might haue continually a visible head no lesse now in the new law theÌ„ heretofore in the old which was a figure of the new and had a continual succession of Bishops from Aaron therfore I say all the ancient fathers worthely acknowledged this our sauiours institution and this autority of an vniuersal Pastor not only in S. Peter but also in his successors where vpon S. Chrisostome saith that Christ committed the care of his sheep tum Peâ—ro tum Petri successorebus both to Peeter and to Peeters successors and Petrus Bishop of Rauena in his epistle to Eutyches blessed Peeter sayth he liues gouerns stil in his owne seat and Leo magnus affirmeth that Peeter continueth and liueth in his successors and therfore the great councel of Chalcedon abouesayd hauing heard the epistle of the sayd Leo condemning the heresy of Eutyches sayd Petrus per Leonem locutus est Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. In this respect also the blessed martyr S. Cyprian who as I sayd before wrote soone after the conuersion of K. Lucius cauleth the Roman Church CathedraÌ„ Petri ecclesiam principaleÌ„ vnde vnuas sacerdotaelis exorta est the chayre of Peeter the principal or cheef Churche from whence springeth all Priestly vnity signifieng therby that as the vnity of the natural body consisteth in that dyuers members being combyned vnder one head do all receiue from the same the influence of one lyfe so also the vnity of the mistical body of Christ consisteth in that diuers Churches being conioyned vnder one head which is the Roman Churche or chayre of Peter do all receiue from the same the influence of one spirit and doctrin which he declareth playnly in his book of the vnity of the Churche where he sayth eueÌ„ as there are many beames of the Sunne and one light many bowes of one tree and yet one strength founded in one root many brookes flowing from one fountayne a vnity therof conserued in the spring euen so the Churche of our Lord casting foorth her light euery where stretcheth her beames through out the world yet the light is one shee extends her bowes ouer the whole earth spreads her flowing riuers farre neare and yet there is one head one beginning and one fruitful and plentiful mother Thus far this famous martyr who speaking also other where of Peters chayre declareth the miserable state of those that are deuided seperated from the same which I wish our aduersaryes diligently to note there is sayth he one God one Christ one Churche one chayre founded vpon Peeter by our Lords woords an other Altar caÌ„not be erected nor a new priesthood ordayned whosoeuer gathereth any where els scattreth it is counterfeyt wicked and sacrilegious whatsoeuer humain fury doth institute ordayne to violate the ordenance of God and agayne to the same purpose he which holdeth not sayth he this vnity of the Churche doth he beleeue that he holds the fayth of the churche he which forsakes the chayre of Peeter where vpon the churche was fouÌ„ded can he hope to be in the churche Finally this blessed martyr writting to S. Cornelius the Pope calleth the Roman Church Marricem radicem catholicae Ecclesiae the mother root of the Catholyke Churche which he wisheth all men to acknowledge and hold most firmly and transferring the same presently after to the person of Cornelius he sayth that he would haue all his collegues retayne hold stedfastly his communion that is as much to say sayth he as to hold the vnity charity of the Catholyke church geuing to vnderstand that he which doth not communicate with the bishop of Rome the chayre of Peter the fountayne of vnity the root and mother of the Catholyke Churche he is not a member of the same nor gathereth with Christ but scattreth The very same in substaÌ„ce the famous Doctor S. Hierom teacheth as wel of S. Peeter as of his chayre and successors of S. Peeter he sayth that he was therfore chosen of our sauiour one only amongst twelue that a head being appoynted all occasions of schisme diuision might be taken away and of his chayre and successors he sayth to S. Damasus the Pope qui cathedrae Petri iungitur meus est he which is ioyned to the chayre of Peter he is myne and agayne to him in an other Epistle I sayth he following no cheef but Christ am lincked in communioÌ„ with thy beatitude that is to say with the chayre of Peter vpon that rock the Churche was buylt whosoeuer eateth the lambe out of this house is profane if any man be not in the arke of Noe he shal perish in the flud and a litle after I know not Vitalis I refuse Meletius I know not Paulinus whosoeuer doth not gather with thee scattreth he which is not of Christ is of Antichrist thus far S. Hierome of the supremacy of Peeters chayre and particularly of Pope Damasus of whome S. Ambrose in the same tyme acknowledged no lesse saying Ecclesia domus Deâ— dicitur cuius rector hodâ—e est Damasus the Churche is cauled the house of God the gouernour whereof at this day is Damasus with these all other Doctors of the Churche Greekes and Latins agree concerning the supremacy of the bishops of Rome as Epiphanius Athanasius Basilius Gregorius Nazianzenus Chrysostomus Cyrillus Theodoretus Sozomenus Optatus Ambrosius Augustinus Prosper Victor Vticensis Vincentius Lirinensis and Cassiodorus all which did wryte aboue 1000. yeres ago and playnly acknowledged the supremacy of the bishop of Rome as appeareth in the places aleaged in the margent wherto I remit our aduersaries to auoyd prolixitie concluding with the great councel of Chalcedon abouesayd wherein Pope Leo was cauled vniuersal Bishop dyuers tymes besyds that in an epistle written to him by the whole councel it is playnly signified that the Vineyard of our Lord that is to say the Churche was committed to his charge and custody To returne therfore to S. Ireneus in the tyme of King Lucius thou seest good reader how true is that which he sayth of the necessitie and obligation that all faythful people haue to agree with the Roman Churche propter potentioreÌ„ principalitatem for the mightier or more powerful principalitie therof that is to say for the supreme dignity it hath ouer all other churches as the mother ouer her children the head ouer the body and the spring and root of vnity THAT THE BISHOPS OF Rome exercysed supreme authoritie and iurisdiction in the tyme of king Lucius CHAP. X. NOW then let vs consider how the byshops of Rome did exercyse this theyr authority before and in the tyme of K. Lucius and neare vnto the same the which may appeare partly by the appellatioÌ„s out of all parts to the sea Apostolyke and the restitution or deposition of bishops by the
sayd sea and partly by the decrees made by the same for the whole Churche and the censures layd vpon such as would not receiue and obey them Wee read in Tertulian who liued in king Lucius tyme that Montanus Prisca and Maximilla fals prophets in Phrigia being excomunicat and expelled by their bishops came to Rome to be restored by Pope Victor whome they had almost circumuented hauing obtayned of him letters to the churches of Asia for their restitution which letters neuerthelesse Pope Victor reuoked by the aduise of Praxeas who discouered to him their trechery wherof Tertulian complayneth bitterly being then become an obstinate Montanist saying that otherwyse Pope Victor had restored MoÌ„tanus and geuen peace to the churches of Asia lo then how great was the authoritie of the bishops of Rome in forayn remote parts by the testimony of Tertulian who was then an heretyke and a great enemy to the Roman Churche S. Cyprian about 250. yeares after Christ testifyeth that Fortunatus and Felix being deposed in Afrike by him appealed to Pope Cornelius and that Basilides in lyke manner being deposed in Spayne appealed to Pope Steuen who suceeded Cornelius and although S. Cyprian shew that Basilides being iustly condemned did vniustly appeale and deceiue the Pope by fals suggestion that therfore his appellation could not auayle him yet he confesseth that the Pope receiued the appellation wherein he sayth he was not to be blamed but Basilides for deceauing him so that wee see the custome of appealing to the bishop of Rome out of al partes is most ancient whereof I wil also alleadge some other examples of later tymes though aboue 1000. yeres agoe Athanasius being deposed by the Arrians in Greece appealed vnto Iulius the first bishop of Rome and by him was restored 1300. yeres agoe and the ecclesiastical histories do witnesse that not only he but also Paulus byshop of Constantinople Marcellus byshop of Ancira and Asâ—lepa byshop of Gaza and Lucianus of Hadrianopolis were all at Rome at one tyme iniustly expelled from their bishoprikes and that Pope Iulius discussing the crymes obiected to euery one of them tanquam omnium curam gerens propter propriae sedis dignitatem as one that had care of them all for the dignity of his owne sea restored euery one of them to their Churches wrote to the Byshops of the east blaming them for the wrong they had donne them and threatning them that he would not suffer it if they proceeded to do the lyke hereafter S. Chrysostome byshop of Constantinople appealed to Pope Innocentius the first and Flauianus byshop of the same citty and Theodoretus byshop of Cyrus appealed in the same age to Pope Leo who restored Theodoretus as testifieth the great general councel of Calcedon saying restituit ei Episcopatum S inus Archiepiscopus Leo. The most holy Archbishop Leo restored to him his bishoprik And S. Gregory the great byshop of Rome did excomunicate a byshop of Greece called Iohn for that he had presumed to Iudge an other byshop that had appealed to the sea Apostolyke Lastly this custome of appealing to the Bishop of Rome was confirmed by two seueral cannons in the second great general councel held at Sardica in the tyme of Athanasius the great whereat were present some byshops of Britany and this shal suffise for the appellatioÌ„ of byshops to Rome and their restitution Now to speak a word or two of the deposition of Byshops wee fynd an euident example therof within 40. or 50. yeares after the coÌ„uersion of K. Lucius for S. Cyprian wrote to Steuen the Pope to desyre him to excomunicat depose Marcian the Bishop of Arles in France and to substitute an other in his place by vertue of his letters to the people there further desyred him to aduertyse him who should succede him that he the Bishops of Africk might know to whome to direct their letters so that wee see the authority and custome in the Church of Rome to depose forraine Bishops is no new thing nor a iurisdiction vsurped in later tymes by fauour of Christian Emperours seing in the great persecutions in the primitiue Churche when none were more persecuted by the Emperours then the Popes them selues who vntil this tyme were almost all martired they exercysed this authority as their successors haue done euer since indiffereÌ„tly without exception vpon all Bishops whosoeuer yea vpon the 4. principal patriarkes of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem in so much that Nicolaus the first Pope of that name writing to Michael Emperour of Constantinople about a 1000. yeres ago reckoneth 8. Patriarchs of that Churche deposed by Bishops of Rome before his tyme and Flauianus Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by Pope Damasus 1200. yeares ago and although the Emperour Theodosius labored to restore him yet he commaunded him to go to Rome to answere for him selfe and both S. Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople and also Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria were intercessors for him to the Pope to conclude he could not hold his Bishoprik in peace vntil the Pope being pacified was conteÌ„t therwith and promised to receaue his legats therfore Flauianus presently sent him many Byshops and some of the cheef of the Clergy of Antioch Also Pope Sixtus the 3. deposed Polichronius Bishop of Hierusalem I omit later examples wherof there are many to say somewhat of the general decrees of Popes made before or in the dayes of K. Lucius Wee read in Tertullian who as I sayd before florished in King Lucius tyme that the Bishops of Rome made decrees agaynst the heresyes of Montanus and his followers and although Tertulian was then an egregious Montanist himselfe an enemy to the Roman Churche which had condemned his heresyes neuerthelesse in that which he wryteth agaynst one of the sayd edicts he sufficiently sheweth what was the authority of the Byshops of Rome in those dayes recyting the edict in this manner Pontifex Maximus Episcopus Episcoporum dicit c. that is to say the cheef or greatest Bishop the Bishop of Bishops doth say c. wherby it appeareth what was the title of the Bishop of Rome at those dayes for although it should be true that Tertulian being then an heretyk and condemned by the Bishop of Rome vsed those words of Pontifex Maximus Episcopus Episcoporum ironice yet is it manifest that he did it eyther for that such were the tytles of the edict which was most probable or els because he was generally so called at that tyme by all those that held communion with him But before this tyme Pius the first Pope of that name about 160. yeres after Christ made an edict about the keeping of Easter which was after confirmed by Pope Victor the Churches of Asia were excomunicated by him for not receiuing the same But to the end good reader thou mayst the better vnderstand how this
wil geue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and Origen addeth further that there was no smalle differēce betwyxt the Apostles commission to bynd and loose and the commission of S. Peter which he affirmeth to be more ample because sayth he non erant in tanta perfectione sicut Petrus they were not in such perfection as Peter and therfore S. Leo sayth that the authority or power to bynd and loose was geuen Petro prae caeteris to Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles and the reason is for that he being their head and they subordinat to him he receiued the same for him selfe and them and they held it as from him vnder him though they had it also by Christs commissiō as wel as hee which S. Augustin teacheth clearly when he sayth that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were geuen to S. Peter because he represented the whole church of which representatiō he yeildeth the reason adding immediatly Propter apostolatus sui primatum or as he sayth in an other place propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit by reason of the supremacy he had ouer the rest of the Apostles geuing to vnderstand therby that the keyes being geuen to S. Peter as head of the Apostles and consequently as head of the Church they were geuen also to the Apostles and to the whole Church for what is geuen to the king as king the same is geuen to the common wealth and from him or by him as head therof is communicated imparted to the whole body For this cause S. Chrisostome treating of the promis that our sauiour made to S. Peter to buyld his Churche vpō him and to geue him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen affirmeth that he made him head or gouuernour of the whole world Thus much for the second proof The third and last shal be the commission and charge that our sauiour gaue particularly to S. Peter to feed his sheep wherby he made him general Pastor ouer his whole flock whereof Eusebius Emissenus sayth thus first Christ comitted vnto him his lambs then his sheepe because he made him not only a pastor or shepherd but also the pastor of Pastors Therefore Peter feedeth the lambes he feedeth the sheepe he feedeth the young ones their dammes he gouerneth the subiects their prelats so that he is Pastor of all for besydes lambes sheepe there is nothing in the Church This is more euident in the Greeke wherein the gospel of S. Ihon was written then in our latin translation for where as we haue 3. tymes pasce that is to say feed the greeke hath in the second place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not only signify to feed but also to gouerne and rule wherby the Euangelist signifyed that Christ gaue to S. Peter commission not only to feed his flock with preaching and teaching but also to exercyse all pastoral authority ouer them that is to say to rule and gouern them in which sence the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often vsed in the holy Scriptures as in S. Mathew and Micheas the Prophet where it is sayd of Bethlem there shal come foorth of thee a caeptayne that shal gouern my people Israel and in the Apocalipse he shal rule them in an yron rod and againe in the Psalm thow shalt gouerne or rule theym in a rod of yron in which places as also in dyuers others of the scripture to lyke purpose the greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the same sence our lord saith in the Prophet that the great Monark Cirus should be his Pastor because he should gouern and rule his people and Homer oftentymes cauleth king Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the king or Pastor of this people for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both and therfore S. Augustin expounding those words feede my sheep sayth that Christ recommended his sheepe to S. Peter pascendas id est docendas regendasque to be fed that is to say to be taught and gouerned Theophilactus also vpō the same place witnesseth that Christ gaue to S. Peter praesecturam ouium totius mundi the gouernment of the sheepe of the whole world and S. Chrisostome treating of those words of our sauiour sayth that he would haue S. Peter to be endewed with authority and farre to excel the other Apostles and agayne expounding the same words otherwhere he sayth that Christ spake vnto him only because he was the mouth head of the Apostles and committed vnto him curam fratrum suorum the charge of his brethren and a litle after that Christ gaue him the charge of the whole world which he also affirmeth in an other place of the vniuersal Churche saying that the supremacy and gouernment of the Churche throughout the whole world was geuen him by Christ. I wil conclude with S. Leo whereas saith he the power of bynding and loosing was geuen to Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles the care charge of feeding the sheepe of Christ was more specially committed to him to whome whosoeuer shal thinck the principality or supremacy is to be denied he cannot by any meanes diminish his dignity but being puft vp with the spirit of his owne pryde he casts him selfe head-long to hel Thus thow seest good reader that our doctrin of the supremacy of S. Peter is no nouelty of our inuention but the vniform and constant opinion of the most learned and anciēt Fathers of the Churche grounded vpon the scriptures in which respect we fynd in all the sayd auncient Docctors most eminent and excellent tytles of superioritie and praerogatiue attributed to S. Peter who in S. Hilary is cauled the blessed porter of heauen in S. Augustin the first or cheef of the Apostles in Eusebius the greatest of the Apostles and maister of the warfare of God in Epiphanius the captayn of the Disciples in S. Ciril Prince and head of the Apostles in S. Ambrose the Vicar that Christ left vs of his loue and to omit others for breuityes sake in S. Chrysostome the toppe or head of the congregation of the Apostles an vnconsumable rock the vnmoueable top of the buylding and lastly the pastor and head of the Churche THAT THE SVCCESSORS OF S. Peeter to wit the Bishops of Rome succeed him in the supremacy of the Churche CHAP. IX AND for as much as it is euident that our sauiour Christ gaue not this authority to S. Peeter for his owne particular benefit but for the general good of his Churche nor for his owne dayes only but during the tyme of the Churche militāt to the end that so long as their should be any sheep in his fold so long ther should be an vniuersal Pastor to feed and gouerne them and that his Churche which is a visible body
matter passed and euidently see the supreme autoritie of the Bishops of Rome in those dayes it is to be considered that there hauing been from the tyme of the Apostles a different manner of keeping Easter in the Churche of Rome and the Churches of the lesser Asia the Romans keeping it alwayes vpon the sunday according to the tradition of the Apostles S. Peter and saynt Paule they of Asia obseruing the tyme and custome of the Iewes pretending the example and tradition of S. Iohn the Euangelist Pius the first of that name Bishop of Rome desyring to reduce all the Churche to vniformity made a decree that the feast of Easter should be celebrated only vpō sunday but for that the Churches of Asia made great dificulty to leaue their tradition as wel Pius as Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius forbore for peace and quietnesse sake to compel them by Ecclesiastical censures to the obseruation therof but afterwards Victor who succeeded Eleutherius noting that not only those which inclyned to keep the ceremonies of the old law were much confirmed therby in their opinion but also some in Rome namely one Blastus sought to introduce that custome there and Iudaysme withall cauled a councel of the Bishops of Italy neere adioyning and not only caused other councels to be assembled in France but also directed his commaundements to the Bishops of the east to do the lyke namely to Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea as that S. Bede reporteth in these words victor the Pope Bishop of the citty of Rome dixerit authoritatem that is to say directed a commaundement to Theophilus Byshop of Caesarea and Palaestina that it should be determined how the easter should be celebrated there where our Lord the sauiour of the world conuersed Therfore perceptae qutoritate the authority or commaundement being receiued Theophilus assembled Bishops not only out of his owne prouince but also out of diuers other cuntryes and when they were come togeather in great numbers Theophilus protulit autoritatem ad se missam Papae Victoris Theophilus shewed the autority or commaundment that Pope Victor had sent him declared quid sibi operis fuisset iniunctum what was enioyned him to do c. herein by the way I wish to be noted how the Bishop of Rome in those dayes that is to say in the tyme of Lucius exercised his autority in calling of councels both of the Byshops of the Latin or west Church also of the east seing Theophilus Byshop of Palaestina assembled the prelats not only of his owne prouince but also of diuers other by vertue of the commission geuen him by Pope Victor But to proceed yt being determined by all those coūcels that the feast of Easter should be kept on the sunday according to the custome of the Romā Churche Victor the Pope renewed the decree of Pius his predecessor and denounced excomunication against all the Churches of Asia that would not cōforme them-selues therto which though some holy and learned Bishops amongst other Irenaeus thought to bee rigorously done and not with such consideratiō as it seemed to them the peace of the Church required yet none of them nor any of the schismatykes themselues took any exception to his autority as though he had donne more then he might do which no dout they would haue done yf he had exceeded the limits of his power therfore Eusebius sayth that Irenaeus did admonish him that he would not cut of from the body of the whole Church so many Churches for obseruing a tradition vsed amongst them according to an old custome and Nicephorus testifieth that they aduised him vt benignius statueret that should determine therof with more benignity and myldnes wherin wee see Pope Victors authoritie and power to excommunicat all other Bishops sufficiently acknowledged though there was question of the iustnesse of the cause and conueniency of the fact neuerthelesse yt appeared afterwards by the determination of the whole Churche of God yea of the greatest part of the Asian Churches themselues that Victor had reason in that which he did for as Nicephorus testifieth not only Asia did at lēgth yeild therin but also vbique terrarum in orbe decretum est it was decreed through out the world that the feast of Easter should be celebrated vpō the sunday in so much that those which would not yeild therto were held for heretykes cauled quarta decimani for so they are accounted and termed by Nicephorus saynt Augustin Epiphanius Philastrius and the councels of Antioch and Laodicea and to conclude this poynt yt shal not be impertinent to the matter in hād to consider how this controuersy about the keeping of easter ended many yeares after in England betwyxt the English Byshops mayntayning the custome of Rome and the Scottish that were Schismatykes and obserued the custome of Asia which venerable Bede recounteth saying that Bishop Colman with his Scotish elergy being assembled in Northumberland with Agilbert Bishop of the east Saxons his Priests Wilfred and Agathon in the presence of King Oswy after long debating the matter on both sydes Wilfred answered to Colman who relyed vpon the autority of Anatholius and Columba his predecessors although quoth he Columba was a holy man yet could he not be perferred before Peter the most blessed Prince of the Apostles to whome our Lord sayd thou art Peter and vpon this rock I wil buyld my Churche hel gates shal not preuayle against it and to thee I wil geue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen when Wilfrid had sayd this King Oswy who had ben brought vp by the Scots and infected with their schisme asked Colman wheather he could proue that so great autority was geuen to Columba and Colman answered no and do you on both syds sayth the King grant without controuersy that this was sayd principally to Peter and that the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen were geuen him by our Lord and both parts answered yea nay then quoth the King merily I assure yow I wil not in any thing contradict that porter but as farre as my knowledge and power shal extend I wil obey his commaundments least perhaps when I shal come to heauen and haue him my enemy that keepeth the keyes no man wil open me the gates The King hauing sayd thus all that were present both litle and great sayth saynt Bede allowed therof and yeilded to receiue the Catholyke custome of keeping Easter on the sunday Thus wee see this great controuersy ended also in England neere a thousand yeres agoe by the autority of the sea Apostolyke so that to returne to Pope Victor wee may truly say he had the victory or rather that saynt Peeter by him and his successors vanquished all such as opposed themselues to this traditiō of the Roman Churche Seing then in the tyme of K. Lucius the Bishops of Rome both claymed and exercised supreme authority ouer all
other Bishops making general edicts condemning heretykes deposing and restoring Bishops cauling counsels and excommunicating whole prouinces and countryes I appeale to thee gentle reader whether he was not then generally held for supreme head of the Church whether it is lykly that when Eleutherius the Pope made King Lucius a Christian he made him a protestaÌ„t that is to say an enemy to the sea Apostolyk a persecuter of Priests and of all such as defend the dignity and autoritie of saynt Peeter his predecessor from whome he claymed and held the supremacy of the Churche which now all protestants deny to his successors And agayne seeing I haue proued that the authority of the sea Apostolyke is not grounded vpon any humain tradition but vpon the institution of our sauiour himselfe who left his flock and sheep to saynt Peeter to be fed and buylt his Churche vpon him as vpon a sure rock promising that hel gates should not preuayle against it ordayning for the auoyding of Schisme diuision one head from the which the dyuers and manyfold members of his Churche might receiue the influence of one doctrin and spirit what shal wee say of them that are not of this fold that do not communicat with this head that are not planted vpoÌ„ this root of vnity nor buylt vpon this rock that agaynst the chayre of Peeter set vp a chayre of pestileÌ„ce can they be the sheep of Christ or members of his mistical body or receiue the influence of his spirit it is no maruel yf they be caryed away with euery blast of new doctrin torne and rent with euery schisme and cast at length vpon the rockes of heresy or atheisme haue wee not then sufficient reason to giue lands lyues or what honour pleasure or comodity soeuer the world yeildeth rather then to be driuen from this safe harbor of truth and ancor of vnity into the seas of schisme and heresy to the assured shipwrack of our soules and when wee spend our blood for this cause do we not dy for religion yea for a most important point of religion though it be made treason wherof wee may truly saye with the blessed martyr Sir Thomas More thet it is a treason without sinne for the which a maÌ„ may be hanged and haue no harme dy and liue for euer seeme to some a traytor and be a glorious martyr THE MATTER OF HOLY Images is debated and the vse therof proued to haue ben in the Churche of God euer since our Sauiours tyme. CHAP. XI BVT let vs examine a poynt or two more of religion wherein our aduersaries dissent from vs that wee may see wheather K. Lucius were more lyke to learne their doctrin concerning the same or ours and for that they think they haue a maruelous aduaÌ„tage of vs in the matter of Images and relykes of saints wherein they charge vs with flat Idolatrie and breach of the commaundment of God I wil say somwhat therof And fyrst I cannot but maruel at their grosnesse that cannot distinguish betwiyt an Idol and an Image whereof they may learne the difference in Origen and Theodoretus expouÌ„ding these words of the coÌ„maundmeÌ„t non facies tibi IdoluÌ„ thou shalt not make to thy self any â—dol for the septuaginta whose translation they follow for sculptile haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say an Idol wherevpon they say that an Idol is a fals similitude representing a thing which is not that a similitude or Image is a representation of ae thing which truly is to which purpose also S. Paule sayth Idolum nihil est in mundo an Idol is nothing in the world for that Idols represent no truth but mere fictions vanityes and lyes and therfore ar cauled in the Hebrew text of the holy scriptures Elilun and Auâ—nim wheron it followeth that all Images or other creatures held or adored for Gods whâ—ch they neither are nor yet possibly can bee are truly and properly Idols wheras other Images that represent a truth can not so bee cauled and this difference is euident in the holy scriptures which neuer atribute the name of Idol to the true Image of any thing but to the fals gods of the gentils and vseth the name of Image for the similitud of that which is truly the thing that it is thought to be or hath the true proprietyes that by the Image are represented so Christ is cauled the Image of his father and Salomon is sayd to haue made in the temple Images of Lions Oxen Flowers yea and of the Cherubins who though they were Angels and Spirits were neuerthelesse pourtrayed lyke men to expresse the forme wherein they appeared to Moyses on the mountayne and with wings to shew the celerity of their motion so that the representation made therby was true as of a true apparition and a true propriety in the Angelical nature Herevpon it foloweth that Images which are not honored for Gods but ordayned for the honor of Christ and his saynts who are truly that which they are represented to be are no Idols and therfore our aduersaries are eyther very ignorant or malicious when they confound these woords in such sort as to cal Images Idols and to translate Idolum in the scripture an Image as they commonly do very absurdly and sometymes ridiculously as in S. Paule where he speaketh of couetousnes saying it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Idolatry or the seruice of Idols and in an other place that the couetous man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idolater or a woorshipper of Idols meaning therby that couetous men make theyr money and their riches their Gods they translate it couetousnes is the seruice of Images and the couetous man is a woorshipper of Images as though there were no other Idolatry but that which may be doÌ„ne to Images or that Image and Idole were all one or that it could be sayd with any propriety or reason that a couetous man makes his money an Image as it may be properly sayd that he makes it an Idol because he makes yt his God which yt neither is nor can be in which respect it may wel be cauled an Idol Furdermore they bewray in themselues either great simplicity or peruers malice in that they permit no honour nor reuerence to be donne to the Image of Christ his saynts for doth not reason and common experience teach vs that the honour or reuerence donne to the Image passeth from thence to the Prototipon that is to say to the thing or person it representeth he which crowneth sayth S. Ambrose the image of the emperour crowneth the Emperour and he which contemnes his image seemeth to do iniury to his person when the people of Antiochia cast downe the image of the Empresle wyfe to Theodosius the Emperour he took it for so great an affront to her and him selfe that he had lyke to haue destroyed the whole citty in
poynts which I haue handled what hath alwayes bin the doctrin of the Churche of God concernâ—ng the same and that therfore King Lucius could receiue no other froÌ„ the Catholyke RomaÌ„ Churche by the which he was conuerted to the Christian fayth and yf I thought it needful to rip vp euery other particuler point controuersed betwyxt our aduersaries and vs I could easely shew the same in euery one But what needeth it seing they cannot proue that any Pope I wil not say from S. Eleutherius to S. Gregory but from S. Peter to Clement the eight that now gouerneth the Churche hath taught and decreed any different doctrin from his predecessors whereas on the other syde wee shew euidently that in a perpetual succession of our Roman Bishops there hath ben also a continual succession of one the selfe same doctrin where vpon it followeth infalibly that King Ethelbert and the English could not receiue from S. Gregory the Pope any other fayth then King Lucius and the britans receiued from saynt Eleutherius and that wee which now hold communion with the Roman Churche teache no other doctrin then that which was taught by them to our ancestors and hath successiuely come from S. Peter consequently from our Sauiour Christ. Therefore thou mayst wel wonder good reader at the impudency of our English ministers that are not a shamed to preache teache the contrary wherby thow mayst also see how lamentable is the case of our poor country wherein such haue the charge and cure of soules as haue not so much as common honesty to say the truth in matters as cleare as the Sunne and teach such a religion as for lack of better reasons and arguments they are forst to mayntayne it with manifest lyes slanders yea and murders of innocent men whome they execute for fayned crymes vnder colour of matter of state acknowledging therby sufficiently the truth of our Catholyk fayth seing they are ashamed to aâ—ow that they trooble any man for it whyles they confesse that they punish and put to death heretykes namely the Anabaptists directly for their religion and their impudency is so much the more notorious for that their publyk proceedings in the dayly execution of penal and capital lawes touching only matter of religion doth contradict and conuince their sayings and writings wherein they affirme that they put none to death for religion But for as much as I haue treated this matter at large in diuers partes of my Apology besydes that I vnderstand that some others also entend to treate thereof in the answere of a ridiculous challenge made by O. E. fraught with most absurd paradoxes as wel concerning this poynt as others touching our Catholyke fayth I remit thee good reader therto and so conclude this treatys beseeching almighty God to geue our aduersaries the light of his grace and vs in the meane tyme pacience and constancy and to thee indifferency to iudge of maters so much importing the eternal good and saluation of thy soule which I hartely wish no lesse then my owne FINIS A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS OF THIS TREATISE THE preface wherein are declared the causes of the long delay of printing the Apology and withall is noted the impudency of a late wryter in England disguysing his name with the letters O. E. who auoweth the fiction of Squyres employment for a truth and affirmeth that none are put to death in England for religion An Answere to two malitious slanders auowched in the foresayd libels concerning the conquest of England falsly supposed to be pretended sollicited by the Catholyks touching the late enterprise of the King of Spayne in Ireland Also concerning sir VVilliam Stanley and the Iesuits calumniated by the lybellers CHAP. 1. Concerning father Parsons in particular and that the extreame malice that the heretyks beare him is an euident argument of his great vertue CHAP. 2. That the Catholykes are persecuted martyred now in England for the same causes that the martyrs dyed in the primatiue Churche and of the great iniustice donne to two Priests condemned at Lincolne by Iudge Glanduile CHAP. 3. Of the impudeÌ„cy of a minister who being present at the death of the two martyrs aforesaid affirmed publykly that our country was conuerted by saynt Augustin the monk to the protestants religion by occasion where-of the truth of that poynt is euidently declared CHAP. 4. Of the first conuersion of our country whyles it was called Britany in the tyme of King Lucius with euideÌ„t proofes that our Catholyk fayth was then preached and planted there CHAP. 5. The same is coÌ„firmed proued out of Gildas the sage Ca. 6. Certayne poynts of controuersy are discussed whereby it is proued that King Lucius receiued our Catholyke fayth and first of the Popes supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes CHAP. 7. That our Sauiour made S. Peter supreme head of the churche CHAP. 8. That the successors of saynt Peter to wit the Bishops of Rome succeed him in the supremacy of the Churche CHAP. 9. That the Bishops of Rome exercised supreme autority in the tyme of King Lucius CHAP. 10. The matter of holy Images is debated and the vse thereof proued to haue ben in the Churche of God euer since our Sauiours tyme. Chap. 11. The commandment of God touching Images is explicated the practise of the Churche declared Chap. 12. Concerning the relicks of saynts and the reuerend vse thereof Chap. 13. That our doctrin concerning the sacrifice of the Masse was generaly receiued and beleeued in the tyme of King Lucius and first that it was foretold and prophecyed by Malachias Chap. 14. That not only the sacrifice of Melchisedech but also all the sacrifices of the old law were figures of the sacrifice of the masse and are changed into the same and by the way is declared the necessity of sacrifice as wel for common welth as for religion Chap. 15. That our Sauiour Christ instituted and offred at his last supper the sacrifice of his blessed body and blood proued by his owne woords by the expositions of the Fathers with a declaration how he is sacrificed in the masse and lastly that he gaue commission and power to his Disciples to offer his body and blood in sacrifice that is to say to say the Masse Chap. 16. That the Apostles practised the commission geuen them by our Sauiour sacrificing or saying Masse them-selues and leauing the vse and practise thereof vnto the Churche that the ancient Fathers not only in King Lucius tyme but also for all the first 500. yeares afeer Christ taught it to bee a true sacrifice and propitiatory for the liuing for the dead Chap. 17 An answere to the obiections of our aduersaries out of S. Paules epistle to the Hebrewes with a declaration that the heretyks of this tyme that abolish the sacrifice of the Masse haue not the new testameÌ„t of Christ and that they shew themselues to be most pernicious enemies of humain kynd Chap. 18.
who can with any reason deny that the Popes supremacy the confession whereof is now made treason in England was in King Lucius dayes acknowledged generally of all men for what moued him being so farre from Rome to seeke to receiue the faith of Christ from thence but that he desyred to haue it from the fountayne head were there not Christians at the same tyme in England as there had ben from the tyme of Ioseph of Arimathia by some of whome it is lyke he was conuerted and might haue ben Baptysed or yf there were no Christians there that might satisfy his deuotion and desyre in that behalfe was there not at the same tyme very learned Bishops in France by whome he might haue receiued satisfaction without sending so farre as to Rome what then moued him therto but that he vnderstood that the admission of all Christs sheep into his fold the Church belonged principally to the successor of S. Peter to whome our sauiour particularly commended the feeding of his flock which saynt Bede insinuateth sufficiently saying that King Lucius beseeched Eleutherius by his letters that he might be made a Christian per eius mandatum by his commandement Neither can there any other probable reason be geuen why a few yeres after Donaldus King of Scots sent to Pope victor the next successor of Eleutherius to receiue of him the Christian fayth which at the same tyme florished not only in France as before I haue sayd but also in England from whence he might haue had Bishops and Priests to instruct and baptise him and his people But for the more manifest proof of this poynt let vs heare what S. Ireneus who florished at the same tyme in France teacheth concerning the autority of the sea Apostolike gouerned then by Eleutherius from whome K. Lucius receiued the fayth VVhen we shew sayth he the tradition of the greatest and most AuncieÌ„t Church knowen to all men founded constitute at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter Paule that the same tradition receiued from the sayd Apostles is deriued euen to this our tyme by the succession of Bishops we confound all those that any way eyther by an ouerweening of their owne wits or by vayne glory or by blyndnesse and euil opinion are led away with fals conceyts for euery Churche that is to say the saythful which are euery where must needs haue recours to this Church agree therewith propter potentioreÌ„ principalitatem for the greater or more mighty principality of the same wherein the tradition of the Apostles hath ben alwayes conserued by them which are euery where abroad and a litle after hauing declared the succession of the Bishops of Rome from saynt Peter to Eleutherius who he sayth was the twelfth he addeth by this ordination and succession the tradition which is in the Church from the Apostles and the preaching of the truth is come euen to vs hec est plenissima osteÌ„sio this is a most ful euident demonstration that the fayth which hath ben conserued in the Churche from the Apostles vntil now is that one true fayth which geueth lyfe Thus farre S. Ireneus out of whose words may be gathered three things very imporrant and manifest against our aduersaries The first the force of tradition in the Churche of God that the same alone being duly proued is sufficient to conuince all heretykes that teach any thing contrary therto The second that the continual succession of the Bishops of Rome in one seat and doctrin is an infalible argument of the truth The which also Tertulian in the same tyme not only obserued but also prescrybed for a rule against all heretykes in his book of Prescriptions To which purpose S. Augustin sayth the succession of Priests from the seat of Peter the Apostle to whome our Lord recoÌ„mended his sheep to be fed holdeth me in the Catholyke Church and in another place number the Priests euen from the very seat of Peter and in that order of fathers see who succeded one an other that is the rock which the proud gaâ—â— of hel do not ouercome Optatus Mileuitanus in lyke sort vrgeth this succession of the Roman Bishops against the Donatists reckoning vp all the Bishops from S. Peter to Siricius with whome he sayth all the world did communicat and there-vpon concludeth therfore yow sayth he that challeÌ„ge to your selues a holy Churche tel vs the beginning of your chayre Thus reasoned these fathers against heretykes aboue 1200. yeres ago as also did S. Ireneus before in K. Lucius tyme and the same say wee now with no lesse reason against the heretykes of our tyme we shew them our doctrin conserued in a perpetual succession of Bishops from the Apostles vntil this day we demaund the lyke of them and seing they cannot shew it we conclude with S. Irenaeus that they remayne confounded and that they are to be registred in the number of those that eyther by an ouerweening of their owne wits or by vayne glory or by blyndnes and passion are led away with fals conceits The third poynt that I wish to be noted in the words of S. Irenaeus is the supreme dignity of the Roman Churche aboue all other seing that he cauleth it the greatest most ancient not in respect of tyme for the Churches of Hierusalem and Antioch were before it but for autority and therfor vrgeth it as a matter of necessity duty that all other Churches whatsoeuer and all faythful people throughout the world ought to haue recours therto and agree therwith propter potentioreÌ„ principalitateÌ„ for the greater and more powreful principality and autority therof which autority is founded vpon no other ground then vpon the institution of our Sauiour himselfe who gaue the gouerment of his Church to S. Peter the Apostle not only for him selfe but also for his successors which I wil prooue heare with as conuenient breuity as the importance of the matter wil permit THAT OVR SAVIOVR made S. Peter supreme head of his Churche CHAP. VIII THE supreme autority of S. Peter ouer the Churche of God is to be proued directly out of the holy scriptures by many places and arguments but 3. shal suffice for breuityes sake The first place is in S. Mathew where our sauiour promised to S. Peter to buyld his Church vpon him saying Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam meam that is to say thou art Peter or a rock and vpon this rock I wil buyld my Churche signifying by this allegory that he made him the foundation or head of his Church for the head is to the body the gouernour to the common welth as the foundation is to the buylding that is to say the principal part the stay strength and assurance therof and this appeareth more playnly in the Siriac tongue in which saynt Mathew wrote his gospel where
the head wheron the priest did also lay his hands to shew that it was offred as a price pro capite for the head or lyfe of him that made the oblation Therfore for as much as this kynd of worship is the greatest most proper testimony we can externaly yeild of vassellage and seruitude to our creator it cannot without preiudice of his right be coÌ„municated to any creature whatsoeuer in which respect it is caused by the deuynes latria as due to God alone and for that cause not only the deuil that seeketh to robbe almighty God of his glory but also such men as haue made themselues to be held for Gods traue euer affected this kynd of woorship as the highest and most due to diuinity Seeing then sacrifice is most essential to religion and a most proper and principal act therof it followeth that there can be no perfect religion without priesthood and sacrifice for which cause S. Paule speaking of the translation of the law maketh it to depend wholy vpon the translation of the priesthood saying that the priesthood being translated there must needs be withal a translation of the law And Daniel the Prophet describing the religion of the Iewes falne to desolation sayd that they had neither sacrifice oblation nor incence amongst them And now to speake a word or two by the way of common welth where as nothing is more natural to mankynd then the same to the which all men are by a general instinct of nature so inclyned that ther was neuer found any people so barbarous but they liued in society it is to be noted that it hath neuer ben read nor heard of that any common welth hath ben without sacrifice whervpon Plutarch sayth that though a man may happely fynd some cittyes without wals without scooles without learning without theaters without money yet no man euer saw citty without temples wherin sacrifice might be offred to God And Aristotle speaking of things precisely necessary for common welth ordeyneth that special care be had of sacrifice to the Gods Wherof two reasons may be geuen the one for that nothing is more truly political nor tendeth more directly to the establishment of common welth then publik sacrifice wherby not only a league of frindship and ciuil vnity is made amongst men by the participation communion of the thing that is sacrifised but also their passeth as it were a couenant betwyxt God and them wherby they become his particuler people and he their God and protector without whose particuler prouidence and protection no common welth can eyther prosper or stand The other reason is for that sacrifice being as before I haue declared most necessary to religion is consequently necessary for common welth wherof the true natural end is religion God hauing ordeyned man and all humain things principally for his owne seruice and therfore the very heathen Philosophers namely Plato and all his followers make the end of common welth to be nothing els but a religious wisdome consisting in the knowledge â—oue and seruice of God and Aristotle placeth it in contemplation of deuine things wherto he also specially requyreth the knowledge loue and seruice of God which is nothing els but religion in which respect he geueth the cheef preeminence and dignity amongst the magistrats to priests whose special function and office is to offer sacrifice The which is also confirmed by the custome of all good coÌ„mon welths as the ancient kingdomes of the AEgyptians and Romans wherein the kings themselues were priests and offred sacrifice as also the cheefe magistrats amongst the Gretians were wont to do and in the common welth of the Romans after the suppression of their kings yea and when they florished most the office of priests was so preeminent that the cheefe bishops commanded and controled the consuls and as Cicero sayth praefuerunt tum religionibus deorum tum summae reip that is to say had the cheefe authority not only in matters concerning religion but also in the common welth Seeing then religion is naturally the end of common welth and sacrifice a most necessary and principal act of religion it followeth that sacrifice is no lesse natural and essential to common welth then to Religion But to leaue the consideration of common welth apart and to conclude with religion and sacrifice I say that for as much as they are both most natural to man and that the woorkes and effects of grace do not ouerthrow but nobilitate and perfect the good inclinations and woorkes of nature yt must needs follow that our sauiour by the law of grace did no more depriue man of publike sacrifice then of religion but that as he left him a most perfect and deuine Religion farre excelling that which he had before eyther in the law of nature or in the law of Moyses so he left him also a most deuine sacrifice wherby he might dayly pay the tribute of nature in a farre more excellent manner then he did in eyther of the former states This is no lesse pâ—ainly then learnedly taught by saynt Clement S. Peters disciple and successor who in his book of Apostolical constitutions declaring that our Sauiour did not by the law of grace abrogate the law of nature nor take away so much as any natural inclination in man butâ— confirme and perfect the first and moderate the later he sheweth withall what was fulfilled and what was chaÌ„ged in the law of Moyses and amongst other things that he sayth were changed he nameth baptisme priesthood and sacrifice saying that in steed of dayly baptismes our sauiour ordayned only one and for bloody sacrifice he instituted rationale in cruentum misticum sacrificium quod in mortem domini per symbola corporie sanguinis sui celebratur that is to say a reasonable vnbloody mistical sacrifice the which is celebrated by the sacraments or signes of his body and blood in representation of his death Thus fayth saint Clement of the proper sacrifice of the new law that is to say the masse as it is euident by his owne words which saint Ireneus confirmeth signifying that as there were oblations in the old law so there are oblations in the new law and sacrificia in populo sacrificia in Ecclesia sacrifices amongst the people of the Iewes and sacrifices in the Churche in so much that he teacheth that sacrifices were not reiected by mutatioÌ„ of the law but changed whereto he addeth also this differeÌ„ce that â—acrifice is now offred by vs not as it was by the Iewes that is to say as by bond men but by free men because our sauiour hath deliuered vs from the bondage of the law and thus sayth this ancient father of the sacrifice of the holy eucharist or masse which a litle before he cauleth the new oblation of the new testament applying therto the prophesy of Malachy as I haue noted in the last chapter To this purpose