritie doth not comprehend the greater and therefore M Horne must aunswer him whether to preache baptize forgiue sinnes c. be greater or lesser ministerie then the kinges authoritie If it be greater then it can not be comprehended in the kinges authoritie which is lesser What that reuerend father the Bishop of Winchester hath aunswered it may be seene in his booke against M. Feckenham But to talke with you M. Sander what if I graunt that the Ecclesiasticall ministery is not comprehended in the kinges authoritie will you thereupon inferre that the kinges authoritie is not to commaund the ministers of the Church in these matters to doe their dueties according to the worde of God In deede you conclude so but your argument is naught For the king is Gods Lieuetenant to see both the Church and the common wealth to be wel ordered And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diuers respectes As in authoritie of commaunding the king is greater then the Phisition in knowledge practise of phisicke the king is lesse then the Phisition So in authority of coÌ„maunding the prince is greater then the minister but in authoritie of ministration he is lesse and no inconuenience in the world to the dignitie of other estate or calling The Bishop of Winchesters examples M. Sander saith are euil applyed For they only shew what was done and not what ought to haue bene done and so for many circumstaÌ„ces are subiect to much wrangling 1. For either he was no good Prince which medled with disposing of holy matters 2. or in that deede he was not good 3. or he did it by coÌ„mission from a Prophet or an high Priest 4. or he was deceiued by flatterers 5. or he was inforced by necessitie But all these quarells notwithstanding the examples of Scripture are so many and so playne that M. Sanders â—â—angling can not obscure them Dauid a good Prince did well in appoynting the Leuits and Priestes to their seuerall offices and forbidding the Leuits to cary the arke and the vessells thereof without any coÌ„mission from Priest or Prophet but onely by the word of God not deceyued by flatterers nor enforced by necessitie 1. Chron. 23.
made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one he is not ashamed to charge Maister Iewell for leauing the moste literall sense and mingling three opinions of these foure in one as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ were the onely or moste literall sense But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particulerly with all circumstaunces for my parte considering all circumstaunces I think the most simple and plaine meaning of Christe is that Peter it a Rocke or stone vppon which the Church is buylded but none otherwise then euery one of the Apostles is Ephe 2. and 20. verse and in the Apocalips the 21. chapter and 14. verse Of which M. Sander also confesseth euery one to be a Rock in his kinde But nowe let vs see the fiue circumstaunces by which Maister Saunder will proue Peter for to bee such a Rocke as none of all the reste of the Apostles is but he The firste Christe promised Symon before he confessed that he shoulde be called Peter whiche was the firste cause of beeing the Rocke Iohn I. Admit this to bee a promise not an imposition of a name in respect of the giftes of fortitude constancie where with he woulde endue him this proueth him not to be a singular rocke The second he was named Peter before he coÌ„fessed which was the performaunce of the promise Mark 3. I dout not but that he had coÌ„fessed Christ before he was made an Apostle although he had not made that solemne confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstaunce is a friuolous argument And his brother Andrewe which first brought him to Christ confessed Iesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ. The thirde when he had confessed the Godheade of Christ which was the fruâ—ct of the gift of the promise Christ pronounced him to be such a rocke whereupon he would build his church which was the reward of his confession But all the Apostles made the same confession therefore the same reward was geuen to all that they should euerie one be a rocke or stone on which the church should be builded The fourth Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle which was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter was in respect of his greater weakenes when he was left to him selfe The last to shew what strength Peter should geue to his brethren after his conuersion Christ bad him feede his lambes wherby he was made such a rock wherby he should stay vp his church by teaching ruling y e faithful as whose voyce the sheepe should be bound to heare in payne of damnation First I answere that the strength or confirmation which he should geue to his brethren was not all one with his feeding of the lambes but was vsed to the strengthening of his weake brethren the rest of the Apostles whom after his maruelous conuersion he did mightely confirme though in his fall he was shewed to be the weakest of all Then I say the feeding of the sheepe of Christ was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles in which he had no prerogatiue of auctoritie geuen but an earnest charge to shewe his greater loue by greater diligence in his office So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock then euery one of the Apostles is The fourth Chapter DIuerse reasons are alleaged to proue chiefely by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture that these wordes thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will builde my church haue this literall meaning vpon thee ô Peter being first made a rocke to thend thou shouldest stoutely confesse the faith and so confessing it I will build my church the promise to be caelled Peter was the first cause VVhy the church was built vpon him the Protestants can not tel which is the first literall sense of these wordes vpon this rocke will I build my church FIrst it is to be remembred that M. SaÌ„der in the chapter before reiecting the interpretatioÌ„ of three of the greatest Doctors of the church Origen Augustine and Chrysostom not only is bound in equity to geue vs the same liberty which he taketh him selfe but also to confesse that these three principal doctors following other senses then his were ignoraunt of that which he all other Papists make to be the chiefe article of Christian faith namely of the supremacie of Peter when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rocke wherupon Christ would build his church and therfore would neuer haue subscribed to his booke which he instituteth the rock of the church But nowe to the argument of this chapter Chrysostomis cited to proue that where Christ sayth to Peter thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cepha which is by intepretation Peter a newe name is promised to Simon in Ioan. Hom. 18. Honorifice c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him For the certeine foretelling of things to come is the worke only of the immortal God It is to be noted that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all thinges which shoulde come to passe afterwarde to him For he did not call him Peter neither did he say vpon this rocke will I builde my church But he sayd thou shalt be called Cephas For that was both of more power and also of more auctoritie There is nothing in this sentence but that we may willingly admit Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelue foundations of the church as he was afterward And that Chrysostom iudged no singular thing to be graunted by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter appeareth by his wordes in Euang. Ioann Praef. Where he applieth the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus columna omniuÌ„ quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum qui caeli claues habet For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ being a piller of all the churches which are in the worlde which hath the keyes of heauen Neither doth Cyrillus whom he citeth make any thing for his purpose In Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon c. And he telleth afore hande that his name shalbe Peter and not nowe Simon by the very word signifying that he would build his church on him as on a rocke and most sure stone These are the wordes of Cyrillus but that he meaneth not his person but his faith he sheweth manifestly in his booke de Trinit lib. 4. speaking vpon the text of Math. 16. the grounde of M. Sanders booke Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud quam inconcussam firmissimam discipuli fidem vocauit in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata fundata esset vt non laberetur I thinke he called a rocke by denomination nothing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast
doctrine but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. 17. c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham that the ciuil Magistrate may visit correct reforme and depose any Bishop in their owne realme Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche then the power of a Bishop And what inconuenience is this in thinges perteining to his office seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching ministring c. is confessed to be aboue the King Hereby we make the body aboue the soule saith M. Sander the tēporal reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen Not a whit no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome Onely this we say that M. Sander dissembleth The cause must be iust for which ◠King shoulde depose a Bishop or pastor for thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop the poorest Priest from his benefice This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vpon iust cause Now if the cause be iust it must be either manifest or doubtfull If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther treason adulterie c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe as in all other mens causes may proceede against a Bishop If the cause be doubtfull it is either for life or doctrine The triall of the Bishops life ought to be as all other mens are with due cōsideration of his accusers The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling if he be culpable and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place from his life also if his offence deserue it But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y e Bishops pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde haue them ruled none of vs did euer affirme for that were tyranny not Christian gouernment And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperour doth Athanasius complaine In Episi ad sol vit agent and shew the iudgement aunsweres of the Christian Bishops Paulinus Lucifer Eusebius Dionysius Liberius Hosius vnto him when he would haue enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius for defending the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ. But yet the same Athanasius appealed him selfe to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses as any mortall mā may be deceiued as Dauid was about Mephibosheth gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before threatned to depose him if he were disobediēt he neuer repined but acknowledged his auctority Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat If I shall know sayth the Emperour that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement remoue thy place Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes according to the truth M. Sander fearing we would obiect against him that Constantinus Martianus other godly Emperors vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops replieth that it was only to kepe peace wheras they did not only kepe peace but also prescribe commaūd the Bishops to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell Euangelici enim c. The bookes of the Gospells of the Apostles the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs in the vnderstanding of God Therfore setting all hateful discord aside let vs take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite the explication of the questions They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie like as they called the councells together to make their decrees But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeares of discretion will be able to consider what maner a Bishop he is who layeth the Priestly right vnder the lay mens feete By which saith M. Sander you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellowes be w c geue the most proude intollerable title of supreame head gouernor to lay Princes I answere in geuing this title they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie cōfesse with Augustine that there is no greater then a Priest in his office although Moses after the distinction was no Priest but a ciuil Magistrate in his calling aboue Aaron that was high Priest And although M. Sander say this is the diuinity of England only to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor he sayeth most vntruly for all learned men of all countries doe acknowledge the same in such sorte as we do in England and not as he in Flanders either dreameth or slaundereth vs to do For we confesse with Valentinian the good Emperour that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis c. They which studie by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells knowe to submit them selues to publike offices according to the lawes they speake not against the Emperors power but they keepe the commaundementes of a sincere and great Emperour and the commaundementes of God and are subiect to our lawes but you are found disobedient Finally we neuer ment to geue the Prince by flatteriē auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bishops alone neither would we haue a confusion of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius doth any thing at all touch vs who limit the supremacie of Princes within the compase of Gods worde and Christian religion against which neither Prince nor Priest hath any auctoritie to commaund The seuenth marke of Antichrist is the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse Nay rather it is a setting vp of a new altare sacrifice propitiatorie against the only
gather againe the Lords sheepe into his folde The 9. note is That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptised by hereâ—kes yet hee denyed not his prerogatiue but kept still the vnitie of the militant Church in acknowledging the visible head thereof He quoteth his ep Contra Stephan wherin is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogatiue but contrary wise euery childe may see that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinon froÌ„ the B. of Rome wrote against him he helde no such prerogatiue of that sea as the Papists now maintaine that the bishop of Rome cannot erre In deede Cyprian professeth that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion yet he would not deparâ—e from the vnitie of the Church but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head wherof M. S. speaketh much but Cyprian neuer a word neither in that place nor in any of all his workes The next authoritie is Hippolitus whose words Prud rehearseth Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite c. Hâ—s aunsvvere vvas O flee the sâ—smes of cursed Nouates lâ—re And to the Catholike fâ—lke and stocke your selues againe restore Let onely one faith rule and raâ—gne kept in the Church of olde VVhich faith both Paule doth sâ—l retaine Peters chair doth holdâ— No dout this was a good exhortation so longe as the temple of Peter aâ—d Paule at Rome did holde the olde catholike faith from which seeing the Pope is now fled we may not honor the emptie chaire of Peter to think there is his faith where his doctrine is not After Hippolitus followeth Sozomenus who reporteth that Athanasius and certaine other Byshops of the Greeke Church came to Rome to Iulius the byshopp there to complaine that they were vniustly deposed by the Arians Wherevpon the Byshop of Rome finding them vpon examination to agree with the Nicene couÌ„cel did reâ—eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all for the worthynes of his owne See and did restore to euery of them their owne Churches c. Heere M. Sander hath his 9 obseruations he delighteth much in that number But it shall not neede to stand vpon them it is coÌ„fessed that in Sozomenus time the writer of this story who iudgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lyued the sea of Rome was growne into great estimation and counted the first See or principall in dignitie of all Byshops Seas in the worlde Yea it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he sayeth That long before his time the Byshops Sea of Rome aswel as of Alexandria was growne beyonde the bands of Prâ—esthood into a forraine Lordship dominion Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the recordes of the very time in which Iulius lyued we shall not finde that the dignitie of his Sea was such as that he hadde such authoritie as Sozomenus aseribeth to him and much lesse such as M. Sander imagineth of him In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus which beside that he called him his fellow minister acknowledgeth no such dignitie of his Sea lib. 3. to 1. And Sozomenus himselfe testifyeth that the Bishops of the East derided contemned his commandementes lib. 3. Cap. 8. cap. 11. they were as bolde to depose him with the byshops of the West as he was to check them that they called not him to their councel Wherein as I confesse they did euell yet thereby they shewed euidently that the Christian worlde in those dayes did not acknowledge the vsurpation of the bishop of Rome as M. Sander saith they did Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him if it had beene a Catholike doctrine receiued in the Church that the Byshopp of Rome is head of the Church Byshop of all Byshops Iudge of all causes and one which cannot erre As for Athanasius Paulus c. and other Byshops beeing tossed to and fro by their enemyes no maruaile if they were glad to finde any comfort at the Byshop of Romes hands hauing first sought to the Emperors for refuge of whome sometime they were holpeÌ„ sometime they wer hindred as informatioÌ„ was giuen either for them or against theÌ„ But Arnobius he sayeth giueth a maruailous witnes for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto c Peter wandering in the desert of this worlde vntill he came to Rome preached the baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floods are blessed from Peter vnto this day He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst so that he which shall goe forth of the Church of Peter shal perish for thirst It is a maruelous witte of M. Sander that can find such maruelous prerogatiue of Peter in this place which Arnobius would haue in the example of Peter to be vnderstoode of all men Quid est ascendunt Disce in Petro vt quod in ipso inueneris in omnibus cernas Ascendit Petrus c. What meaneth this they goe vp as highe as heauen Learne in Peter to thend that y t which thou shalt find in Peter thou mayst see in all men Peter went vp as high as heauen when he sayd Although I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee c. and so applying the vnderstanding of the Psalme to Peter and in him to all ChristiaÌ„s he coÌ„meth to that maruelous testimony of the church of Rome which M. Sander reporteth shewing how after his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floodes are blessed from Peter to this day Where M. Sander vseth a false translation saying the floodes are blessed of Peter and expoundeth the floodes to be the churches whereas Arnobius speaketh of all waters which in Christ are sanctified to the vse of baptisme from the Apostles time vntill this day But it is a Catholike argument that whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Peter goeth out of the Church of Christe therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the heade thereof Euen lyke this whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Paule or of any of the Apostles wheresoeuer they planted it doth perish therefore Corinth and Paule or any other Citie the Apostle that preached there may be taken for the head and Pastor and mother Church of all other yet is this with M. Sander a meruailous testimony Optatus succeeded Arnobius Cont. Pamen de nat lib. 2. Negare nonpotes c. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishops chaire was giuen in the citie of Rome in which Peter the head of al the apostles hath sit wherofhe was also called Cephas in which chair vnitie might be kept of al men so that he should be a scismatike w c should place any other chaire against the singular chaire Vnto Peter succeeded Linus vnto Linus succeded Clemens so nameth all the Byshops vntil Siricius which liued in