the Prince is one of the Priest an other this spiritual the other external therefore no contrariety betwene them For put the case that Philippus had seene the Bishop prophane the sacrament in ministring to infidels or otherwise vncertainly behauing him selfe in his office might he not iustly haue punished him as supreame gouernour ouer the Bishoppe euen in those matters I say not to doe them but to see that they be well done and to punishe the offendors Neither is the meaning of the othe any other And according to this meaning M. Nowell M. Horne and M. Iewel dare warrant the King to be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes although it please M. Sander to say the contrarie of them Whose trayterous quarelling vpon the wordes of the othe ought not to trouble any mans coÌ„science when the meaning is publikelie testified both by the Prince and by the whole consent of the church The next exaÌ„ple is of Constantinus the great which in the Synode of Nice when the Bishops had offered vnto him bills of complaint one against an other without disclosing the contentes of them he sayd as Ruffinus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes c. God hath made you Priestes and hath giuen you power to iudge of vs also and therfore we are rigtly iudged of you but ye can not be iudged of mÌ„e For which cause expect ye the iudgement of God alone among ye Here M. Sander noteth first that he calleth them Priestes whereby he woulde proue they had power to offer externall sacrifice which is a simple reason for then all Christian men women within the Scripture are called Priestes haue the same power Secondly he coÌ„fesseth they haue power to iudge the Emperour for none can be greater then a Priest In their challenge and spirituall gouernment the Emperour meaneth and not as the Popish church practised to dispose the Emperour Thirdly that Priestes can not be iudged of meÌ„ If this be so one Priest can not be iudged of an other and where is then the Popes supremacie but he aunswereth if one Priest iudge an other it is Gods iudgement and not the iudgement of men because God hath set one Priest aboue another O blockish aunswere as though God hath not set one Prince aboue all his subiectes You see howe Popish Priestes aduaunce them selues to the honor of God and withdraw their obedience from Gods Lieutenaunts on earth An vndoubted note of Antichristians You will aske me then what sence these wordes haue you can not be iudged of men I aunswere either they are ment as Sainct Paule speaketh of the vprightnes of his conscience in doing of his office which is not subiect to the iudgement of men or else Ruffinus as he was a bolde reporter frameth the Emperours wordes accordâ—ng to that estimation which he woulde haue men to haue of the clergie For it is certeyne by recordes of Constantinus time that he did iudge Bishoppes and tooke vpon him as supreame gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes Maister Sander confesseth he iudged certeyne Priests or ecclesiasticall causes but he did it as Augustine sayeth Epist. 162. as one that would afterward aske pardon of the holy Bishops at the importunitie of the Donatists And as Optatus recordeth he sayd Deschis lib. 1. Petitis à me c. Ye aske of me iudgement in the world whereas I my selfe looke for Christes iudgement And Augustine reproueth the Donatistes that they would haue an earthly King to be iudge of their cause In deede the importunitie of the Donatistes was wicked who would so referre the matter to the Emperour y t without knowledge of ecclesiasticall persons who were only meete iudges in respect of knowledge in that case they would haue y e cause decided But the Emperour acknowledging his auctoririe appointed iudges ecclesiastical persons first the Bishop of Rome Melchiades whom he commauÌ„ded with other Bishops to heare the cause of Caecilianus as Eusebius who â—ued in his time writeth li. 10. ca. 5. And wheÌ„ the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Rome his coÌ„panions iudgement he appointed other delegates as Augustine also witnesseth Ep. 162. But to leaue this cause of the Donatistes Eusebius in his life libr. 1. sayeth of him Quoniam nonnulli variis locis inter se discrepabant quasi communis quidem Episcopus à Deo constitutus ministrorum Dei synodos conuocauit neâ— dedignatus est adesse considere in illorum medio Because some of them in diuerse places were at variance among them selues he as a certeine generall Bishop appointed of God called together the synodes of the ministers of God and disdayned not to be present and to sit in the middest of them And in lib. 3. He sheweth howe he gathered the vniuersall synode of Nice as it were leading foorth the armie of God to battell To this Emperour did Athanasius the great Bishoppe of Alexandria appeale from the synode of Tyre where he was iniuriously handled as both Socrates testifieth lib. 1. and the verie Epistle of Constantine him selfe vnto that synode commaunding all the Bishoppes to come vnto his presence and there to shewe before him quem syncerum esse Dei ministrum neque vos sanè negabitis whome you can not deny to be a syncere minister of God how sincerely they had iudged in that councell Finally in the end of the epistle he protesteth that he wil execute his supremacie in causes ecclesiastical Omni virtute conabor agâ—re quatenâ—s quae in lege Dei sunt ea praecipuè sine aliquâ— titubatione seruentur quibus vtique neque vituperatio neque malâ— superstitio poteris implicari dispersis vtique ac palam contritis penitus exterminatis sacratissimae legis inimicis qui sub schemate sancti nominis blasphemas varias ad diuersos inijciant I will endeuour with all my might to bringe to passe that those thinges that are in the lawe of God those chiefly without any staggering may be obserued which by no reproofe or euill superstition can be intangled when all the enemyes of the moste holye lawâ— which vnder a shape of an holy name doe cast out diuerse blasphemies vnto sondry persons are dispersed openly troden downe and vtterly rooted out Let this suffice to shewe what supremacie Constantinus did exercise in causes Ecclesiasticall Nowe Maister Sander draweth vs to see what honour he gaue to the see of Rome First he taketh it for most certayne that Constantine was baptised by Syluester which is an impudent lye and forged fable as is manifest by Eusebius who liued in his tyme and after him who knewe him familiarly and affirmeth that he was baptised in his iorney towardes Iordane where he had purposed to haue bene baptised if God had spared him life But this manifest testimonye of Eusebius Maister Sander refuseth becauâ—e he was suspected for affection to the Arrian heresiâ— Beside that he was vniustly suspected what reason is it to discredit his story who wrote at such
that he deserued so to be and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the other Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution if he had lost it is superfluous Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were but at this time especially confirmed as his speciall case required His last reason is that admit Peter had not beene restored before this time yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority then any other Apostle had receued at any time and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes he aunsweareth by distinction forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship and yet Peter was chiefe of tâ—e Apostles and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high â—â—yshop wherein they were all inferiours to him and â—â—ee was their Primate and their heade and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be and in the same respecte is a straunge Logition Fynally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock deny the honor to his successors he will proue that the Byshop of Rome and none other hath all that authoritie which Peter sometime had and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature condition of Antichrist then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe The seconde Chapter THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ though not properly a Lordlynesse or heathenish dominion And in what sort this Eâ—clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmeÌ„t ofseculer princes and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared That there â—as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes The high Priest is preferred before the King by Gods law The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes That Moyses was a Priest THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a ministery or seruice by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion but altogether as vnlike to it as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth That no man properly can tâ—e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ. he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist â—ut also an Anabaptist For the coÌ„mon seruice that we oâ—â—e vnto Christ hindereth not but that a Christian man â—ay be Lord King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar to eche in things that belonged to them that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles like to the princes of the nations Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church some kind of primacy also it is cleerer by the scriptures then that it neede any proofe especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth namely where he citeth this text Feed my sheepe to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion iust measure of victuals in coÌ„uenient time which thing neither Peter did nether was he able to doe And much lesse any man in succession to him which is not equal in gifts with him And therefore the example of a stuarde who may prouide for a competent number of one family is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde beside him that is almightie For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse 23 they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos which hee calleth Exortem quandam eminentem potestatem A certaine peerelesse and highe power And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time c. True Euery seuerall Pastor or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority yet in that he argueth that the like should be in the whole church militant which is in euery parish it is out of all compasse of reason For that which is possible in the one is altogeather impossible in the other And the argument is no better then if we should say there is one steward in euery Colledge or greate house therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world And wheras he would proue his matter good by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles calleth Peter the first it is to childish friuolous For in euery nomber one or other must be the first it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship therefore his primacy was of order not of auctority Nether is he alwaies first named for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is of the dignity of the Apostles Iames is named before Cephas or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem by consent of most auncient writers neither doeth it folow that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi A prince of the people therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people as M. S. seemeth to say neither had Peter by those wordes feede my shope any auctority committed vnto him more then to the rest of the Apostles As for the name of Lord or tearme of dominioÌ„ sometime geueÌ„ by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment we striue not about it so there be no such dominion by him excercised
onely Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to euery Priest shewing how careful he ought to be in his office in respect of his high calling the excellent dignitie thereof sayth Etiam ne nune nobisium contendes fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse quiper eam vniuersis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus quuÌ„praesertim ea agas quecuÌ„ Petrus ageret illuÌ„ Christus auctoritate predituÌ„ esse voluit ac reliquos item Apostolos longeÌ„ praecellere Wilt thou then stil contend with vs that this fraude hath not happened well luckely to thee which by it art to be made ouerseer of all the goods of God almightye especially when thou doest those thinges which when Peter did Christ would haue him to be endued with authoritie also farre to excel the other Apostles Here M. Sander wil haue vs note 3. things 1 Peters authoritie 2. passing the Apostles 3. farre passing We marke them all that they are directly ouerthrowing M. Sanders rocke of the popish Churche For they declare that Peter in doing those things was endued with authoritie farre passed the other Apostles euen as euery Priest to whoÌ„ Chrysostom speaketh when he doth the same thinges is endued with the same authoritie farre passeth all other men So that here is none other authority nor excelleÌ„ce of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in executing their charge and was common to all the Apostles when they did the same things that Peter did For Chrysostom proueth to Basil that he did him no hurt when by pollicie he caused him to be called to the ministery against his will seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithfull wise seruaunt and equall in authoritie with Peter if of loue towardes Christ he would diligently feede his flocke So that Leo had no iust cause to saye that in respect of any greater authoritie Peter had a speciall care of feeding the sheepe committed to him but rather in respect that he had greater cause to loue Christ which had so mercifully forgiuen him so shamefull a fall But Arnobius is a lesse partiall witnes then Leo a Bishop of Rome he vpon the Psal. 138. writeth thus Nullus Apostolorum nomen c. None of the Apostles receiued the name of a Pastor For our Lord Iesus Christ alone saide I am the good pastor againe my sheepe follow me Therefore this holy name the power of this name after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting And he that was thryse denyed gaue to his denyer that power which he had alone Arnobius saith he noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a pastor giuen to him by Christ beside S. Peter alone But I demaund of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word euer For he sayth y t Peter had this name after y e resurrection w c none of y e Apostles had before He writeth against the Nouatians w c denied helpe to such as repented after baptisme prouing by exaÌ„ple of Peter that they are to be receyued seeing Christ gaue him greater dignitie after his repentance then he had before his fal But that Peter had greater authoritie theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles he neuer thought or sayde M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tayle In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appeare for thus he writeth Dicis certâ— baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur qui est Episcoporum Episcopus maiâ—r gradus additur ploranti quam sublatus est deneganti Quod vt doceam illud est endo quod nullus ApostoloruÌ„ nomen Pasioris accepit c. In deede thou sayst that such as repent being baptised ought not to be helped Beholde the Apostle repenting is helped which is a Bishop of Bishops and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying Which that I may teach this I shew that none of the Apostles receyued the name of a sheepeheard c. Againe in the ende following the wordes before cited by M. Sander he sayth vt non sâ—lum recuperasse quod amiserat probaretur verum etiam multo amplius poenitendo quam negandâ— perdiderat acquisisse He gaue his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had That he might be proued not onely to haue recouered that which he lost but also to haue gotten much more by repenting then he lost by denying This speaketh Arnobius of the general authoritie which Peter had ouer all the Church as euery Apostle had likewise was a Bishop and ouerseer of Bishops as well as Peter and a Pastor of the vniuersal Church which thing Arnobius neuer did deny These therfore be M. Sanders arguments none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christes resurrection ergo they neuer had it Peter was called to greater dignitie after his fall then he had before ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles Again Peter was a Bishop or an ouerseer of Bishops ergo he was Bishop ouer the Apostles Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first ayd that Peter was euery where ether alone or first And theÌ„ vpon these words Peter doost thou loue me sayth Dominus interrogat c. Our Lord asked net to learne but to teach whoÌ„ he beeing to be lâ—fted vpp into heauen did leaue to vs as the Vicare of his loue For so thou hast â—â— Simon thou sonne of Iohn doest thou lâ—ue me Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee Iesus sayth to him feede my lambes Peter being priuy of a good conscience doth testifie his owne affection not taken for the time but already well knowen to God For who else were able to professe this thing of him selfe Aâ—d because he alone amongst all professeth he is preferred before all M. Sander omitteth the conclusion Maior enim omnibus charitas For the greatest of all is Chariâ—ie So Peter is heereby declared to haue the greateste loue but not to haue the greatest authoritie M. Sander vrgeth that he is the Vicar of Christes loue and pastorall office The one indeede Ambrose sayth the other Sander sayeth but is not able to proue no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose that Peter had committed to him to feede not onely the Lambes with milke as at the first nor yet the little sheepe as at the seconde time but the sheepe to the end that he beeing more perfect might gouerne the more perfecte For euery one of the Apostles hadde the same charge to feede the sheepe of Christe and not the Lambes or little sheepe onely Neither doth the woorde of gouernment helpe him For euery Apostle had the like gouernment ouer the whole flock w c Peter hath and there is an ordinary gouernment in euery particular church 1. Co. 12. w c
out of the counterfait Egesippus of Simon Magus flying in the ayer the Emperour Nero his great delight in his sorcerye The credit of Egesippus he desendeth by blaming his translatour for adding names of cities which had none such when Egesippus liued But that Simon Magus shewed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero as this counterfait Egesippus reporteth it is plaine by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. natur Histor. who shewing how desirous Nero was and what meanes he had to haue triall thereof yet neuer could come by any It was a practise of old time to fayne such fables for loue of the Apostles as Tertullian witnesseth de baptis of a Priest of Asia that was conuicted confessed that he fained for the loue of Paule a writing vnto Tecla in which many absurd things were contayned Againe so many Apocriphall gospells epistles itineraryes and passions as are counterfaited vnder the name of Apostles and auncient fathers who knoweth not to be fables and false inuentions Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death he preuenteth the objection because he continued not his storye so farre which doubt sayth he he woulde not haue omitted if he had gone so farre foâ—ward in his story But seeing he brought Paule to Rome both in his iorney and in his history why maketh he no mention of Peters being there which if their story were true must haue sit there twenty yeares before To omit therefore the foure causes why Peter should dye at Rome whereof three are taken out of a counterfait August de sa ctis hom 27. the 4. out of Leo Gregory Bishops of Rome he commeth to decyde the controuersie betwene the Greekes Latines who was first successor of Peter Linus or Clemens taking parte with them that affirme Clemens although Irenaeus the most auncient writer of any that is extant name Linus who was not a Grecian farre of but a Frenchmam at Lyons neare hand to Italy whose authority although he reiect in naming Linus to be ordayned Bishop by both the Apostles yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Churche of Rome Maximam antiquissimam c. The greatest and the most auncient knowen to all men founded and setled by two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule And agayne Adhanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church by reason of the mightier principalitie euery Church that is the faithful that are euery where must needes agree But he proceedeth and sheweth the cause why In qua semper ab hys qui sunt vndique conserâ—ata est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio In which alwayes that tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies kept of them that are round about M. Sander calleth it willful ignorance in M. Iewel that sayth the mightier principalitie spoken of in Irenaeus is ment of the ciuill dominion and Romane Empire whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation that it was the greatest and the most auncient the greatest he sayth because it was fownded by Peter the greatest Apostle but so sayth not Irenaeus for he sayth it was founded by two most glorious Apostles and not by Peter alone It was then greatest because the greatest number of Christians were in Rome as the greatest citie But howe is it the most auncient but in respect of Peters senioritie for otherwise Ierusalem and Antioche were auncienter in tyme. I aunswer two wayes first it is sophisticall to vrge the superlatiue degree grammatically as when we saye potentissimo principi to the most mightye prince doctissimo viro to the best learned man c. We doe not meane that no Prince is equall or superiour in power nor that no maÌ„ is equall or superiour in learning to him whome we so commende but to shewe the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great Secondly I aunswer that Irenaeus speaketh coniunctly it is sophisticall to vnderstande seuerally He saith there is no Church of such greatnes so auncient and so well knowen as the Church of Rome From this blinde collection out of Irenaeus he commeth downe groping to Cyprian who speaking of certayne factious heretikes that sayled from Carthage to Rome to complayne of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Afrike to Pope Cornelius Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent ad Petri c. They dare cary letters from schâ—smaticall and prophane men vnto the chayer of Peter and the principall Churche from whence the priestly vnitie beganne Nether consider that they are Romanes whose fayth is pray sed by the report of the Apostle vnto whom falshod can haue none accesse In this saying we must note the priuiledges of S. Peters supremacie to be at Rome 1. This is S. Peters chayer that is his ordinary power of teaching c. Nay rather the Bishops seate which he and Paule did set vp there as Irenaeus sheweth li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the Apostles Nay rather because it is the greatest Church being gathered in the greatest citie of the world as IrenÄ™us also calleth it 3. The priestly vnitie beganne not in Rome but in Peter therefore there is the whole authoritie of Peter The argument is nought the beginning of vnitie proueth not authoritie 4. this worde vnitie doth import that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe sheepeheard so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power This argument is of small importance for nether had Peter alone such power nor any of his successors 5. where he sayth infidelitie can haue no accesse to the Romanes what other thinge is it then to saye in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed Luc. 22. Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles and of all his Disciples to the ende of the worlde Ioan. 17. Beside this Maister Sander translateth perfidia which signifieth falshood or false dealing infidelitie secondly that which Cyprian sayth of all the faythfull Romanes he draweth to his Pope thirdly where Cyprian sheweth howe longe they shall continue without falshoode namely so long as they retayne the fayth praysed by the Apostle he maketh it perpetuall to the sea of Rome whereas the Romanes them selues write to Cyprian of those prayses of the Apostle quarum laudum gloriae degenerem fuisse maximum crimen est Of which prayses and glorye to be growne out of kinde it is the greatest cryme Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Churche of Rome coulde not erre he woulde neuer haue mayntayned an opinion against them as he did in rebaptisinge them that were baptised by heretikes The 6. We must adde heareto that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem the mother roote of the Catholike church lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there we find that Cyprian his fellowes exhorted all such troublesome
gather againe the Lords sheepe into his folde The 9. note is That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptised by hereâ—kes yet hee denyed not his prerogatiue but kept still the vnitie of the militant Church in acknowledging the visible head thereof He quoteth his ep Contra Stephan wherin is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogatiue but contrary wise euery childe may see that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinon froÌ„ the B. of Rome wrote against him he helde no such prerogatiue of that sea as the Papists now maintaine that the bishop of Rome cannot erre In deede Cyprian professeth that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion yet he would not deparâ—e from the vnitie of the Church but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head wherof M. S. speaketh much but Cyprian neuer a word neither in that place nor in any of all his workes The next authoritie is Hippolitus whose words Prud rehearseth Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite c. Hâ—s aunsvvere vvas O flee the sâ—smes of cursed Nouates lâ—re And to the Catholike fâ—lke and stocke your selues againe restore Let onely one faith rule and raâ—gne kept in the Church of olde VVhich faith both Paule doth sâ—l retaine Peters chair doth holdâ— No dout this was a good exhortation so longe as the temple of Peter aâ—d Paule at Rome did holde the olde catholike faith from which seeing the Pope is now fled we may not honor the emptie chaire of Peter to think there is his faith where his doctrine is not After Hippolitus followeth Sozomenus who reporteth that Athanasius and certaine other Byshops of the Greeke Church came to Rome to Iulius the byshopp there to complaine that they were vniustly deposed by the Arians Wherevpon the Byshop of Rome finding them vpon examination to agree with the Nicene couÌ„cel did reâ—eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all for the worthynes of his owne See and did restore to euery of them their owne Churches c. Heere M. Sander hath his 9 obseruations he delighteth much in that number But it shall not neede to stand vpon them it is coÌ„fessed that in Sozomenus time the writer of this story who iudgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lyued the sea of Rome was growne into great estimation and counted the first See or principall in dignitie of all Byshops Seas in the worlde Yea it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he sayeth That long before his time the Byshops Sea of Rome aswel as of Alexandria was growne beyonde the bands of Prâ—esthood into a forraine Lordship dominion Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the recordes of the very time in which Iulius lyued we shall not finde that the dignitie of his Sea was such as that he hadde such authoritie as Sozomenus aseribeth to him and much lesse such as M. Sander imagineth of him In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus which beside that he called him his fellow minister acknowledgeth no such dignitie of his Sea lib. 3. to 1. And Sozomenus himselfe testifyeth that the Bishops of the East derided contemned his commandementes lib. 3. Cap. 8. cap. 11. they were as bolde to depose him with the byshops of the West as he was to check them that they called not him to their councel Wherein as I confesse they did euell yet thereby they shewed euidently that the Christian worlde in those dayes did not acknowledge the vsurpation of the bishop of Rome as M. Sander saith they did Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him if it had beene a Catholike doctrine receiued in the Church that the Byshopp of Rome is head of the Church Byshop of all Byshops Iudge of all causes and one which cannot erre As for Athanasius Paulus c. and other Byshops beeing tossed to and fro by their enemyes no maruaile if they were glad to finde any comfort at the Byshop of Romes hands hauing first sought to the Emperors for refuge of whome sometime they were holpeÌ„ sometime they wer hindred as informatioÌ„ was giuen either for them or against theÌ„ But Arnobius he sayeth giueth a maruailous witnes for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto c Peter wandering in the desert of this worlde vntill he came to Rome preached the baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floods are blessed from Peter vnto this day He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst so that he which shall goe forth of the Church of Peter shal perish for thirst It is a maruelous witte of M. Sander that can find such maruelous prerogatiue of Peter in this place which Arnobius would haue in the example of Peter to be vnderstoode of all men Quid est ascendunt Disce in Petro vt quod in ipso inueneris in omnibus cernas Ascendit Petrus c. What meaneth this they goe vp as highe as heauen Learne in Peter to thend that y t which thou shalt find in Peter thou mayst see in all men Peter went vp as high as heauen when he sayd Although I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee c. and so applying the vnderstanding of the Psalme to Peter and in him to all ChristiaÌ„s he coÌ„meth to that maruelous testimony of the church of Rome which M. Sander reporteth shewing how after his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floodes are blessed from Peter to this day Where M. Sander vseth a false translation saying the floodes are blessed of Peter and expoundeth the floodes to be the churches whereas Arnobius speaketh of all waters which in Christ are sanctified to the vse of baptisme from the Apostles time vntill this day But it is a Catholike argument that whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Peter goeth out of the Church of Christe therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the heade thereof Euen lyke this whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Paule or of any of the Apostles wheresoeuer they planted it doth perish therefore Corinth and Paule or any other Citie the Apostle that preached there may be taken for the head and Pastor and mother Church of all other yet is this with M. Sander a meruailous testimony Optatus succeeded Arnobius Cont. Pamen de nat lib. 2. Negare nonpotes c. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishops chaire was giuen in the citie of Rome in which Peter the head of al the apostles hath sit wherofhe was also called Cephas in which chair vnitie might be kept of al men so that he should be a scismatike w c should place any other chaire against the singular chaire Vnto Peter succeeded Linus vnto Linus succeded Clemens so nameth all the Byshops vntil Siricius which liued in
Arbitramur c. VVe think these men that haue so pernitious and froward opinions will giue plaâ—e more easily to the authority of your holines beeing taken out of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our lord Iesus Christ which â—ouchâ—â—feth to rule you when you consult to heare you wheÌ„ you pray by these words they shew that they hope y e here tikes being reproued by the B. of Rome out of the woâ—d of God wil the rather giue place w t out imagining that the B. of Romes authoritie is so stablished by the scriptures that whatsoeuer he decre coÌ„trary to thescriptures the same should be imbraced But a farther confirmatioÌ„ of the epistle of Innoce he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith Pope Innocent did write an answere to the Bishops in althings as it became the prelate of the Apostolike sea But these words neither proue that epistle to be written by Innocent nor if it were do allowe his pretended auth ority because that was no matter whereof they required his answere But to put it out of dout Both these Councels haue decreed against the vsurpation of the Romish sea As the councel Mileuitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa vnder paine of excommunication The laste authoritie cited out of Augustine is Epistle 162. speaking of the Churche of Rome In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus In which alwayes the principalitie of the Apostolike chaire hath flourished A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine aduanced the Church in wealth dignitie esteemed the church of Rome as the principall Sea in dignitie but not in absolute authoritie such as in processe of time the Byshops of Rome claymed and vsurped For euen the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yeelde to the Bishop of Rome clayming by a counterfaire Canon of the Councell of Nice to haue authortie to receaue appeales out of Africa Epi. con Aphr. ad Bonifac whiche they couâ—pte an intollerable pride and presumption and in Epist. cont Aphri ad Coelestiâ—â—m fumosum typum seculi A smokey pride of the worlde which the Pope claymed and an absurde authoritie that one maÌ„ should be better able to examine such causes then so many Byshops of the prouince where the controuersie began and by the olde Cannons shoulde be ended To Augustine he ioyneth Prosper Bishop of RhegiuÌ„ in Italie which affirmeth in lib de ingrat that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius which Rome being made head vnto the worlde of pastorall honor holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it doth not possesse by warre And againe Rome through the primacie of the Apostolike Priesthoode is made greater by the castell of religion then by the throne of power First how vntruly he boasteth that the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the heresie of Pelagius you may ease y see by that the councel of Africa did before condemne it had somwhat a doe to perswade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it Whereby you see that Prosper was ouer partiall to the see of Rome to whome yet he ascribeth a principallity or primacy of honor not of power or auctority The testimonies of Leo Gregory Bâ—shops of Rome as alwaies so now I deeme to be vnmeete to be heard in their owne cause though otherwise they were not the worst men yet great furtherers of the auctoritie of Antichrist which soone after their dayes tooke possessioÌ„ of the chaire which they had helped to prepare for him The last testimonie out of Beda which liued vnder the tyranny of Antichrist I will not stande vpon M. Sander may haue great store of such late writers to affirme the Popes supremacie The 16. Chapter THat the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke theÌ„ selues to be the supreame heads of the church in spirituall causes but gaue that honor to Bishops Priests most specially to the sea of Rome for S. Peters sake as well before as after the time of Phocas A Priest is aboue the Emperour in Ecclesiastical causes The othe of the royal supremacy is intollerable Constantine was baptised at Rome Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches COncerning the supremacy of our soueraigne which this traiterous Papist doth so maliciously disdaine although it be expounded sufficiently by her Maiestie in her iniunction not to be suche as he most slaunderously doth deforme it yet I will here as I haue done diuerse times before in aunswere to these Papistes professe that we ascribe no supremacie to our Prince but such as the worde of God alloweth in the godly Kinges of the old Testament and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperours and Princes vnder the new Testament First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power in any Ecclesiasticall causes suche as the Pope challengeth but subiect vnto the rules of Gods worde Secondly we ascribe no supremacie of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince but affirme that she is to learne of the Bishops and teachers of the church both in matters of faith and of the gouernment of the church Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings that the Prince should presume to preach to minister the Sacramentes to excommunicate c. which perteine not to her office But the supremacie we admit in Ecclesiasticall causes is auctoritie ouer all persons to coÌ„maund and by lawes to prouide that all matters Ecclesiasticall may be ordered and executed according to the word of God And such is the true meaning of the othe that he calleth blasphemous and intollerable And as for examples of honor geuen to the Bishoppes by Christian Princes which he bringeth forth they deny not this supremacy nor make any thing against it The first is of the Emperour Philippus counted of some for the first Christian Emperor although it be not like to be true yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so This Prince without due repentance offered him selfe to receaue the holy misteries being refused by the Bishop of the place tooke it pacieÌ„tly submitted him selfe to the discipline order of y e church I answer this example toucheth not the auctority he had in ecclesiasticall causes For in receauing of the Sacramentes the Prince differeth not from a priuate person But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument called a dilemma If the Priest in these causes be superior to y t Emperor other causes be greater or lesser then these If they be greater the Emperour which is not supreame gouernor ouer the lesser causes can not be in the greater if they be lesser then the Priest w c gouerneth the Emperor in greater causes must nedes gouern him in lesser causes These hornes are easily auoyded not by distinctioÌ„ of the causes but of the gouernments The gouernment of
Popish church neuer made any chauÌ„ge of religion Which is a shamelesse assertion although he say that none of his aduersaries is able to charge them with any alteration since Augustines time For to omitte the whole scope of doctrine cleane peruerted I will obserue only the practise of the church in Augustines time about the Lords supper In that time the lay people did receaue the communion in both kindes and one thousand yeres almost after which of late the Papistes haue altered In Augustines time the communion was geuen to infantes which the Papistes doe not obserue therefore they can not bragge of perpetuall practise and deny all chaunge in religion made by them But Bristow not content with this vayne bragge will go farther and shewe that whatsoeuer they haue vsed sithe S. Augustines time was obserued euen so in all that time that passed betwene S. Paule and S. Augustine Is not this a master of impudence to promise that which all the worlde of learned men doth know to be impossible to be performed and whereof the promiser himselfe can bring no profe at all but his bare worde For he beginneth with exorcisme and exsufflation which as it was vsed in Augustines time vnnecessarily so it appeareth by Cyprian that was long before him that it was vsed for the casting out of the deuill in them whose bodies he did sensibly possesse lib. 3. cap. 7. ad Magnum Of the sacrifice of the Masse worshipping of the Sacrament and oblation for the deade as Bristow referreth the reader to his fift and seuenth motiues so doe I to mine aunsweres vnto the same Concerning the vse of the altare howe truly he sayth I referre the reader to mine answere of D. Heskins lib. 3. cap. 31. The other fonde reason of the practise of the church that children were taught to beleue the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for which he citeth Aug. de Tim. lib. 3. cap. 10. which the poore man borowed out of Allens booke of Purgatory is discussed answered in my confutation of the same treatise lib. 2 cap. 9. Then followeth going on pilgrimage to holy places worshipping of reliques prayer vnto Sainctes vsed as he sayth in Augustines time For worshipping of reliques and praying to Sainctes he citeth Aug de câ—re pro mor. Who concludeth that to be buried at some memorie of the martyrs doth in this poynct only auayle the dead that the affection of supplication commending him also to the patronage of the martyr may be encreased That this was no perpetuall practise of the church to desire the intercession of Sainctes it is manifest by this that Augustine him selfe dare affirme nothing certeinly whether or how the Saincts may heare our prayers Affirming that this question passeth the power of his vnderstanding cap. 16. But by the name of memory Bristow will vnderstande relique because it is somtime so vsed which is no strong argument But admitte it were so how can he proue either that practise to haue bene continued from S. Paule to S. Augustine or the same opinion of reliques to haue ben in Augustines time which is mainteined in the Popish church that there was superstitious peregrinatioÌ„ vnto Ierusalem c. vsed in S. Hieroms time it is as true as that the same was reproued of him Ep. ad Paul If God shewed any miracles at the deade bodyes of the Martyrs to confirme that religion for which they suffred against the Gentiles it foloweth not that the reliques of dead Saints are to be worshiped kissed saught vnto by pilgrimage c but most absurd is it that Bristow would haue Hierome by ofteÌ„ entering into the Cryptos or vaultes of churches at Rome to signifie that he went a Pilgrimage Hierome was not so grose to accounte walking about the Citie to be a Preregrination But what is so leaden or blockishe which these doltish Papists will not auouch for the mainteinaunce of their trompery Last of all he chargeth the Protestantes with an impudent attempt in making such an vniuersall chaunge of the whole face of Religion which none of the olde Heretikes did before theÌ„ That we are like to none of the olde Heretikes we like our selues neuer the worse but as concerning the vniuersall chaunge it was necessary in reformation where there was an vniuersal Apostacie For any alteratioÌ„ that we haue made the Papistes dare not affirme for shame that wee haue brought any thing into the Church which ought not to be vsed by the worde of God neither are they able to proue that we haue omitted anything which by the holy scripture is necessaryly required To coÌ„clude you see that the practise of the church except it be perpetuall euen from the first beginning is no Motiue by Augustines iudgement and that Bristowe though hee hath bragged much thereof for some superstitions vsed of olde yet he hath brought nothing to proue that they haue beene from the beginning The 12. Motiue is the 28. demaunde Sea apostolike The communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians The Romain Church is the Catholike Church Saint Augustine of our religion Such as are condemned by the Sea Apâ—stolike are holden for Heretikes Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Emperours and other peeres of our Religion as also their first conuersion S. Theodoret Chrisostom and Hierome of our Religion Antichristes side against the Pope Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing VVhosoeuer sayth Bristow at any time were for their doing or teaching condemned by the definitiue sentence of the Sea Apostolike and stubbernly condemned the same they were Scismatikes or heretikes And contrariwise all Catholike men haue kept them selues in the vnitie of that sea and if for any cause they were out of it labouring to be reconciled againe or if they had beene but suspected neuer ceasing vntill they had made their purgation Moreouer he saith there can none example be alleadged to the contrary but innumerable for it It is not denyed but the Church and Sea of Rome while it continued in true catholike Religion was much reuerenced euery where so farre at least as the Romane empire did extende But when any Bishop of that sea went out of the way either in scisme or herefie they were not followed but resisted condemned For Example When Victor bishop of Rome like a proude scismatike did take vpon him to excommunicate all the Churches of the East for celebration of Easter they did not onely contemne his censure but many Bishops also did sharply rebuke him as Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons other Euse. li. 5. ca. 25. WheÌ„ Liberius bishop of Rome relented vnto the Arrians he was forsaken of the true Christians and accounted an Heretike Hier. in Catal. When Bonifacius Zosimus and Celestinus Bishops of Rome would chalenge appellations out of Africa contrary to the decrees out of the councels of Africa by counterfaiting a Canon of the Nicene councell they were resisted by all the Bishops of Africa and the trechery
tyme as many thousands aliue could disproue him for any affection to that heresie whereto the baptisme of Constantine pertayned nothinge in the worlde As for the stones and pillers of marble in which any such matter is grauen bearing the name of his baptistry except Maister Sander could proue that they were sette vppe in his tyme are simple witnesses against the historye of Eusebius which lyued in his tyme. Nether the forged pontificall of Damasus nor the writings of Beda Ado Marianus Gregorius TureneÌ„sis Zonarus Nicephorus late writers following the fable of the Romish Church are of any credit in respect of Eusebius and the eldest writers of the Ecclesiasticall story that agree with Eusebius that he was not baptised many yeares after Syluester was deade And concerning the donation of Constantine it is too absurd for any wise man to defend which hath bene so long before disproued by Laurentius Valla no enemy of the Romish religion although a discouerer of that fable Agayne his forsaking of the citie of Rome and building of Constantinople is as great a fable for although he bewtified Byzantium and made it an imperiall citye as placed conueniently to keepe the Orientall Empire yet he forsooke not Rome but still retayned it as the chiefe see of his Empire so did the Emperours that followed him vntill after it was wasted by the barbarous nations they made lesse accompt of it And therefore although Constans the Nephew of Heraclius could not conueniently remoue thether yet he remoued froÌ„ thence what he thought good by which it appeared he had authoritie in the citie by the prouidence of God and not by chaunce as M. Sander dreameth that he was prohibited by Gods prouidence in respect of the Popes supremacie or els the world should be gouerned by chaunce But leauing Constantinus the father we must come to Constantius his sonne which was an Arrian of whom Athanasius complayneth that he had no reuerence of the Bishop of Rome Ep. ad Solit. vit agen nether considering that it was an Apostolike see nor that Rome was the mother citie of the Romane Empire There were other Apostolikes sees beside Rome and the Christian worlde was larger then the Romane Empire therefore this maketh nothing for the singular prerogatiue of that see But the noble Emperours Gratianus Valentinianus Theodosius made a law lege 1. Cod. de summ trinit That all their people should continue in that religion as the religion which is vsed from S. Peter vnto this day doth declare him to haue deliuered to the Romanes and which it is euident that Bishop Damasus doth follow and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolike holines This law proueth that the Emperours had authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes And that they ioyned the Patriarch of Rome with the Patriarch of Alexandria not because he of Alexandria agreed with him of Rome but because they both agreed with Peter and Peter with Christ. From these Emperours he commeth to Bonifacius who writing to the Emperour Honorius and humbly desiring his ayde to appease the tumults of his Church vseth these wordes Ecclesiae meae cui Deus noster meum sacerdotiuÌ„ vobisres humanas regentibus deputauit cura constringit ne causis eius quamuis adhuc corporis incommoditate detinear propter conuâ—ntus qui à sacerdotibus vniuersis clâ—ricis Christianae plebis perturbationibus agitantur apud aures Christianissimi principis desim The care of my church to which our God hath deputed my priesthood while you gouerne the affayres of men doth bind me that although I am yet withholden by infirmitie of bodye I should not be wanting to the causes thereof in the hearing of a most Christian Prince by reason of the meetings that are held of all the Priestes and the Clergie with the perturbations of the Christian people These words shewe that the Emperour was supreame gouernour in causes Ecclefiastiâ—â—ll for he writeth concerning the election of the Bishop To whom the Emperour answereth making a lawe against the ambitious labouring for succession that if two Bishops should be chosen they should be both banished out of the citie Con. To. 1. dist 97. I haue set downe the wordes at large to shewe the shamefull salsification of M. Sander who setteth them downe absolutely thus Mihi Deus noster mewn sacerdotium vobis res humanas regeÌ„tibus deputauit Our God hath appoynted my priesthood to me whereas you doe gouerne worldly matters As though he had denied to the Emperour all gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes wheÌ„ he flyeth to his authoritie in a cause Ecclesiasticall and doth not onely acknowledge him to be a conseruer of ciuill peace as M. Sander would haue it To Honorius he ioyneth Galla Placidia the Emperesse in her epistle to Theodosius set before the councell of Chalcedon Assirming that Peter ordayned the primacy of the Bishoply office in the see Apostolike Thus wrote the Emperesse or her Secretary and so it was taken in that time The like sayth Valentinianus in his Epistle to Theodosius his father that antiquitie gaue the chiefâ—y of priestly power to the Bishop of the citie of Rome And Martianus with Valentinian confesse that the Synode of Chalcedon inquired of the faith by the authoritie of Leo Bishop of the euerlasting citie of Rome Adde hereunto that the councell it selfe confesseth Act. â— that Leo was ouer them as the head ouer the members All these proue in deede a primacy of the Bishop of Rome acknowledged in those dayes but not such a primacye as is now claymed For the same councell and Emperours decreed that the see of Constantinople in the East should haue the same authoritie that the see of Rome had in the West the title of senioritie onely reserued to the Bishop of Rome Although the Bishop of Rome Leo by letters and his legats in the councell cryed out against it as lowd as they could Cont. Chal act 16. namely Lucentius cryed Sedes Apostolica c The Apostolike sea ought not to be abased in our presence c. but all the synode and the Iudges continued in their decree The saying of Iustinian in cod de summ trinit is examined and aunswered in the 69. article of M. Sanders treatise which is the true Church before his booke of Images as also the sayings of the Bishop of Patara of Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and Gregory Bishop of Rome The report of the councell of Sinuessa is too full of corruption and confusion to be credited for authenticall authoritie And yet it is playne that Marcellinus the Bishop of Rome was conuicted by witnesses to haue committed Idolatry before he confessed the sinne and receiued sentence of condemnation and accursing of the Synode howsoeuer that patche is thrust in after the Actes of the councell prima sedes c. the first see is not iudged of any which in euery counterfait decretall epistle almost must haue a place To proue that Phocas did not first make the see of Rome heade of