twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and at length hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes teaching and sacrificing Then he affirmeth that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge hee sayeth that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie note how hee agreeth with him selfe But Christ he sayeth it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedech For Aaron offered in bloud the other in bread and wine The Apostle to the Hebrues obseruing many differences could not finde this But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice was for that his principall purpose was to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood aboue Aaron and his priesthood which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine By this wise reason he giueth vs to deeme that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison because they were weake as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise he could not better haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse but also in bread wine after the example of Melchizedech For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech the Apostle neither would nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue replyed that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters and omitted the chiefest parte of his office which was this sacrifice so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe it was little to excell in the small matters But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine which is this as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it no more doeth Moses in Genesis For it is sayed there that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine but neuer a worde that he did sacrifice breade and wine This obiection he wil aunswer both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament Concerning the parleament men as it is true that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine so when we come to consider their voyces it shall appeare that they make little for transubstantiation or the carnall presence But now let vs heare the scripture The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith that he was a Priest of the most high God to whome is belongeth not to bring foorth but to offer bread and wine so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same enforceth vs to take this sense and none other can be admitted This is a verie peremptorie sentence plumped downe of you M. Heskins not as from your doctours chaire but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole But if it may please you to heare is it not also scripture that he was King of Salem and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke that as an example of his royall liberalitie he brought foorth bread wine to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham which being such a multitude could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man And where Moses sayeth he was a priest of the highest God hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse that he blessed Abraham praysed God and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame as your manner is that this is a newe exposition Iosephus in the firste booke tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities doth so expounde it Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham suffered them to want nothing vnto their liuing But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike as M. Heskins will confesse allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem vinum quod quasi exponen◠Iosephus ait ministrauit exercitui Xenia multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vnto him bread and wine which Iosephus as it were expounding of it sayeth he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie and gaue him great plentie of things necessary beside the feast or at the feast he blessed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies For he was a priest of the high◠so god Thus farre he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim erat enim saterdos c. in the vulgar Latine text to make it to be referred to the former clause but neither the Hebrue nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction To be short if the bringing foorth of bread and wine perteined to his priestly office there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office but Moses as he calleth him both a King and a priest so doth he distinctly shewe what he did as a King and what he did as a priest Yet Maister Heskins goeth on and will proue That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order but he neuer made any mo oblations then two the one on the crosse after the order of Aaron the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here Christian Reader how many horrible blasphemies this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ directly contrarie to his expresse worde First he affirmeth that Christ made two offerings of himselfe whereas the holy Ghost saith Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe as the high priest c. For
but is confessed of al men except it be to condemne the Clergie of Papistrie which for the most part are ignoraunt not onely of Gods lawe but of all honest knowledge and vpon very necessitie open a gate vnto the people to seeke instruction them selues where the ordinarie passage is stopped through the ignorance of the Ministers The first place by him alledged is Deu. 17. That if there rise a matter too hard for the people in iudgement betweene bloud and bloud c. they shall come to the Priestes and stand to their iudgement on paine of death c. Although I might answere that this ordinaunce appertaineth to iudiciall causes of which God gaue his lawe also yet if it be taken generally so long as the Prieste determineth according to the lawe it is well ynough But this proueth not that the people must haue no vnderstanding beside the priests mouth For the decree is onely of matters that are difficult and such as cannot be decided at home No more do the wordes of Malachie That the lips of the Priest shall keepe the law and men shall require it at his mouth And much lesse the commaundement in Aggee Enquire the lawe of the Priestes And least of all that Christ commaundeth the Scribes and Pharisees to be heard sitting in the chaire of Moses These places proue that it is the Priestes duetie to be learned in the lawe of God but repel not the general lawe wherby euery man is cōmanded also to studie in the law of God yea though the Priestes neither would nor could teach him For if the blinde followe the blinde they both fall into the ditch which our sauiour Christ willeth all men to take heede of Hieronyme in the place by you alledged M. Heskins gathereth rightly of these places that it is the Priestes office to know and expound the scriptures but I muse how the greatest number of your Priestes can brooke those words of his If he be ignorant of the law he proueth him selfe to be no Priest of God. Much more against your cleargie your cause is that large sentence you set down out of Hieronyme thē to hurt your aduersaries where he concludeth out of 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. that both by the new Testament and the old it is the priests office to know and teach the lawe of god As is also that which you adde out of 1. Cor. 12. that God hath appointed some Apostles some Prophets some pastors teachers as though these orders might not stand with the peoples reading of the scriptures whē euen in the Apostles time the Thessalonians or Berrhoeans wer cōmended for that thei did not only heare the Apostles but also cōferred their doctrin with the scriptures Actes 17. Hauing rehearsed your texts you fal to collecting of three things out of thē 1. That it is the dutie of a Priest to be learned in the law of God and godly life also which euerie man confesseth 2. That there be doubts and hard matters in the law And that also shal be confessed But withall out of the same place it is proued that there are many plaine and easie pointes in the lawe because the decree was not for all the lawe but onely for harde cases of the lawe Thirdly that the people must bee taught them and learne of the priestes and this also shall be granted to the vttermost so that you will allow the people to learn such things as are easie not only of the priests but also of their own reading study conference with thē that are no priestes And this is no inuerting of Gods order M. Heskins how much soeuer you enuie the peoples instruction For it is gods commaundement as I shewed before that his people shoulde not onely reade the lawe themselues but teach the same to others yea parentes are commaunded to teach the lawe of God to their children and yet I weene you will not say that all parents be priestes But the marke you shoote at is easie to see the ignorance of the people is more for your worshippe and gaine then their knowledge The examples you bring of the people teaching Aaron of Chore Dathan Abiram rebelling against Moses and Aaron and of the Israelites in deposing Samuel and desiring a king are of no force to dissuade men from reading of the Scriptures no thoughe they haue learned and true teachers much lesse when they are vnder dumbe dogges and heretikes as all popishe priestes are nor to abridge the authoritie of lawfull magistrates in banishing and suppressing all vsurped power and false teachers nor to shake off the yoke of Antichrist to submit thēselues vnto a king There is too great oddes betweene the Pope and Samuel betweene Moses and Aaron the popish cleargie that they which withstande the Pope and his Prelates should be in the case of Dathan and his complices or of the people that refused the regiment of Samuel The saying of Augustine Ep. 118. Although it come in here out of season yet it maketh nothing against vs He saith It is most insolent madnesse to dispute whether that is to be done which the Church throughout all the worlde doth obserue Excepte M. Heskins can shewe what is obserued of the Church throughout the worlde which we doe not obserue or deny to be obserued For S. Augustine in that place speaketh of Ceremonies The seuenth Chapter declaring the same by examples of the Fathers and authorities of the Doctours of the Church The title of this Chapter pretendeth to declare howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures but the examples are most of the preachers and teachers how they shall atteine to knowledge sufficient to discharge their office But the first argument whervpō almost all the rest of the Chapter doth runne is a maruellous conclusion God commaundeth the children of Israell 32. Aske thy father and he will shewe thee thy Elders and they will tell thee Ergo God did not sende all the people only to the fiue books of Moses to learne but willed them to learne of their Elders So now all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learne but they must learne of their Fathers what be the goodly workes of God conteined in the Scriptures Why M. Heskins you forget not only lodgike but common reason We would not haue men to learne onely by reading the scriptures but muche more by hearing their teachers first their Pastors and then all other whom God hath indued with any gift of knowledge And wil you conclude with shame that because men were not sent only to the fiue Bookes of Moses men may not now be sent at all to the scriptures And are you so blinde that you cannot see this text to ouerthrowe the purpose of both your sixth and seuenth Chapters after this manner by necessary conclusion Men must learne of their fathers therefore not only of the Priestes The rest that followeth for certeine pages is so tedious a
manducauerunt Eundem inquit eundem non inuenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Quid ergò ait aliquis◠Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio Ergo nihil modò venit si antè iam fuit Ergo euacuatum est scandalum Crucis Quomodo ergo eundem nisi quod addidit spiritualem They did eate saith he the same spirituall meate It had suffised that he had said they did eate a spirituall meate he saith the same I can not finde how I should vnderstande the same but the same whiche we doe eate What then sayeth one Was that Manna the same thing that I doe nowe receiue Then is there nothing come nowe if it were then before Then is the slaunder of the crosse made voide Therefore how should it be the same but that he added spirituall I coulde cite other places out of Augustine but that I will not cloie the Reader with two many at once The last parte of the Chapter would proue that the baptisme of Iohn was not the baptisme of CHRIST wherevppon I will not stande because it is an other controuersie out of the purpose of the booke onely I will note these grosse absurdities that hee denyeth the baptisme of Iohn to be the very baptisme and then it followeth that CHRISTE was not baptised with the very baptisme who was baptised of Iohn Secondly he denieth that sinnes were remitted in the Baptisme of Iohn whiche is directly contrarie to the Scripture Luke 3. verse 3. He alledgeth Chrysostome for his proofe but the blinde buzzarde can not see the difference betweene the ministerie of Iohn in his baptisme and the worke of CHRISTE in the same whiche maketh him with his fellowes to imagine a difference of baptismes by as good reason as they might make a difference betweene the Supper whiche was celebrated by CHRISTE him selfe and that whiche was ministered by his Apostles Finally where the Apostle sayeth expressely that the Fathers were baptised hee is so bolde as to say they were not baptised in deede but onely receyued a bare figure of baptisme whiche is as muche for the Apostles purpose as if hee hadde saide nothing at all The thirde Chapter expoundeth the residue of the texte Et omnes candem escam spiritualem c. First he declareth that this one meate whiche the Fathers did eate was Manna and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome and Saint Augustine as his manner is to heape vppe testimonies of the Fathers where no neede is of any proofe Secondly he determineth wherefore it is called spirituall meate and the water that flowed out of the rocke spirituall drinke Namely because it was giuen vnto them miraculously and not naturally and for none other cause whiche is altogether vntrue for as it hath beene prooued before both out of the text and confirmed by the iudgement of Saint Augustine manna was called spirituall meate because it fedde the faithfull not onely bodily but also spiritually with the bodie of CHRISTE and the water with his bloud But Maister Heskins seemeth to builde vpon Chrysostomes authoritie who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus Quanuis c. Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense yet they were giuen spiritually not according to the nature of consequences but according to the grace of the gifte By these wordes Chrysostome meaneth that although Manna and the water were sensible things yet had they a spirituall signification and vertue giuen with them for as they were not giuen by the ordinarie course of nature but by speciall Diuine power so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourishment and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace by whiche they were giuen But Maister Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna but the feeding of their bodies nor in the water of the rocke but the quenching of their thirst and seruing their bodily necessitie In whiche grosse madnesse hee maketh no difference betweene the faithfull and their brute beastes whose thirst and bodily necessitie that water did satisfie as muche as their Maisters So that if the water bee called spirituall drinke only because it was miraculously giuen this horrible absurditie will followe that the cattell whiche dranke thereof did also drinke of the spirituall rocke whiche followed them which rocke was Christ which euerie Christian man detesteth to heare But contrariwise seeing that water was a sacrament of the bloud of Christe we may see no lesse then three heresies of the Papistes about the sacrament ouerthrowen thereby First because all the people did drinke of the sacrament of Christes bloud and not the Priestes onely Secondly that the elementes are no longer sacramentes then they be in vse of ministration For the water which was a sacrament of Christes bloud vnto the Israelites so often as they dranke of it was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessarie vses Thirdly that bruite beastes as Dogges Apes and myse eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath beene consecrated to the vse of the sacrament doe not eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE For the bruite beastes did drinke of this water which to the faithfull was consecrated in the right vse thereof to be the bloud of CHRISTE Yet did not the bruite beastes touche the sacrament of his bloud But Maister Heskins will haue vs to note That Saint Paule saith not they dranke of that materiall rocke but they dranke of a spirituall rocke which followed them whiche spiritual rocke was Christe And herevpon he condemneth Oecolampadius for abusing Saint Paules wordes The rocke was CHRISTE to make it a figuratiue speache whereas the saide proposition is to be vnderstoode grammatically or literally and not tropically or figuratiuely And so is nothing like to this proposition This is my bodie Peraduenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantiation when hee heareth Maister Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying The rocke was Christe But vouchsafe to heare his reason and you shall more maruell at his monstruous impudencie Because it is called a spirituall rocke therefore there is no trope or figure in the speache But admitte that Saint Paule had no relation to the materiall rocke out of which the waters did flowe is this a proper and essentiall praedication to say Christe is a spirituall rocke will not all the Grammarians Logicians and Rhetoricians in the worlde throwe stones at him that will so affirme But all men endewed with reason will confesse that Manna and the rocke are in one sense of Saint Paule called spirituall but the materiall manna was the spirituall meate by Maister Heskins owne interpretation therefore the materiall rocke was the spirituall rocke out of whiche flowed the spirituall drinke But Maister Heskins hath another reason to proue that the material rock was not called the spiritual rocke because the materiall rocke stoode still in the Wildernesse but the spirituall rocke followed them Although Saint Paule
he vseth this reason All things forbidden vs to do as the aduersarie sayth be conteyned in the scripture priuate Masse sole receiuing are not forbidden in scripture therefore they may be done His Maior is grounded vpon the authoritie of his aduersaries But which of his aduersaries sayeth that all things forbidden are forbidden by name In deede we say that all things that are contrarie to Gods commaundment are forbidden so are priuate Masse sole receiuing therefore they are forbiddeÌ„ That priuate Masse sole receiuing are contrary to Gods commaundement it is manifest by the institution of Christ which is of a communion not of a priuate Masse or sole receiuing Vnus panis c. One bread we being many are one bodie c. After this fond argument which is returned vpon his own neck he cauilleth at the proclaimers words because he saith he knoweth they haue such replyes that as there be many things spoken in the old doctors of that communion so as many things or mo are spoken by them of the priuate Masse but this latter part saith M. Hesk. he passeth ouer will not rehearse one I cannot blame M. Hesk. if he would faine haue the Bishop find something for him in the doctors that soundeth for the priuate Masse because hee can finde nothing him self But when the bishop sayeth hee knoweth they haue such replyes he doth not graunt that their reply is true but denyeth it as false and if it were so that any thing were in the old Doctours that might seeme to fauour the priuat Masse yet what obligation hath M. Hes. of the bishop wherein he is bound to shewe it forth in a sermon I vse more words about this cauil then the matter needeth â–ª only to shew the foolish frowardnes peruerse foolishnes of this man that wil seek a knot in a rush to take occasion to rayle and slander But to the purpose M. Hes. confessing that in the Primitiue Church the people did often coÌ„municat addresseth him self to proue that the sacrament may lawfully be receiued of one alone and that by Iustinus whom both Cranmer the proclamer he saith doth pitifully abuse and truncatly alledge but he him selfe doth falsifie and truncatly alledge as we haue shewed before But first I wish the reader to consider that he hath forsaken his priuat Masse for which is no shew in the Doctours and fleeth to sole receiuing in cases of necessitie or in superstitious abuse which proue not that any priuat Masse was said Iustinê° he citeth thus Diaconi distribuunt c. The Deacons deliuer of the consecrated bread and wine and water to euerie one that is present and if there be any away they carie it home to them In this translation he leaueth out ad participandum to be receiued which is in his Latine text and only maketh mention of the deliuerie omitting for what vse it was deliuered In deede the Greek is otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The distribution and participation of those thinges for which thanks hath ben giuen is made to euery one to them that are not present by the Deacons there is sent First I say as there is a communion confessed of them that are present so it was not cleare that that which was caried to theÌ„ that were absent was caried as the sacrament but as almes but admit it were caried as the sacrament yet it foloweth not that it was receiued of euery man alone but of euery family which vpon necessarie cause was absent from the whole congregation or of diuers families meting in one which could not meete in the common assembly so that here is no priuat Masse said but a communion ministred neither is there so much as any sole receiuing proued which if it were yet proueth it not the priuat Masse And therefore all M. Heskins babbling of the sacrament to be one that is ministred or receiued in diuers places and at diuers times is vaine and to no purpose and most fond it is that he compareth it to the sacrament of baptisme which is but one to all men For of that I may thus reason though euery mans baptisme is not a diuers baptisme but all is one baptisme as there is one faith and one God yet as no man is baptized by other mens baptisme but by his owne so no man communicateth with other communions but onely in that action wherein he is a communicant him selfe Therfore M. Heskins fantasie of one Priest communicating with all Priestes in all places is ouerthrowne by his owne argument and similitude But he wil proue sole receiuing by Tertullian S. Cyprian Basil and Hierome by whom he saith it may be gathered that the godly brought with them a fine linnen cloth or a pretie boxe to carie it home I finde the sacramentall breade in some old writers of credite caried in a cloth or a wicker basket but I remember not any pretie boxe For they had not such pretie cakes sixe hundreth yeres after Christ as M. Heskins imagineth the pretie boxe serued to carie them in In the superstitious Dialogues of Pope Gregorie Lib. 4. Cap. 56. we reade of two cakes called Coronae which should haue bene giuen to a poore man in almes for his seruice done in the Bathe but this supposed poore man being a ghost desiered that the same might be offered in Masse to redeeme him out of that his purgatorie Out of this fable which Gregorie rehearseth this truth is proued that the breade they saide Masse withall at that time was so great the two of these cakes wold giue a poore man his dinner at the least for two of the Popish singing cakes would haue done him small pleasure for his bodily reliefe for which at the first it was meant to be bestowed But let vs heare Tertullian who writing to his wife and dissuading her from marrying with an Infidel after his death saith thus Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes Et si sciuerit panem non illum credet esse qui dicitur Shall not thy husband knowe what thou doest secretely eate before all meate And if he knowe it to bee breade hee will not beleeue it to bee that breade which it is saide to bee I passe ouer howe M. Heskins hath corrupted Tertullian by false pointing howe be it he can gather nothing of this place but the superstitious receiuing of women in corners and that in time of persecution But their superstition proueth neither sole receiuing to be good much lesse priuate Masse to be lawfull That this custome was superstitious and naught M. Heskins can not deny for it was abolished by ancient councels and the Papistes them selues do not obserue it nor suffer it to be vsed else why send they not ouer their consecrated cakes to their frends as they doe their Agnus Dei their graines of the Trinitie and such other gaudes and bables But Saint Basil hee weeneth giueth a notable testimonie who writing to
of Peters authoritie notwithstanding all his prerogatiue in Act. Apost Hom. 3. Iam illud considera quòd Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia nihil authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nowe consider this also howe euen Peter doth all things by the common decree of the disciples nothing by his owne authoritie nothing by commaundement or with rule 13 Therefore it is false which Maister Sander affirmeth that the gouernement of the faithfull was committed to one aboue all other for it did as well perteine to euery Apostle as to Peter to feede the sheepe of Christe And when distinction for orders sake was made in the ministerie by God Peter acknowledged the Apostleship of the circumcision which was neither the greatest nor the chiefest parte of the church to be allotted to him Gal. 2. vers 7. Therefore although there be one flocke of Christ vpon earth yet Christe is the onely one shepeheard thereof as he affirmeth Iohn 10. vers 16 Although hee haue many seruauntes that ouersee his sheepe as they bee scattered in many places whose collection into one flocke as it is not locall nor visible so they must needes haue an almightie and inuisible shepeheard to gather them together and no mortal man were he neuer so excellent least of all the Pope the vilest man aliue 14 For which cause although euery particuler flocke must haue one Pastour which is not necessarie for some may haue more then one yet cannot the whole church militant on earth haue one earthly man to be head therof And albeit M. Sander woulde proue it particuler in respect of the whole number of the elect yet is it vniuersall in respect of all perticuler congregations on earth at one time and so vniuersall as no singular man can possibly knowe it much lesse gouerne it 15 And therefore although Christe the vniuersall shepeheard wil suffer no particuler church to continue without a seruaunt to ouersee it vnder him yet will hee committ to no seruaunt any charge which is impossible for him to execute as is the ouersight of the Catholike or vniuersall Church vppon earth And here note the impudencie of the Papistes which affirme that their particular Synagogue of Rome is the Catholike or vniuersall Church and yet denye the whole church of Christ militant on earth to be the Catholik churche 16 It shall neuer be proued that Peter was made by Christe the firste sheapheard ouer all the sheepe of Christ on the earth otherwise then as all the Apostles were And yet if that were true and that which Maister Sander inferreth also that one chiefe sheapeheade shoulde be like Peter as one that executeth the same office that Peter did yet it followeth by no reason of consequence that he concludeth that all other bishops are excluded from this office sauing he that occupyeth his place at Rome if euer he had any there For he that were moste like to Peter in giftes meete to execute such an office were by all reason more meete to succeede Peter then euery vnlearned asse wicked helhound that is aduaunced into that chaire of Rome where Peter is supposed to haue sitt 17 Nowe seeing Peter is sayd first to haue sit at Antioche and afterward to haue remoued to Rome what reason is there seeing his supremacie was personall that his successoures of Antioche after his death shoulde not claime it as well as they of Rome if it went by right of succession For change of place can make no change of right And the title of Antioche is the elder therfore the better Except Master Sander will say that Rome hath it by his legacie and then he must shewe vs S. Peters last will and testament 18 And whereas he sayeth it is well knowen that S. Peter dyed at Rome it is not so well knowen as that Christ dyed at Ierusalē wherfore the Bishop of Ierusalem should more reasonably claime this supremacie vicarship vnto christ And that Peter writeth from Babylon it is an argument he was not at Rome but in Babylon of Aegypt although S. Hierom thinketh he was at Rome and calleth Rome Babylon as the seat of Antichrist which M Sander is content to take that he might haue some colour of Scripture to proue that S. Peter was at Rome Although it be such as may serue to proue Rome to be the seate of Antichrist but not the chiefe seat of the Church of christ Apoc. 19. 19 It is true that among al countries and cities none was so notable as the citie and people of Rome because of the seat of the Empire that was there in which respecte also the churche of Rome was muche noted and reuerenced so long as it continued in synceritie But the bishops thereof haue not bene so notable as many other of other cities What one bishop of Rome like to Athanasius of Alexandria Chrysostome of Constantinople Ambrose of Millain Yea poore Augustine of Hippo or Osius of Corduba in their times or before their times And whereas hee saieth no places so conuenient for the head of Christes churche to be setled in it is altogether false because it was not conuenient that the heade of Christs churche should be setled there where Antichrist shoulde sit lest the one should be taken for the other 20 And although it were graunted that Italie is the fittest place for worldly Empire yet it foloweth not that it is aptest for spirituall gouernement For in all worldly respects the land of Promise far excelleth Italie which now is the most slauishe countrie in Europe being parted into so many seignories almost as there be great cities as Machiauill doth confesse 21 Although at somtime no citie in Italie was so notable as Rome yet was it not so alwayes since Christes birth for it hath bene diuers times taken and destroyed by the Gotthes and for many yeares left vnhabited And although it was most notable in worldly glory yet that was most vnmeete for to set vp the kingdom of Christ when it was in greatest glory it did alwaies withstand it Therefore Ierusalem in the lande of promise if God woulde haue chosen one citie for his vicare to sit in had bene in all respectes the meetest place in the worlde 22 That he saith no Apostle was more glorious then S. Peter it is vntrue for S. Paule affirmeth that he was equall with him and the rest laboured more then they all 2. Cor. 11. vers 5. 1. Cor. 15. vers 10. But admit that Peter was the chiefe yet it followeth not which M.S. affirmed that the bishop of Rome hath the most notable predecessor or founder of his chaire that euer anye bishop had For the bishop of Antioche hath the same by his owne confession and the elder title 23 Where he saith that the church of Rome was also founded by S. Paule it is a manifest vntruth for the church was there before S. Paule euer came there as it is plaine by
his Epistle to the Romaines and before Peter also came thither as it is plaine by the Epistle to the Galath cap. 2. And therefore seeing the church of Rome was first founded neither by Peter nor Paule she hath nothing to brag of their preheminence which many churches planted by the Apostles might with more equitie challenge As for the bequething of Peter and Paule that hee speaketh of when he can shew vs a copie of their Testament we wil shape him an other answere 24 That there were many martyrs and confessours at Rome in the primitiue churche the cause was the great multitude of people in that church by reason of the frequens of the imperial city But this proueth no prerogatiue of ancestrie ouer other churches That so many of the first bishops suffred death for Christs cause although it may be doubted of the number of 30. vpwarde because no auncient writer doth testifie it it was by reason they were neerest vnto the greatest persecutors which were the emperors of Rome But this proueth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome before the bishops of other cities who haue likewise suffred death for Christ. 25 It is vtterly false that he affirmeth that no faithful people of any citye had euer so notable witnes as the church of Rome of S. Paul your faith is preached in the whol world In which translation he falsifieth the words of S. Paule for he saith your faith is reported or commended in all the world not that it was preached for thē an vnsufficient faith should haue bin preached which needed the iustification of that Epistle And whereas M.S. saith that Cyprian saith the Apostle spake it prophetically not onely in respect of their faith present but also of thē that should folow it is to smal purpose except M.S. can proue that the Romanes now do hold the same faith which S. Paul S. Cyprian commended in his felow bishop Cornelius and the Romanes of his time And as for as notable and a more notable testimonie of an other people then the Romanes read the beginning of the 2. Thessalon capit 1.1 Collossians cap. 1. 26 Whereas he saith that S. Hiero. proueth the faith of the Romaines which Saint Paule praised to haue remayned in his dayes because none other people did so deuoutly visite the sepulchres of the martyres which the protestantes counte for infidelitie rather then faith he sheweth himselfe to bee an impudent wrangler The words of Hierom be these In prooem lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. 3. Vultis scire ô Paula Eustochiū quomodo Apostolus vnam quāque prouinciā suis proprietatibus denotarit Vsque hodie cadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent vel errorum Romanae plebis laudatur fides Vbi alibi tanto studio frequentia ad ecclesias martyrum sepulchra concurritur vbi sic ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat vacua idolorū templa quatiuntur Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesie sed quod deuotio in eis maior sit simplicitas ad credendum Rursum facilitatis superbię arguuntur Will you know ô Paula Eustochium how the Apostle hath described euerye prouince in their owne properties Euen to this daye the steppes remaine either of vertues or of errors The faith of the Pope of Rome is praised Where is there such concourse any where els with so great desire and frequence vnto the churches and sepulchres of martyres Where doth Amen so rebound like to heauenly thunder the emptye temples of Idoles so shaken with it Not that the Romaines haue any other faith but the same which al the churches of Christ haue but because in them is greater deuotion and simplicitie to beleeue likewise they are reproued for too much facility pride These words declareth that Hierome speaketh of no Popish pilgrimage but of resorting to the churches which were builded vpō the sepulchres of the martyrs therefore called the memories of the martyrs Secōdly what he meaneth by faith namely deuotion simplicitie of beleeuing not doctrine Thirdly that the Romaines reteined aswell the vices as the vertues of their auncesters But nowe they reteine onely the vices 27 The Papists liue vnder a visible head but the same is Antichrist the protestants vnder an inuisible head which is christ The Pope fitteth in Rome the mother of al abhominations hauing nothing to brag of but the vertues of such as haue dwelled there before him and no good qualitie of his owne Yet the title of vniuersall shepherd M.S. denieth vnto him although he most arrogantly do vsurpe it Howbeit properly M.S. saith he ought not to haue it 28 Therfore the bishops of Rome before Gregory the first refused the same title as prophane proude which belongeth onely to christ Yet the councel of Chalcedō offred it to Pope Leo the first but he refused it as slanderous This being cōfessed by M S. chuse whether you wil say the councell did erre in offring the same or Pope Leo in refusing or the latter Popes in vsing the same 29 Gregorie the first in deede tooke vppon him the humble style of the seruaunt of the seruaunts of God as M.S. saith but his successors vsing that title for a formality hauing bene content to be called Lord of Lords and God aboue all gods and our lord God the Pope and the most holiest and an hundreth more blasphemous titles beside treading on the Emperours necke such like examples of prophane pride as Nero Heliogabalus no Dioclesian euer shewed the like 30 It is not to be proued that he saith there were 4. Patriarks at the beginning nor that the Pope of Rome was chiefe For the councell of Nice Canon 6. doth make the patriarke of Alexandria and the rest equall with the bishop of Rome Although afterward the bishops of Rome as they were cōmonly ambitious when persecution was staied by prerogatiue of the imperiall citie challenged a kinde of primacie yet not of authoritie but of order And whereas he sayeth other Patriarches were preferred in respect of the affinitie they had with S. Peter it is false for the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed next to him of olde Rome because Constantinople was newe Rome the imperiall cittie Concil Constantinop Cap. 2. or after Garanza Cap. 5. That the Pope did erect patriarchal Seas at Aquileia at Senis it was not for that the other were infected with heresie but that they refused to acknowledge his Antichristian authoritie bought of Phocas the murtherer by Boniface the third for if his authoritie had bene so great as is pretended he would haue deposed those hereticall bishops and set vp Catholikes in their places rather then to haue spoyled the seates of their dignities for euer for the fault of the bishops 31 It is false that he sayeth neuer any bishop was so much esteemed as the bishop of Rome for Athanasius of Alexandria was more esteemed of the
godly then any bishop of Rome in his time Likewise when the Sea of Rome vsurped prerogatiue it was reiected by the Councell of Africa which decreed that none should appeale thither discouered the counterfaiting of the bishops of Rome Con. Mileuit Cap. 22. Conc. Aphrican Ep. ad Coelestin Likewise it was reiected of the church of Alexandria whereof great dissention arose Con Affric Cap. 68. That Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustine Eugenius Theodoretus poynted to the church of Rome as to a witnesse of trueth it proueth her clearnesse from those heresies in their tymes but giueth her none authoritie ouer other churches nor yet maketh her a rule of trueth to all churches for then there needed none other arguments against heretikes but the authoritie of the church of Rome whereas the testimonie of that church was one of the weakest reasons they vsed and that least preuailed 32 That he affirmeth other cities to haue chosen Bishops of their owne tongue it is also true of Rome For he cannot shewe one Pope that was ignorant of the Latine tongue while it was spoken in Rome And not many I thinke not one ignorant of the Italian tongue since that time although they were borne in other countries Besides that it is the fondest reason that euer I heard one or other alledge that the Popes haue bene borne in diuerse countries therefore they are supreme heade of the church more then other bishops that were bishops in the countries where they were born and yet more foolish that speaking of Bishops of other tongues hee nameth so manye places all of one tongue As Syna Antioche Galile Ierusalem Bethelem which are all of one tongue Campania Thuscia Aquileia Pisa Genua Bononia Millaine Parma Rauenna which are all Italian Gascoyne Lorayne Sauoy Burgundie Rhemes Tholose which are all frenche Saxonie Bauier Hollande Alsaria Mastriche which are all duche Cappadocia Thracia Creta Sicilia Sardinia Athens Nicopolis which are all Greeke There remaineth Spaine which is in a manner Italian and last of all Englande and Affrick So that there are not past fiue or sixe diuerse tongues of so many places as hee hath alledged to bleare the eyes of foolish Papistes As if one shoulde saye the Bishops of Caunterburie haue beene borne some in Yorke shire some in Durham some in Chester some in London some in Norfolke some in Cambridge c. Some in Italie some in Greece some in Fraunce some in Wales some in Normandie therefore that churche of Caunterburie is the chiefe Sea in the worlde 33 The See of Rome in deed was verie forward in vsurping authoritie of a chiefe iudge ouer other churches as Victor in excommunicating the bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter But they vtterly neglected his sentence yea and diuerse did not as Maister Sanders sayeth gently wish him not to deale so seuerely but sharpely rebuked him for his presumption and contention as Eusebius sayeth lib. 5. Cap. 25. Extant autem verba illorum qui victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus c. Their wordes are extant which sharply reprehended Victor of which number Irenaeus was one And whereas hee sayeth that Saint Cypriane desyreth Pope Stephanus to depose Martianus bishop of Arles in Fraunce it is false for hee exhorteth Stephanus beeing somewhat slacke against the Nouatians to write his letters vnto his fellowe Bishops in Fraunce as he him self oft had done that they woulde depose Martianus the heretike and suffer him no longer to insult ouer the churche which argueth the remissenes of Stephanus to doe that which was the charitable duetie of euerie bishop as Cyprian sheweth but proueth not his authoritie ouer all bishops That Felix the thirde deposed Aacarius bishop of Constantinople hee shewed the time of the full reuelation of Antichriste to bee at hande yet did hee it not of his owne authoritie but by authoritie of a Synode and afterwarde by a Synode restored him But Iustinianus the Emperour deposed two bishoppes of Rome Syluerius and Vigilius by his owne authoritie 34 That the bishop of Rome hath beene made the Committie of diuerse Councels to receiue the subscription of such as haue beene noted of heresies after their repentance it prooueth no superioritie in the worlde but a good opinion that those Councels had of his fidelitie 35 The letters of Leo to Flauianus and Theodosius proue not that the Patriarches Flauianus and Anatolius were commaunded to giue an accompt to the Bishop of Rome but rather Leo humbly desyred the Emperour Theodosius to commaunde a Synode to bee gathered in Italy because Flauianus had appealed not onely to the Bishop of Rome but to all the Bishopâ— of Italie Ep. 23. And that hee writ that Anatolius shoulde confesse his faith before hee were ordeined it was his good councell to the Emperour no commaundement to either of them Ep. 31. 36 It is false that all nations appealed to the Pope of Africa did excommunicate all them that so would or thought meete to appeale Concil Mileuit Ca. 22. Concil Aph. Ep. ad Coelest And although some appealed to the iudgement of the church or Bishop of Rome yet that proueth no generall authoritie The Councell of Sardike which M. Sanders citeth Can. 7. did moderate those appeales which had not bene lawfull if they perteined to the Bishop of Rome de iure of right Liberatus whom he citeth for the appeale of Athanasius affirmeth that the Councel of Chalcedon confirmed by the Emperor gaue no place to the contradiction of the Bishop of Rome nor his legates Cap. 13. which disproueth his supremacie more then any appeale can proue it As for the appeale of Athanasius if any were it was euer ruled by the Emperour who appointed him a synode to iudge his cause at Tyre Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 28. Theodorete testifieth that after he was called to Rome by Iulius the bishop by the Emperour Constantius his commaundement his cause was referred to the councell of Sardica when he had first appealed to the Emperour Constans lib. 2. Cap. 4. He citeth Chrys. Ep. ad Innocentium to proue that he did appeale to the Bishop of Rome where there is no such matter Only he declareth how iniuriously he was dealt withal by meanes of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria from whome he appealed not to the Bishop of Rome but to a Synode Of the appeale of Flauianus we haue spoken euen now by the confession of Leo himselfe Ep. 23. As for other appeales of later times they proue the ambition of the Romish bishops that would receiue them although of many they were misliked 37 That Gelasius affirmed bishops condemned by prouincial councels were restored by the Pope alone hee citeth his Epist. ad Faustum in which is no such matter yet if it were so I say it proueth nothing but the ambition of that See which before his time began to encrease toward a supremacie and not long after obteined that it sought for But from the beginning it was not so
The bishop of Rome bearing witnesse of him self for his owne aduauntage is not to be credited In that Epistle he sheweth that Acacius by Lyra was cōdemned according to the Councell of Chalcedon which was lawful not only for him but for any other Bishop to haue done in as much as he inuented no newe heresie but did communicate with an other heresie alreadie condemned in a Councell 38 In the third generall Councell holden at Ephesus there is mention that Cyrillus was President of the councell but not that hee was Lieuetenant of the Bishop of Rome although Euasius a late writer in comparison doth so suppose But the wordes of the Councel are these Denique Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis propter quod Apostoli sancti discipuli esse monstrantur Peter and Iohn are of equall dignitie one with the other bicause they are shewed to be Apostles and holy Disciples This confession of the Councel maketh more against the Popes supremacie then the Lieuetenantship of Cyrillus to the Pope if it were true could proue for it 39 Maister Sander saith without proofe but of declining times almost 500. yeares after Christe and later that the See of Rome had Legates both ordinarie and extraordinarie throughout all Christendome which if it were true proueth no more his supremacie then that the King of Spaine hath dominion ouer all those countries where he hath Legates ordinarie and extraordinarie He citeth the seuenth Canon of the councel of Sardica which was that he might send a Priest from his side Which in deede was a restraint of his vsurped authoritie and not a confirmation or an enlargement thereof For the Canon is this That if any Bishop that was deposed by the Bishops of his owne countrie did appeale to the Bishoppe of the Church of Rome the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops of the next prouince to examine his cause and if the partie by his opportunitie should moue the Bishop of Rome the second time to be heard againe then he might send Presbyterum à latere an elder from his side one or more which either with the Bishops aforesaid should iudge and determine the matter or else leaue it wholy to the iudgment of the Bishops of the Prouince By this Canon the singular authoritie of the Romish Bishop is modestly excluded 40 The examples of Bishops Perigenes and Martinus translated by the Bishops of Rome in the declining times proueth not the perpetual supremacie of the Pope seeing by generall Councels al such translations haue bene forbidden in elder times Nic. c. 15. chalc c. 5. 41 The consent of the B. of Rome was not so necessarie to generall Councels but that they were held without his presence or his sending For concerning his personal presence he was not at any of the 4. first approued generall Councels neither any for him at the second of thē which was held at Constantinople where Nectarius Bishop of the citie was president Also the fourth of Chalcedon made the See of Constantinople equal with the See of Rome which although Leo Bishop of Rome disalowed yet did it take place as Liberatus testifieth Cap. 13. 42 Although the Bishop of Rome had his Legate in some prouinciall Councels yet it is great impudencie to say he had them in al. And such as then were present they bare no rule or preheminence but as the Legates of other Bishops Philippus and Asellius were at the Councell of Aphrica in which decrees were made against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome and yet they subscribed cap. 92 43 That the Pope hath procured a fewe nations to be conuerted within these thousand or 900. yeares as England by Augustine Saxoni by Bonifacius c it can not excuse him from being Antichrist him selfe ▪ although M. Sander saith we account him to be but the forerunner of Antichrist For though Gregorie otherwise a ceremoniall and superstitious man was moued with zeale of Christes glorie to seeke the conuersion of as many as he could yet the Popes which followed after him in procuring the cōuersion of some countries rather by cruell warres then by preaching of the Gospell as Prusia Liuonia Lithuania c. sought their owne glorie and aduauntage vnder the colour of Christes religion and therefore were not diuided against Satan but ioyned with him in hypocrisie 44 As for the conuersion of the Infidels in the newe found landes is a newe found argument to proue the primacie of the See of Rome Like as the conuersion of Elias the Iewe by Pius 5. Many Iewes and some of greate learning as Emanuel Tremelius haue bene conuerted to the Gospel And one within this two yeares was baptized in London 45 That the See of Rome hath so long flourished like a Queene in worldly pompe it is the more like to the See and citie of Antichrist Apoc. 18. verse 7. And that the cities of the other Patriarches and their Bishops be oppressed with Infidels it letteth them not to be true Christians For Esaie 60. prophesieth not of worldly pompe but of the spirituall glorie of the Church which was as great before Constantius stayed the persecution as euer since 46 That no Bishop was euer so honoured of Princes Kings or Emperours as the Pope c it proueth him to be Antichrist and his Church the whore of Babylon Apo. 17. vers 2. 17. cap. 13. 16. 47 That the Frenchmen deposed their King Childericus by the Oracle of Pope Zacharie which discharged them of their lawful othe of obedience it proueth mightily the Pope to be Antichrist Peter saith Feare God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. 48 And much more that Pope Leo the third did transferre the Empire it selfe into the West For Peter commaunded obedience to be giuen to euery ordinance of man for the Lord whether to the King as to the most excellent or to those rulers that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2. 49 That Pope Gregorie the fift gaue an order for the election of the Emperour confirmeth our iudgement of the Pope to be Antichrist as also that Nicholas the first threatened the Emperour Michael the ouerthrowe of the Empire of the East whereof hee by his proud rebellion and disobedience and diuiding the West part from it was a cause 50 That the succession of the Bishops of Rome hath ben continued in histories with the reigne of Emperours and Kings it proueth in deede that the Church of Rome hath ben either very famous when it was gouerned of good Bishops or infamous when it was degenerated into Antichristian tyrannie but this proueth no more the authoritie thereof to be lawfull or the religion good then the succession of Heathen tyrants Emperours Kings great Turkes proueth their religion true or their vsurpation lawfull As for the light of worldly fame that M.S. boasteth of is spirituall darknesse and not the light of the Gospell which our Sauiour speaketh of Luke 5. No man lighteth a candle c.
booke and yet they are necessary for the preseruation of the doctrine thereof yea they are true natural figures of the sense that is contained in the booke if no man be so madde as to put of his cap to those letters or to that booke or to set it vp to kneele to it to sense it c What monstruous madnesse is it to defende the worshippinge of Images which if they were graunted to be lawfull meanes to bring men to spirituall knowledge yet were they nothing comparable to the written letter and sillables of the scriptures The fourth cause of honouring of Images is that all nations haue honoured them in respect of their vertue whose Images they are I haue shewed before in a worde that this prooueth it not to be a lawe of nature that Images are to be honoured because all nations haue bene ignorant of God haue committed Idolatrie haue committed whoredome c. And although the art of making of Images be good yet it prooueth not that all Images may be made or anye worshipped The art of making swordes is good yet it neither proueth that all swordes are well vsed nor that any is to be worshipped But Master Sander saith seeinge that all nations haue made and worshipped Images it is against the lawe of all nations and of nature to forbid the worshippe of them For he would better like of that lawe which forbadde Images of Christ to be made then of that which forbiddeth them to be worshipped which he calleth a filthie decree and yet it was a decree of Pope Gregorie the first to the bishoppe of Massilia as we haue shewed before But concerning the example of all nations thus I answere briefely what Images they made out of religion and how they worshipped them it toucheth our controuersie nothing in the worlde But such as they made and worshipped in religion were abhominable Idoles and contrarie to the lawe of nature For Sainte Paule in the first to the Romaines and in the 17. of the Actes reproueth the Gentiles for making and worshipping of Images by the lawe of nature But whereas he saith the Iewes worshipped the Images of the Cherubins which Salomon had made to garnish the walles of the temple with the figures of palme trees and other flowers quoting 3. Reg. 6. 2. Par. 3. he is a most impudeÌ„t shameful liar For there is no word in those chapters nor in all the Bible sounding that way Neither doth Hieronyme ad Marcellam say they worshipped the holy place but they reuerenced it in respecte of the great mysterie thereof as they did the temple it selfe For all reuerent estimation of a thing is not honouring or worshipping of it as Master Sander alwayes dreameth Of the image in Pauende made as he sayeth by the woman and preserued by Christians vntill the dayes of Iulian wee haue sayed ynough in the Chapter nexte before this Hitherto the wicked custome of all nations contrarie to the worde of God proueth not the worshipping of images to bee necessarily good by the lawe of nature The fifth cause is that the relation of honour is so necessarily betweene the image and the thing meant to bee honoured by it that if the image be not honoured the thing cannot be honoured thereby Nay by your leaue Master Sander the relation of honour is between them that meant to giue honour and the thing meant to bee honoured inter honorantem honoranâ—â—â— and not between the image and the thing meant to bee honoured by an image so that if the image be not honoured his foolish meaning is disapointed that meant to honour a thing by an image But admit it were as you say what inconuenience is in the conclusion If the image be not honoured the thing cannot bee honoured by the image For if the thing be worthie honour it needeth not the vaine honour of an image But you saye it is the lawe of nature and right reason that if an image be made of an honourable personage it may also be honoured that is honourably regarded and esteemed according to the vertue of the man more or lesse As if it be the image of Cato you thinke his worldly wisedome well worthie of an image but you wil not think it to be an holie image as you thinke the image of Christ or his mother to bee But if you thinke the image of a holie person to bee a holie image why do you not by the same reason thinke the image of Cato a wise man to be a wise image and the image of Socrates a vertuous man to bee a vertuous image and the image of Cicero an eloquent man to bee an eloquent image if the images of these men bee not wise vertuous nor eloquent no more be the images of Christ his mother or his Apostles diuine holy or honorable And if it be the lawe of nature that the image of an honourable person shoulde be made and honoured as his vertue is more or lesse then by the contrary the image of a wicked man shoulde be made and dishonoured as his wickednesse is more or lesse So that as we must haue a religion of images of good men made and honored to stirre vs vnto vertue so wee must haue a religion of making and dishonouring the images of wicked men to diswade vs from wickednes If this later be a fond immagination so vndoubtedly is the former The sixt cause is because the name of Christ is communicated to his image for it is called Christ so the honour due to his name is in the same degree to be communicated to his image also For the name of God is to be blessed and the name of his sainctes shall liue in honour for euer Yea sir but as the name of Christ is falsely wickedly and blasphemously communicated to a deade image so is his honour falsely wickedly and blasphemously communicated to the same And where as hee saith wee are ashamed to confesse that we breake the images of Christ he lyeth falsely impudently For if we sawe the true images of the countenance of Christ abused to idolatrie wee woulde no more doubt or feare to breake them then Ezechias did to breake the Brasen serpent which was a figure of Christe and commaunded by God himselfe to be made But as for their ridiculous images which are no more the images of Christ then of Iudas Iscarioth but that it pleaseâ—h them to call them so wee may iustly denye them to bee the images of Christ which haue no proper resemblance vnto his bodie more then to any other man. The last reason is that if it be a contumelye to the Prince to haue his image broken and an honour to haue it regarded the like must needes come to passe in christ And here M. Iewell is bidden to breake if he dare the Image of the Queenes maiestie or the armes of the realm or any noble mans banner But if the prince had as precisely forbidden any image of her to be
to thy selfe any grauen image for the making of your Popishe image and the day is yours The 7. the tribes of Ruben and Gad and the halfe tribe of Manasses made an image of an altar Ios. 22. Nay they made an altar in deed for a memoriall yet their facte was not cōmēdable though it was in some sort excusable The 8. God commanded two cherubims to be made ouer the mercie seate Exod. 25. those were grauen Angels saith M. Sander of the highest degree in heauen saue one O vaine presumptuous hypocrite that wil take vpon him to knowe the degrees of Angels which the scripture hath neuer reuealed To this I aunswere as to the brasen serpent shewe the worde of God dispensing with the generall lawe for any images in religion The rending of the vaile a sunder sheweth vs not the images of Cherubims as on the Arke he saith much lesse other newe Images which were neuer there but the glorie of Christ with vncouered face while we our selues are transformed into the same image 2. Cor. 3. ver 18. The 9. the temple was an image of Christes body therefore the Iewes had an image of Christ openly set vp before their eyes The temple was a figure of Christes bodie so was euerie sacrifice that was offered but no image The 10. the Temple was honoured by the Iewes yea Daniel prayed toward Ierusalem when the Temple was destroied you might as wel say they honored Ierusalem No doubt but the temple was reuerently esteemed of the godly as a place erected by Gods commandement which seeing images doe lacke there passeth no consequence from the honouring of the Temple to the honouring of images The 11. the law had a shadow of good things to come not the self image of things He. 10. therfore if the dumb shadowes of the lawe were to be worshipped much more the expressed image of his bodie of those who will perfourme that in the new Testament which was prefigured in the lawe Who can beare these blasphemies Did the shadowes of the lawe prefigure the worshipping of images or our redemption by Christe Are your dombe stockes and stones that selfe image or patterne of those shadowes which the Apostle speaketh of or was Christe himselfe O brasen forehead and blasphemous mouth The 12. Gods honour is giuen to the fleshe of Christ in respect of the vnitie in person with the Godhead therefore the image may be honoured in an other respect But euerie respect thou blundering idolater cannot make a cause of honour but onely the vnitie in person which seeing it is not in thy blockes with the paterne thine argument proueth nothing The 13. the image of Caesar in his coyne proueth that it may be giuen to Cęsar so doth euerie image leade vs to that truth whereof it is an image No Maister Sander the image of Caesar on his coyne proueth that the Iewes were subiect to Caesar and therefore tribute was due vnto him So your argument hath no deduction from Caesars image The 14. the signe of the crosse is to be worshipped for Amelech was ouerthrowen by that signe which Moses made when he prayed with his handes lifted vp and spred abroade Exod. 17. Therefore we may and must honour the signe of the crosse in what matter or stuffe so euer it be made Vanitie of vanities and nothing but vanitie where is there any one title in that Chapter of the signe of a crosse yea or of the spreading of his handes abroade whiche shoulde make a crosse with his lifting vppe The 15. the signe of Thau that is to say of the crosse was marked in the forehead of suche as hated idolatrie Ezech. 9. and they were not slaine corporally no more shall they be slaine euerlastingly which now imbrace it An easie way to escape euerlasting death But where finde you that the signe of Thau was the signe of the crosse Or that the print of the letter Thau was set on their forheades For this worde Thau is as much to say as a marke or signe and not a speciall figure or marke although the vulgar translation doeth not translate it but setteth it in the Hebrue worde as he found it The 16. the signe of the sonne of man shall appeare at the day of iudgement Mat. 24. which is the signe of the crosse Howe proue you that Maister Sander Or if you could proue it what is that to worshipping of images ▪ You say it shal be to the confusion of them which haue throwen downe that signe but you onely say it and then we force not Yea say you a thousand times what say I a thousand Euerlastingly accursed is he that hateth or destroyeth any one iote belonging to Christ be it neuer so farre distant from his holy flesh and person Then how many times accursed are they that haue destroyed so many bibles in which was not ten thousand iots belonging to Christ but his whole doctrine perfectly conteined The 17. the people Act. 5. coueted to lie onely within the compasse of S. Peters shadowe the woman desired to touche but the hemme of Christes garment Why because any thing of his is worthie of estimation Verily the image of Christ is somewhat of his or else it were not his image No verily M. San. the image of Christ is nothing of his truly but falsely nothing to his honour but to his dishonor The enimies of Christ are none of his yet we say these be his enimies But you say if a man had that faith as to beleeue that if he might touche or onely see his image he should be safe I see no reason why that faith may not make him safe O blinde beast or rather blocke that seest no reason why that faith which was neuer heard out of Gods worde should not saue a man But the heretikes you say tye all thinges to his person and nothing to his other instrumentes The word of God teacheth vs to tie al things to Christ and to acknowledge none other instrumentes then he hath prouided and appointed for vs For images be the instruments of the Diuel and not of Christe to worke by The last All that euer Isai Cap. 2. Ieremie Cap. 50. Ezechiel Cap. 30. Micheas Cap. 1. Sophonias Cap. 2. Zacharie Cap. 13. or King Dauid In Psal. 9. say of the destruction of Idols in the time of grace is vterly void of none effect if it be not lawful to worship or adore images Do you not maruel what is the reason of this monstrous assertion Verily euen as monstrous a lie that the whole Church of Christ in all Temples Chappels always especially since the time of Constantine the great hath set vp and vsed reuerently the Images of Christ and of his Saints What answere shall I make to this Let him haue the whetstone as big as a mountaine THE XIII OR XII CHAP. That the signe of the healthfull crosse was honoured in the first sixe hundred yeares and of those two grosse ignoraunces
we are vtterly discharged of Images this mans freedome is to binde vs to the seruice of Images O blasphemous absurde doctrine Againe howe falsely doeth he affirme that the godly Iewes knewe not whereunto their signes were referred as though Messias was not preached to them by those signes Likewise as vntruely he saith that the signes of the Gentiles ended in the onely honour of the creature and not of God when they did neuer honour any creature but their finall ende was thereby to honour God and not a creature Againe what beastly doctrine is this that he affirmeth that the signes of the Iewes are not vtterly abolished but changed into the sacraments directly instituted by Christ but also into signes made with faithfull mens handes as Altars vestments Chalices lightes and images whereby he maketh Christian liberty but a chaunge from one bondage into an other and yet worse then that of the Iewes because they were subiect to the yoke of God wee must be vnder the yoke of mens institutions and traditions But hee procedeth and will proue that images may be profitably and freely worshipped and that in practise it was so done within the first sixe hundreth yeares by the testimony of Chrisostome Paulinus and Gregorie Chrisostome is alledged in his Liturgie where it is said that the priest turning to the image of Christ betweene the two doores bowing his heade saith a prayer But because this liturgie is proued to be false counterfet by maister Iewell for that therein is conteined a prayer for Pope Nicholas which lyued not 500. yeares after Chrisostome and for the Emperour Alexius which liued neere 700. yeares after Chrisostome maister Sander taketh vppon him the defense of it to bee written by Chrisostome which was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death His first reason is that it beareth his name which is a good reason to proue all forgeries to bee true writings Secondly other Grecians which haue written since that time do make mention of it as Proclus Cabaselas Methenencis and M. Ephesius But of these some onely make mention that Chrisostome did write a liturgie they doe not iustifie that this which is nowe seene is that the other being of late dayes are not to bee credited Thirdly he saith that Greeke church doth allow it for Chrisostomes as that latine doth those Psalmes Quicunque vult to be written by Athanasius and Te deum by Ambrose and Augustine And yet the best learned in these dayes cannot be perswaded of those authors although the Psalmes be good and Godly Fourthly hee woulde faine disproue M. Iewells reason touching those prayers for Pope Nicolas and the Emperour Alexius saying that in all publike seruice formes of prayers there are certeine cōmon places which must be left voide for names according to the times and persons But these places are not left voide but filled with the names of the princes and prelats of that time in which it was first written as the publike seruice in king Henries dayes in king Edwardes time yea prayers made in Queene Maries time and in Queene Elizabeths time do proue and shewe in what time they were first made But in some copyes saith he the places are left voide Hee must proue those copies to be auncienter then the time of Alexius or else they helpe not his cause But seeing there is no copie that hath any other names but these it is manifest that this liturgie was first composed in the dayes of the Emperour Alexius and Pope Nicholas And where as maister Sander vseth many wordes and reasons to proue that this Pope Nicholas was not Bishoppe of Rome as maister Iewell saith but Patriarch of Constantinople in the reigne of Alexius I yeelde vnto him for thereby it is more certeine that this liturgie was made in the time of Alexius then if it had beene Nicholas of Rome which was neere 200. yeares before Alexius Last of all where as Claudius de Sanctis that brauling Sorbonist woulde proue by conferring it with diuerse places taken out of Chrisostomes owne works the saide liturgie to be his hee hath laboured in vaine For as it may be graunted that diuerse things in this liturgie are taken out of that which perhaps Chrisostome did write yet it followeth not that the whole forme thereof is his but that the same was corrupted and altered with additions and detractions in the dayes of Alexius and especially in this matter of the images which I proue by two reasons First among so many counterfet and falsified authorities as were alledged out of old writers in the idolatours counsell of Nice the second for the vse and worship of images this liturgie was neuer alledged though other testimony of Chrisostome was cited which could not haue beene omitted seeing nothing is so notorius as the publike seruice of the Church Whereby it is manifest that the liturgie which went vnder the name of Chrisostome in that time had in it no mention of images or the worshipping of them My seconde reason is that Chrisostome himselfe in his owne vndoubted writings coumpteth the art of painting to be altogether superfluous and such as might well be spared out of the worlde which he would not haue done if he had appointed in the publike seruice of the Church the vse of an image as necessarie or profitable For thus he writeth in Math Hom. 50. Neque pingendi ariem aut nunimulariam artes ego nominarim quippe cum nihil conserant necessariarum rerum quibus vita nostra continetur Neither would I call the art of painting or of exchaunging monyes by the name of artes seeing that they yeelde nothing off those necessarye thinges in whiche our life is conteyned Nowe as concerning the image of S. Martine painted in the Baptistery by Seuerus and allowed by Paulinus bishop of Nola I haue aunswered before that his errour proueth not Gods institution But whereas he citeth his verse to proue the worshipping of images he doth him wronge Martinum veneranda viri testatur imago The reuerende image of the man doth shew forth Martin for pocres haue euer had licence of all figures in their verses wherefore he doth none otherwise call the image reuerende or to be reuerenced then Virgill calleth the image of his father Anchises troubled Admonet in somnis turbida terret imago Meaning not that the image but that Anchises was troubled so doth Paulinus meane that S. Martine and not his image was to be reuerenced Finally where as maister Iewell saith that Gregorie speaketh not one worde of the adoration of images maister Sander obiecteth this saying lib. 7. Ep. 53. Non quasi ante diuinitatem ante illam imaginem prosternimur whiche he englisheth thus we ly prostrate before the image not as before god And then he triumpheth like a crow in a gutter saying is not lying flat downe before an image one word spoken of adoration of images yea it is cleere that it was the vse in Saint Gregories time to lye prostrate
had made an idoll in a groue and destroyed her idolles and burned them by the brooke Elledron 1. Reg. 15. verse 13. But Maister Sander will defend her title of succession bicause she was elder then her sonne and to bee honoured of him O cunning Lawyer that will make the wife inheritour to her husband and that in the Empire before her sonne begotten by her husband which had the Empire by discent Concerning the diuorcement of Constantinus from his first wife Marie and marrying of an other as I knowe not the cause so I will not take vpon me the defence The Bishop saide the Bishops and Doctours of that Councell manifestly corrupted the Scriptures Maister Sander sayth it is not so as hee hath proued in parte what he hath proued you may reade in the twefth Chapter but bicause he is so impudent to defend those corruptions and deprauations I will set downe some of them Theodosius Amorij citeth this text for images What thinges so eueer are written they are written for our learning Ioannes Legate of the East citeth this Shew me thy face for it is beautifull Theodorus alledgeth this saying God is maruellous in his Saintes An other to proue that images must be set on the altar vseth this text No man lighteth a candle and putteth it vnder a bushell c. An other this text to proue images necessarie to knowe God by them As wee haue heard so wee haue seene in the citie of our god These are not the one halfe of those beastly applications of the scripture vsed in that blasphemous Councel but these are sufficient to shewe what learned bewclearks they were in the holy word of God and the interpretation thereof The B. saide They falsified the holy Fathers without shame Maister Sander saith nothing but that hee doeth belye them What shall we say of the falsifying of Basil in Oratione 40. Martyres for the worshipping of images which Oration is extant and no such matter found in it Shall we beleeue the forged Oration in the name of Athanasius of the image of Christe in Beritus which being stricken by a Iewe bloud issued out of the side of it Howe impudently doe they deny the authoritie and writings of Epiphanius Amphilochius Theodotus Eusebius which were brought against the irreligious vse and honouring of images by the Councels of Constantinople and Ephesus slaundering also Eusebius of Arrianisme The B. saide They sayde Imago melior est quà m oratio An image is better then a prayer Here are three faultes found in citing fiue wordes Great faultes I warrant you The first he writeth they saide which one onely Bishop did say but in the end of that fourth action all the Bishops and Legates subscribed and allowed all that had bene saide in defence of images and no man reclamed therefore hee might well write they saide The second fault is he said not melior est imago but maior est imago greater i◠an image for a thing may bee greater which is not better This is no great fault but an ouersight and the sense is not altered for in this case he meaneth by greater better The thirde fault that he translateth Oratio for prayer which signifieth an oration or speech Yet doeth it signifie a prayer also But if the circumstance of this place would haue it to be taken for speeche or an oration or sermon the absurditie is nothing lesse to say there is greater force to teache in an image then in a sermon oration or speeche But seeing you finde so many faultes in the citing of that saying to excuse it from absurditie I pray you see if you can finde as many in this which I cite spoken by Ioannes the Monke Priest and deputie or vicar of the East to defend it from blasphemie Nisi fuissent necessariae imagines eas propter stabilitionem factorum non fuissent osculati vt etiam meo iuditio cum sanctis Euangelijs veneranda cruce aequivaleant Except images had bene necessarie he would not haue kissed them for the establishing of deeds so that in my iudgement they are of equall worthines with the holie Gospels and the reuerend crosse Act. 4. The B. said And againe whosoeuer wil not adore the godly images accursed be he This M. Sander confesseth to be written in deed and to be true sauing that he cauilleth at the translation of Diuinas imagines into godly images which he saith should be diuine images But how liketh he the saying of Constantine Bishop of Constantia in Cypres which affirmeth that he will worship images with that honour which is due to the blessed Trinitie accurseth him that refuseth with the Manichees and Marcionites vnto which sentence al the rest agree Where is nowe the distinction of Doulia and Latria when they will worship the image of Christ with the same honour that is due to the Trinitie What saith he to the zeale of Ihon the deputie of the East which affirmeth that it is better to admitte all stewes of whores and brothels into the citie then to deny the worshipping of images If these be not beastly and blasphemous absurdities worse then childish sayinges whiche he can not abide the Bishop to tearme them let the world iudge Hitherto M. Sander hath made no defence for this idolatrous rablement which he calleth the seuenth generall councell But he will answere all the Bishops arguments against it with these 4. reasons First he saith there is no impietie or falshoode approued or decreed in that councel A substantial reason which concludeth vpon that whiche is in controuersie But yet to lay open his shamelesse impudencie I will proue that to haue beene decreed and approued in that councell which he him selfe will not denie to be impietie and falshood Action 5. We read thus out of the booke of one Ihon Bishop of Thessalonica De Angelis Archangelis eorum potestatibus quibus nostras animas adiungo ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentis esse quidem intelligibiles sed non omnino corporis expertes inuisibiles vt vos gentiles dicitis verum tenui corpore preditos aereo siue igneo vt scriptum est Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus ministros eius ignem vrentem c. Of Angels Archangels and of their powers vnto which also I adioyne our soules the Catholike Churche doth so thinke that they are in deede intelligible but not altogether voide of body and inuisible as you Gentiles say but that they haue a thinne body that either of ayer or of fire as it is writen which maketh his Agels spirites and his ministers a burning fire c. Herevpon Thorasius the Patriarke saide Ostendit autem pater quod Angelos pingere oporteat quādo circumscribi possunt vt homines apparnerunt Sacra synodus dixit etiā Domine This father hath shewed that we ought to paint the Angels also seing they may be circūscribed haue appeared as men The holie synode said Yea
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least
c. is proued by the Canons of the Apostles that Excommunicate all Christians that be present and doe not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus which is good authoritie against a Papist forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone and commandeth all the ministers that are present to receiue with him in paine of excommunication And appointeth what number shall be present of deacons namely on solemne dayes seuen on other dayes fiue or three beside Subdeacons other ministers These decrees do proue that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper but when there be a good number to communicate Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priestâ— in apparell froÌ„ the laitie which yet we hold to be a thing of his owne nature indifferent Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discernâ—ndi a plebe vel cÄ™teris sumus doctrina non veste conuersatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We must be discerned from the common people or other men by doctrine not by garment by conuersation not by apparell by purenes of minde not by attyre To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro it is proued by Augustine who In quest vet Non test ques 101. saith it was the office of the Deacons of Rome as well as of all other Churches to carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and although he call it an altar in this place and many other yet doeth he in as many places call it a table and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth that it was made of boordes and not of stones To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday although perhaps it might be proued by those fathers of the primitiue Church that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Iewes whiche was the 14. day of the moneth whiche some tymes did fall vpon that Friday whiche is called good Friday yet beeing no matteâ— of religion there is no cause why we should be bound to proue it The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion and to the 11. of saying the Creede of Athanasius vpon principall holie dayes Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministred in the loafe bread vsually to be eaten at the table it is proued by S. Cyprian In sermone de Caena Dom. whiche saith of that bread wherewith they did minister Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incraementum corporâ—bus c. This common bread being chaunged into our flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram Who rehearseth the obiection of the ignorant saying Tu forte dicis meus panis est vsitatus c. Thou perhaps wilt say my bread is coÌ„mon vsual bread Also by Gregorie which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaues of bread were giuen to one that was thought to be a poore man in rewarde of his seruice in a bathe but he being a guest willed that the same shoulde bee offered in sacrifice for him To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplesse which hold it to be no part of religion and that the communion hath bene ministred in common apparell we will go no further then our Sauiour Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. and there is no question but his Apostles and the primitiue Churche many hundreth yeares followed his example To the 13 that the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration rather theÌ„ of S. Mathewe Marke or Luke it is a matter of meere indifferency yet better ordered then your popishe canon whiche rehearseth the wordes after none of all foure To the 14. that they vsed a common cup at the Communion is prooued also by scripture that our sauiour Christ ministred in the same cup which he and his company had vsed at supper To the 15. that the curses of Gods law should be redd vpon Ashwednesday we hold it not as a thing necessarie but an order of indifferencie vntill a better discipline be restored To the 16. concerning procession about the fields we vse none but a perambulation which is a matter of meere ciuill pollicie To the 19. whether Saint Peter were euer at Rome or no it is no article of our beliefe but we are able to proue by scripture that he neither was there as bishoppe nor so long as the common opinion is To the 20. that the minister in time of necessitie hath giuen the communion to one alone is proued by the example of Seraphion vsed of the Papistâ— but vnfitly to defende your priuate masse to whom being at the point of death the communion was sent by the prieste who at the same time also was so sicke that hee coulde not come himselfe Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe is but graunted to the infirmitie of suche as cannot bee perswaded to forbeare the sacramente not as a thing simplie allowed If anye one man aliue coulde prooue anye one of these articles by Scriptures doctours or councelles hee promiseth to subscribe what I haue prooued let the Reader iudge After this followe twentie nine articles more The 22. that the bishoppe of Rome was not called Antichriste the cause was that vntill after sixe hundreth yeare the bishoppe of Rome was not Antichriste But that Antichriste shoulde bee a Romaine it is prooued by Irenaeus Libro 5. and that Rome shoulde be the Sea of Antichriste Sainte Augustine testifieth De ciuitate Dei libro 16. capitulo 17. callinge Rome Westerne Babylon and libro 18. capitulo 2. callinge Rome seconde Babylon c. Also Hierome ad Marcellam iudgeth Rome to bee Babylon spoken of in the Apocalypse and in praefati in Didymum hee calleth Rome Babylon and the purple whore and Algasiae Quest. 11. and manye places else Gregorie also affirmeth that who so woulde bee called vniuersall bishoppe was the forerunner of Antichriste whiche was Iohn of Constantinople also he prophesieth that Antichristes reuelation was at hande and that an armye of priestes shoulde wayte vppon him whiche was fulfilled in his nexte successour saue one namely Bonifacius the thirde whiche was the first Pope of Rome that was called vniuersall bishoppe and was Antichriste him selfe as Iohn of Constantinople was his forerunner about the yeare of our Lorde â—10 To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacramente but the vertue of the peoples fayth is not holden of vs and therefore wee are not to prooue it To the 24. that the residue of the sacramentall bread which was not receyued by any olde custome of the Church of Constantinople was giuen to young children that went to schoole is prooued by Euagrius libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter as hee requireth is to shewe or to eate it with cheese
51 As it is true that the Bishops of Rome in the first 300. yeares were greatly persecuted by tyrants so is it false that all heretiques agreed to resist that See. For diuers Bishops were heretiques Liberius was an Arrian peruerted by Fortunatianus Hierom. in Catalog Vigilius was priuily an Eutychian as appeareth by an Epistle of his written to those heretiques at the procurement of the Empresse Liberatus Cap. 22. Honorius was a Monothelite condemned in the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople Act. 13. Anastasius was a fauourer of Nestorians as many Ecclesiastical histories do confesse Garanza in Anast. 52 That the Church of Rome hath continued although diuers Christian Princes haue opposed them selues against it with the citizens of Rome and the Cardinalls and that neither the wicked life of the Popes nor the schismes of many Popes at once haue subuerted it doeth not proue it to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile For when Antichristian heresie and diuelish wickednesse hath ouerflowed all the Church of Rome it is manifest the gates of hell haue mightily preuailed against that See although the finall ouerthrowe of that Antichristian head with the body be reserued vnto the almightie power of our Sauiour Christe toward the end of the world 2. Thessa. 2. And it is false that Christian Princes the Romane Citizens the Cardinals or the factions of Diuers Popes haue assaulted the See of Rome but rather the ambition and tyrannie of some persons occupying the same 53 It is false that all countries which forsooke the obedience of the Bishop of Rome were shortly after possessed by Infidels for Affrica was none otherwise possessed by the Vandales then Italy by the Gothes other barbarous nations The Graecians immediately before their oppression by the Turkes were reconciled to the Church of Rome in the councell of Ferrar and Florens â–ª Before which time the Bohemians forsooke the Romish See and yet remaine a nation at this day howe many mightie nations haue forsaken the the Pope which by Gods grace shall be kept as long from oppression of Infidels as they keep in obedience of the Gospel the contempt whereof and not of the Pope was punished in the Asians Africans and Graecians And the prophecie of Esaie 60. That nation and kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish is to be vnderstoode of finall and eternall perdition and not of oppression by Infidels For the nation of the Persians Turkes Saracens and other which submit not themselues to the Church of Christ shal perish although they triumph in the worlde neuer so long 54 Diuerse councels without the bishop of Rome did with as great and greater credite determine of the Canonicall Bookes of holie scripture as Gelasius did with his 70. Bishops Cap. 59. Carth. 3. Cap. 74. and others 55 The Popes liberalitie toward forrein nations was neuer so great by the hundreth parte as his couetous extortions and Antichristian exactions haue beene witnesse Matth. Paris Matth. West Anno Reg. 1244. and in a manner all Popish Historiographers of late times As for his liberalitie in these times is but to his owne bondslaues whom he hyreth with a litle exhibition to blase his charitie least hee should bee forsaken of all men 56 The greatest archheretike that euer was is the Pope of Rome so farre passing the archheretikes that haue bene in the other patriarchall Sees as Antichrist the head of all heresies passeth the members of that bodie For other heretikes take away but some part of Christes person or his office but the Pope vnder pretence of honoring him putteth him quite out of place by his vsurped supremacie false doctrine blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse and all other his abhominations And that our Sauiour CHRISTE prayed for Peter that his faith might not fayle it perteined onely to his person and to the temptation that immediately followed For otherwise Peter erred when he was reproued of God in vision Act. 10. and of Paule Gallath 2. And that Bishops of Rome haue erred and beene heretiques I haue proued in the 51. article to which you may adde Iohn the 23. that was condemned in the councell of Constance for that he denied the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie and the life euerlasting Sess. 11. 57 That the See of Rome hath made so many wicked decrees so vniuersally obserued with such consent of many nations it came not of the spirite of godly vnitie but of the efficacie of errour whiche God sent into the worlde for a iust plague of the contempt of the trueth 2. Thessalonians 2. And this consent of so many nations vnto her abhominable decrees proueth Rome to be Babilon the mother of all abhominations that hath made all nations dronke with the wine of the furie of her fornications Apoc. 18. verse 3. The degrees of marriage prohibited are of the Lawe of God and not of the Pope the celebration of Easter although it be an indifferent ceremonie yet it is elder then the Antichristian authoritie of the Pope Albeit the mysterie of iniquitie beganne to worke in Victor about it That many Bishops and priuate men haue written to suche Bishops of Rome as were learned namely Leo and Gregorie for their resolution in diuerse questions it proueth no supremacie for as many haue written in like cases to Augustine a poore Bishop of Hippo and to Hieronyme but a Prieste of Rome yea Damasus Bishop of Rome himselfe hath written to Hieronyme for his iudgement Pope Sergius did write to Ceolfride Abbot of Woremouth in England to be resolued of certeine questions of Beda one of his Monkes Math. West Ant. 734. 59 That this resorte to Rome for councell was not onely of deuotion but of duetie because the Pope had reserued the hardest cases to his owne iudgement as Moses did hee bringeth no proofe but the Popes owne decrees whiche are of small credite in his owne case and the corrupt practise of the later times when men had submitted themselues vnto the beast 60 That not onely the Bishoppes of Italie but also of Sicilia whiche is not farre off did come in person to Rome at certeine times it prooueth not that all Bishoppes in the worlde were obedient to the Bishop of Rome or were bound so to visite him or that they did so visite him 61 The primacie of the Bishoppe of Rome in olde times was but of order not of power his presidence in councels was but honour not of authoritie and that by graunt or permission at the pleasure of the councell Ioan. Patr. Ant. in con Basil. The councell of Nice made him equall with other Patriarches The councell of Constantinople made the see of Constantinople equall with Rome Sozomen Lib. 7. Cap. 7. 9 â–ª so did the councell of Chalcedon leauing Rome no prerogatiue but of Senioritie and referring all causes of difficultie to the iudgement of the see of Constantinople whiche was new Rome Con. 9. Con. 16. 62 That Iustinian was
content to permitte to the Pope of the Elder Rome to be Primus Sacerdotum according to the definition of the Canons it proueth not his pretended supreame authoritie ouer all other men but onely that he was first in Order For hee himselfe deposed two Popes Syluerius and Vigilius And where Maister Sander interpreteth the definitions of the Cannon to be all the foure first councells he ouerreacheth too much for the Pope could neuer proue his primacie by the Councell of Nice although he forged a decree thereof as is shewed before 63 It is true that Phocas the traytor and murderer of his M. Mauritius vsurping the Empire for a great summe of monie receiued of Boniface the thirde determined the controuersie between Constantinople and Rome giuing Rome the title of Antichrist which from such a holy beginning it claimeth and vsurpeth vnto this day But if the See of Rome had beene the head of all churches by the word of God what neede had the Bishop of Rome to buy it of Phocas but onely to shewe himselfe the successor of Simon Magus not of Simon Peter 64 As it is true that God vsed the peace and authoritie of the Romane Empire to spread abroade the doctrine of the Gospel so is it altogether vntrue that Constantine resigned the citie of Rome to Syluester the Bishop thereof because he builded another imperiall citie in the East to keepe those partes of the Empire in peace and subiection For it is well knowen that many hundreth yeres after Constantine the great his successors inioyed the citie and pallaces of Rome vntill they were defaced by the Gothes and yet afterward the citie was restored to Iustinianus the Emperour out of the handes of the Gothes by Bellisarius and Narses And whereas M. Sander saith that neuer any Emperour of the West had his seate at Rome after Constantinus he sheweth either his great impudence or ignorance in histories For although some of them occupied in warres kept at Milliane Treueres or other cities yet is it vtterly false that there was neuer any Emperour suffered to make his ordinarie mansion place at Rome For Honorius Valentinianus Iunior dwelt at Rome before the subuersion of it by the Gothes many other euen vnto Augustus After which time Italy being oppressed with barbarous nations was no place for the Emperours safetie to dwell in In which meane time the Pope grewe to such greatnesse that he made challenge not onely to the citie but euen to the Empire it selfe taking vppon himselfe Antichrist to remoue it from the East vnto the West which was in deede a great miracle but such a miracle as was more meete for Antichriste to make then the successour of Peter 65 It is true that Rome hath lost no preheminence by the departure of the Emperor for as Chrysostome sheweth in 2. Thes. Antichrist was to succeed the Emperour in the seat of the Empire being made voide and to vsurpe all auctoritie both of God and men pretending the seat of Peter but being in deede the seat of the beast Apoca. 13. and of the Whore of Babylon Apo. 17. as both Augustine and Hieronym doe often times confesse Augu. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. Hie. Algas 9.11 In Esai lib. 13. cap. 47. 66 Although it be confessed by vs that the prerogatiue of the first place was graunted to the bishoppes of Rome in many metings and councels yet is it not granted that it was so alwayes nor in all generall councels And therefore this our confession prooueth not the Pope to be suche a starre candell or light as M. Sanders doeth imagine Nor that hee shoulde bee heade of the church because hee was first in place no more then an archbishoppe is head of the churche of his prouince because he is first in place although his church be compared to the members of a body For all particular churches make but one bodye whereof Christ is the onely head for it were a monstrous body that shoulde haue two heades and therefore it is truely saide in the councel of Basil Papa non est caput principale nec ministeriale vniuersalis ecclesiae The Pope is neither the principall nor the ministeriall heade of the vniuersall churche And therefore as it is saide in the same place the Pope neuer had any prerogatiue but by concession or permission of councels Now make what you can M. Sander of our confession and your owne popish councels 67 It is a faint proofe that the church of Rome is the head rote and mother of all churches because Ambrose and Hierome called the faith of the church of Rome the Catholike faith at suche time as it was true and Catholike in deede As if a man shoulde say the faith of the church of Englande is all one with the Catholike fayth therefore the churche of Englande is the head roote and mother to all churches Likewise that the Vandales which were barbarous people and Arrians calleth the Catholikes Romanes differing from them in nation as much as in religion 68 The fathers neuer beleeued that the Romaine churche cannot erre in the profession of their faith For Cyprian lib 4. Epist. 3. ad Romanos c. Falshood canne haue no accesse to the Romanes meaneth not as M.S. saith such Romaines as tarye in the vnitie of S. Peters chaire but of such as continue in the faith which S. Paule praised therefore hee saith Ad Romanos quorum fides c. The Romanes whose faith was praised by the Apostles Againe he speaketh not of erringe in profession of fayth but of falshood in winking at Scismatikes which sought for a refuge in S. Peters Chaire the principal churche beinge iustly banished out of other Churches And that Cyprian thought not that the Churche of Rome cannot erre in profession of faith it is most manifest by this that if he had bin so perswaded he woulde not haue contrary to the iudgement of the churche of Rome decreed with his felow bishops to adnihilate the sacraments ministred by heretikes As for the decretall epistle of Lucius we reiect it as a counterfet with all the rest of that rable in which these ancient bishops of Rome are faine to write so barbarously as no Carter did speake Latine in their time when they liued and alway extoll the dignity of that See of Rome as though in these great persecutions they had nothing els to talke of but their prerogatiues priuiledges The testimonies of Leo which he citeth sauour of a Romane stomake drawing as neere to the Antichristian pride as the man was to the time which wrote them Barnarde was but a late writer when Antichrist was in the top of his pride therefore his iudgement argueth the corruption of his time Finally when so many Popes haue bin condemned for heretikes what impudācie is to say the Pope or See of Rome cānot erre ▪ 69 To proue that the Emperours acknowledged the church of Rome to be the head of all churches he citeth