Apostles had I aunswer the kinges supremacie is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had For although he haue authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall according to Gods word yet is he no Ecclesiasticall officer but a ciuill Magistrate hauing chiefe authoritie in all causes not absolute to doe what he will but onely what God commaundeth him namely to prouide by lawes that God may be truely worshipped and all offences against his religion may be punished And whereas M. Sander inferreth that an Ethnike Prince or Turke may be supreame heade of our Church we vtterly denye to any such the name of an head which can not be a member but euen an Ethnicke Prince or a Turke may be chiefe Magistrate ouer the faithfull and make lawes for the mayntenance of Christian religion as an hypocrite Christian may They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God Nabuchadnezer Darius Cyrus Artaxerxes which were heathen Princes made godly lawes for the true worship of God furtherance of his people as in the prophecie of Daniel the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah it is manifest S Paule appealed to Nero the Emperor Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24 that the Christians in a matter of a Bishopps election and for a Bishops house were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperour And this notwithstanding the Church is alwayes vnder the soueraigne authoritie of Christ and the spirituall gouernment of her seuerall pastors and teachers when Christ ascending into heauen ordayned for her edification and vnitie and not one Pope ouer all Eph. 4. 13. But now he will enter one degree farther and suppose that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortall man to be or as any Bishop and Priest is yet he can nether baptize consecrate forgiue sinnes praise excommunicate blesse nor be Iudge of doctrine by his kingly authoritie If he can doe none of those he can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes I denye this argument For his supremacie is not to doe those thinges or any of them but to prouide and commaund that they may be doon as they ought to be But he riseth vp againe and sayth that whosoeuer hath soueraigne authoritie either in ciuill matters or Ecclesiasticall he may in his owne person execute any of those thinges which any of his inferiours may do So he saith the king if he wil may be Iudge in VVestminster hall shrieue and constable yea he may play the tayler maister Carpenter or tanner It is maruell he sayth not that he may be both a king and subiect Likewise the primate he might as wel say the Pope may helpe a Priest to Masse cary the crosse in procession digge a graue c. I deny this rule to hold in all thinges For there are some thinges that the Prince may not doe for lacke of knowledge and some thinges for lacke of calling and yet he may commaund both to be done For controuersies of lawe he may not decyde except he haue knowledge of the law nor minister Phisick except he haue knowledge in phisicke yet he may command both Lawyers Phisitions to doe according to their knowledge likewise to preache baptize c. he may not because he lacketh calling for none may doe those thinges lawfully but he that hath a speciall calling but he may commaund those thinges to be done to be well done according to Gods lawe whereof he ought not to be ignorant and for that purpose is especially commaunded to study in the booke of Gods lawe that not onely in matters concerning his owne person but in matters concerning Gods honor he may cause all men to doe their duetie Deut. 17. 18. So did Dauid Salomon Iehosaphat Ezechias Iosias commaund the Priestes to offer vp the sacrifices and to doe their duetie which it was not lawfull for their kinges to execute And is it so straunge a matter that a popish king may not commaund his Chaplayne to saye Masse or to saye his Masse reuerently and orderly as the lawes of popery doe require if he may commaund ouer tho e matters which yet he may not doe him selfe let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth that whosoeuer hath authoritie in any matters may doe all thinges him selfe which any of his inferiours may doe or which he may commaund to be done whereupon he concludeth that the king hath no right or supreame power at all in Ecclesiasticall causes vnlesse it be committed to him from the Bishop so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary may doe that by M. Sanders exception w c nether by commaundement of God nor his kingly power he hath auctoritie to doe Another argument he bringeth as good as this that the lesser authoritie doth not comprehend the greater and therefore M Horne must aunswer him whether to preache baptize forgiue sinnes c. be greater or lesser ministerie then the kinges authoritie If it be greater then it can not be comprehended in the kinges authoritie which is lesser What that reuerend father the Bishop of Winchester hath aunswered it may be seene in his booke against M. Feckenham But to talke with you M. Sander what if I graunt that the Ecclesiasticall ministery is not comprehended in the kinges authoritie will you thereupon inferre that the kinges authoritie is not to commaund the ministers of the Church in these matters to doe their dueties according to the worde of God In deede you conclude so but your argument is naught For the king is Gods Lieuetenant to see both the Church and the common wealth to be wel ordered And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diuers respectes As in authoritie of commaunding the king is greater then the Phisition in knowledge practise of phisicke the king is lesse then the Phisition So in authority of coÌ„maunding the prince is greater then the minister but in authoritie of ministration he is lesse and no inconuenience in the world to the dignitie of other estate or calling The Bishop of Winchesters examples M. Sander saith are euil applyed For they only shew what was done and not what ought to haue bene done and so for many circumstaÌ„ces are subiect to much wrangling 1. For either he was no good Prince which medled with disposing of holy matters 2. or in that deede he was not good 3. or he did it by coÌ„mission from a Prophet or an high Priest 4. or he was deceiued by flatterers 5. or he was inforced by necessitie But all these quarells notwithstanding the examples of Scripture are so many and so playne that M. Sanders â—â—angling can not obscure them Dauid a good Prince did well in appoynting the Leuits and Priestes to their seuerall offices and forbidding the Leuits to cary the arke and the vessells thereof without any coÌ„mission from Priest or Prophet but onely by the word of God not deceyued by flatterers nor enforced by necessitie 1. Chron. 23.
25. Salomon did the like about the temple He deposed Abiathar the high Priest set Zadoc in his roome 1. Reg. 2. 27. 35. And such are y e examples of all the godly kinges of Iuda which being coÌ„mended in the Scripture are not vncertayne deceitful or vnknown in their circumstances but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters then this text w c he citeth Feede my sheepe to forbid them But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no I answer by propriety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is Neuerthelesse admit Peter to be a sheepeheard and the king to be his sheepe what then forsooth it is against the lawe of nature for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard and the other a sheepe But I aske of him is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard if he doubt Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe If he deny it let the Apostles speake for them selues let euery soule be subiect c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes You may then see what a wise argumeÌ„t he hath made that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor as in other respect he is vnder him M. Sander will goe forward for all this putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required he would not yeeld vnto what could the Emperour doe to him He coulde not excommunicate him And if he imprisoned him or put him to death he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing I might put the like case of his holinesse What if a Christian man should come to him c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe hee might imprison him as Annas did the Apostles hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy and Ananias Paule c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde haue come to the Emperour had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie he being found an heretike to haue condemned him therefore In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius and Donatus and not as Nero with Peter and Paule But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures or the auncient times who can deny but that in a cause of faith in a cause I saye of fayth Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours not Emperours of Bishops And who sayth the contrarye but that in causes of faith the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops and not the Bishops of the Emperour Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religion to doe what he will when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde the knowledge whereof especially in difficult matters he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law although he be bownd to see iustice executed But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop I aunswer if his cryme be apparant euen as Salomon deposed Abiather if it be doubtfull by order of iudgement and tryall according of ciuill Iudges if it be a ciuill cryme and Ecclesiasticall if it be heresie that he is accused of if he can not be condemned vpon iust tryall he is to be absolued if this will not satisfie the king he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy and if he proceede further he exerciseth tyranny And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the importunitie of the Donatists which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops deputed by the Emperour they would neuer be satisfied but still appealed to the Emperour accused the Bishops that were appoynted their Iudges before the earthly king M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently that he calleth Constantine an earthly king and yet he is so blinde that he will not see that the same earthly kinge which assigned those Bishops to be Iudges was still acknowledged of all partes to be the supreame gouernour Ep. 48. But omittinge the wordes of men he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of euery degree of men according to their dignitie And first beginneth with the highe Priest next whom is the whole people thirde the Prince and last of all euery priuate man There is no doubt but the highe Priest as he was an image and figure of Christ was chiefe in dignitie Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince as Aaron was to Moses Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon The like is confessed of euery minister of the Gospell and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt might haue bene spared And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince Abiathar in the temple at the altar in the holiest place and sacrificing was greater then Salomon yet was he iustly deposed by SalomoÌ„ for his treason Maister Sander chargeth vs to affiâ—me that the euill life of a Bishop taketh away his authoritie w c he denieth to be so as long as the Church doth tollerate and permitte them in their places whereupon he concludeth that though the Bishop of Rome haue neuer so much abused his office yet he can not leese his primacye In deede the abuse of the man taketh not away the authoritie of the office but if the office be peruerted from the right vse and degenerated into an heathenish tyrannye as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene many hundreth yeares the name of a Bishop onely and that scarsely remayning we iustly affirme that such dignitie as that sea had by consent of men it hath cleane lost by abuse of their authoritie Moreouer he sayth it hath no coullour of truth that we affirme the Pope to gouerne not as a Pastor but to beare a soueraintie as Princes of the
denyed a testimony of the booke of wisedom de praedest Non debuit They should not reiect the saying of the booke of wisedom which in the church of Christ hath deserued so long a rew of yeares to be recited in the steppe of the readers of the church of Christ and with worship of diuine auctoritie to be heard of all Christians from the Bishops to the lowest sorte of lay men c. And againe Et Etiam temporibus c. Euen the notable interpreters that were next to the Apostles times when they brought forth that booke for witnes beleued that they brought nothing but a diuine testimonie Touching this defense first I aske of Bristow how he can proue that the booke of Machabees hath had such continuaunce of credit Secondly howe this saying of Augustine coÌ„cerning the booke of wisedom can be true when Hierome plainly reiecteth it as not Canonicall praefat in Prouerb Thirdly I demaunde how Bristow can defend his maior if we admitte this saying of Augustine to be true for not Pelagius as Allen sayth expressely nor any Pelagians as Bristow seemeth to meane but such as defended the Catholike faith against Pelagius reiected this saying of the booke of Wisedome which booke also we refuse although not for that saying and what one article of our doctrine doth that booke impugne nay rather there is testimonies therein manifest agaâ—â—st Images against Purgatory and merites yet can not we therefore allow the writings of Phâ—lo a â—ew since Christes time for the canonicall Scripture of Salomon whose title it salâ—ly beareth But to proceede Luther denyeth the Epistic of S. Iames because it is against his heresie of instfication by faith onely We allowe not Luther neither did he allow him self therein for he retracteth it afterward Yet is not Eusebius counted an heretike which vtterly reiecteth that Epistle Lib. 2. cap. 23. But to goe on Beza doth say that S. Lukes Gospell is falsified because it mainteyneth the reall presence of Christ in the sacramet where he sayth Hic est calix this is the chalice which is shed for you This is an impudent slaunder which I haue aunswered against SauÌ„ders rocke of the church in his ninthe marke of an AntichristiaÌ„ where it is handled at large and thether I referre the Reader To conclude Bristow saith no Scriptures is against the Catholikes but all for them because they must obediently receiue and beleue all Scriptures canonicall But what obedience and beliefe they attribute to the canonicall Scriptures it is plaine by this that they dare not abide the triall by them but flie from them to traditions as Bristow doth euen in the next motiue as though the Scriptures inspired of God were not sufficient both to teache all truth and to confute all errors In the demaund this motiâ—e is handled somewhat otherwise for there we are examined whether in the coÌ„ference of Carthage Augustine and his fellowes did not proue by Scripture that a visible Church should beginne at Hierusalem which shoulde continue visibly to the ende of the world I aunswer they proued sufficiently that the preaching of the gospell beginning at Hierusalem should gather the Church out of all partes of the world and therefore the faction of Donatus which begonne in Africa was not to be found but in a corner of Africa could not be the Church of Christ. But of a visible Church to continue visibly in manner as Bristow demaundeth there was no controuersie in that conference and therefore no proofe thereof brought out of the Scriptures The 9. motiue is the 29 demaund Traditions most certaine The Apostles were of our religion S. Augustine S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Cypriane fasting daies lent masse for the dead prayer for the dead confirmed by the Apostles traditions water mingling mith the wine in the chalice The Masse made by S. Paule S. Paule of our religioÌ„ The true Church sayth Bristow hath alwayes had traditions beside the Scripture and what company soeuer was faine to crye for only Scriptures to deny most certeyne traditions of the Apostles their doctrine was heresie and they heretikes To proue that the church had alwayes traditions beside Scripture he bringeth in the sayings of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. 2. Thess. 3. before the Scripture was all written when it was necessary for the Church to haue much of the doctrine deliuered onely by preaching yet had they no doctrine of faith but such as was coÌ„firmed by scriptures of the olde testament as is manifest 2. Pet. â— But for the certaintye of popishe traditions what proofe hath he First Basil de sp sancto cap. 27. sayth Dogmata c. Matters of doctrine which are kept and preached in the church we haue partly by doctrine committed to writing partly by tradition of the Apostles which are of like force vnto godlines c. But the same Basil writeth contrary to him selfe and agreeable to the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture in that it is not of faith is sinne And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he requireth euen newe planted Christians to be instructed in the holy Scriptures both for their full perswasioÌ„ in godlines also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be not acquainted with mens traditions Furthermore sayth Bristow Augustine Epiphanius the Protestants them selues condemne Heluidius for an heretike for denying the perpetuall virginitie of Marye the mother of Christ contrary to the Churches tradition Nay rather for troubling y e church with contention about that in which he hath no grouÌ„d out of the Scriptures Now let vs see how they are proued to be heretikes that refuse traditions of the Apostles are fayne to cry for onely Scriptures First that Maximinus the Arrian did so ergo whosoeuer doth so is an heretike according to Bristowes logike And yet he belyeth Maximinus for he refused not traditions of the Apostles but such wordes as were beside the Scripture meaning Homousion such like termes which were theÌ„ newly vsed but yet conteyned no newe doctrine but euen that which alwayes was approued according to the Scriptures The same thing did the decree of the heretical Emperour Constantius forbid not traditions of the Apostles of which was no controuersie betwene the true Christians the Arrians But that the Scriptures onely are of sufficient authoritie to confute heresies Augustine declareth euen against the same Maximinus lib. 3. cap. 14. Sed nunâ— nec ego Niccnum c. But now must not I bring forth the councel of Nice nor thou the couÌ„cel of Ariminum to make any preiudice but by the authoritie of Scriptures not being proper to ether but coÌ„mon witnesses to vs both let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason Likewise he and his fellow Bishops sayd vnto the Donatists in the conference of Carthage Si tantummodo id qu. crerctur quâ— vel rbi esset Ecclesia nihil se acturos publicis gestis sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
in Protestants Because Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth of the fathers Quâ—d credunt credo c. That which they beleue I beleue also I holde that they holde I teache that they teach I preach that they preach and lib. 2. quos oporâ—ct c. Christian people ought to prefeâ—re the auncient holy truth before your profane nouelties and chose rather to sticke to them then to you And are Pelagians aliue in Protestants because Augustine recâ—iueth the olde writers that were agreeable to the scriptures Did not the Pelagians alledge the authority of the old writers also Lâ—b cont Iul cap. 2. 3 But what should I contend about that which is so cleare in Augustine De baptism câ—nt Dâ—natâ—si cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat â—anctam scripturam canonicam tam râ—t ris quam noui testaâ—â—â—â— â—ertis sâ—is terminis contineri camque omnibus postericribus Episcopâ—rum literis it a praeponi vt de ill a omnino dubitari d. s epâ—ari non pâ—ssâ—t vtrum verum vel vtrum rectuÌ„sâ— quiâ—quâ—â— in ea sâ—riptum esse constiterit Ep sâ—â—porum autem literas que post confiâ—matum canâ—nem vel scriptâ—e sunt vel sâ—riâ—untur per sermâ—nem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in care periti râ—s per alioruâ—n Episâ—â—porum grauiorem auctoritatem doctâ—orumque prudentiam per conâ—ilia liâ—ere reprehâ—ndi si quid in â—is forte à veritate deuiatum est iâ—sa concilia c. Who knoweth not that the holy canonical scripture both of the old and new testament is conteyned in their certeine bands and that the same is so preferred before all later writings of Bishops that of it there can be no doubt or question at all whether that be true or right whatsoeuer is knowen to be written therein But as for the writings of Bishops which since the canon is confirmed haue bene written or bâ— nowe in writing that by some speach perhaps more wise of any man that is more skillfull in that matter and by the more graue authoritie of other Bishops and wisedom of them that are better learned and by councells they may be reprehended if any thinge perhaps in them is gone a straye from the truth and that euâ—n those councells which are helde in euery region and prouince without all controuersie doe giue place to the authoritie of generall councels which are made out of all the Christian worlde and that euen the generall councells are often tymes corrected the former by the later c. as in the 13. motiue By which saying you may playnly see howe the olde fathers were S. Augustines motiue euen none otherwise then they are our retentiue to staye vs in Christian truthe which they write agreeable to the holye Scriptures and therefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristowe bothe where he saythe that in our preachinge and writinge we thinke it not necessary to alledge the tâ—stimonies of tâ—e olde fathers and also that in familiar talke amonge our selues we are not afearde plainely to confesse that the fathers all were Papistes As vayne a cauill it is that the Protestantes are ashamed of their fathers When we acknowledge no fathers vnto whose iudgement we will stande absolutely in all controuersies but the Prophetes and the Apostles and God him selfe by whose spirite they did write As for Simon Magus Eunomus and suche olde heretikes we detest more then the Papistes doe But AErius Vigilantius and Iouinian were playnely of our opinion and of them we are ashamed And doe you Papistes beleeue nothinge common with AErius Vigilantius Iouinian Doe you in no poynte holde that which Arius Macedonius Eutyches did holde Doe you mayntayne no opinion which was taught by Mahomet him selfe you will aunswer that there neuer was heresie but it hâ—lde and taught many articles of truthe which if you holde as they did you are not therefore their children in suche articles wherin they were heretikes Euen so we aunswere you of AErius Vigilantius Iouinian we are not ashamed to beleue any truth which they helde their errours we leaue vnto them selues But I know you will replye that among the errours of AErius the denyall of prayers to profit the deade was one accompted by Epiphanius and Augustine Then it is your parte to shewe what argumentes out of the holy Scripture they bring to proue this opinion to be an errour Otherwise their auctoritie alone is not sufficient to make it a truth Vigigilantius is baighted only by Hierome of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man and a learned As for Iouinian we take not his parte if in all respects he made mariage equall with virginitie which in some respect the Apostle preferreth But we must see of what religion and auctoritie the fathers were First sayth Bristow you may perceaue by Iewells challenge that for Purgatorie prayer for the dead and to Saincts merite of good workes c. there is somthing conteined in the olde fathers which liued within 600. yeares after Christ because he durst not make his challenge of these articles but of the Masse the Pope the eucharistie c. But I pray you Bristow are not these greater matters among you then the other If therefore you be not able to proue your greatest mysteries of antiquitie out of any one father for so many ages what great matter is it if you haue them fauourable in a fewe articles of lesse moment But Bristow with wayght of reason will beare vs downe that all the fathers are on their side wholly and against vs in all poynctes of our controuersie And this is his reason who are driuen to mayteyne the fathers credit and auctoritie Papistes or Protestantes Not Protestantes verily but Papistes ergo the fathers be all for Papistes and against Protestantes A mightie reason of mayne force Dioscorus and Eutyches in the councell of Chalcedon boasted of the auctoritie of the holie fathers and stoode much in defense of their creditte therefore the fathers were whollie on their side But let vs heare L. Humfreys opinion out of his booke of B. Iewells life of Iewells challenge of the fathers and of the Saincts in the calender Nay rather let vs heare Bristow yelping like a little curre agaynst so great a lyon First he snatcheth peeces of his sentences gnawne from the rest and then squeleth out as though he had hearde some maruelous straunge soundes D. Humfrey sayth Iewell gaue the Papistes too large a scope when not content to haue beaten them downe with the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures he made his challenge vpon the testimonie of the fathers and that so many hundreth yeares after Christ. And herein he was iniurious to him selfe that refusing that meane by which he might more easely more straightly haue maynteyned his cause after a maner he spoyled him selfe and the church This is his opinion of Maister Iewells challenge Howe followeth his opinion of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the calender
specially chargeth that learned and reuerend Father M. Elmer now Byshop of London with this deuilishe practise notinge these woordes in the margent Let Elmer remember his Tragedie of the Scottishfriere at Lincolne As I knowe not what coulour he hath for so great and haynous a slauÌ„der so I nothing doubt but that the same is vtterly false and vntrue as a thousand more slaunders and lyes Wherein the Papists as Children of the Father of lyes haue so great delight To conclude seeing not the paine but the cause maketh a martyr whosoeuer haue suffred for treason and rebellion may well be accounted Martirs of the Popisn Church but the church of Christe condemneth such for enemies of Christes kingdome and inheritours of eternal destructiâ— except they repent and obtaine mercie for their horrible wickednes And seeing patient suffring is by Bristows owne confession a gift of God vnto all true Martirs such as were manifestly voide of patience can be no true Martirs as were most of these rebels traitors Story by name Who for all his glorious tale in the time of his most deserued execution by quartering was so impatieÌ„t that he did not only rore and cry like a helhounde but also strake the executioner doing his office and resisted as long as strength did serue him beeing kept downe by three or foure men vntil he was deade O patient martir of the popish church In the 15. 16. demaund he asketh vs whether we haue not read in Chrysostome Augustine others that they vsed this argument to proue the diuinitie of Christ that he hath aduanced his seruants to such honor that they are prayed vnto their graues honored of kings Emperors that miracles are wrought by the reliqus of their Saints I answere we read soÌ„e such thing although not altogither as Bristow reporteth nor to y t end But what if amoÌ„g a great nuÌ„ber of forcible aguments they vsed also some such persuasions shuld their reasoning be a preiudice to the truth of God reueled out of the Scriptures whervnto if those holy man had had as great regarde as they wishe other men to haue in their writing and not suffred them selues to be carried away with common plausible errors they should easely haue espyed that they gayned not so much in resoning so against the Painims as they gaue occasion of superstition among the Christians And to aunswere the xx demaunde we are content to bee tryed by that doctrine for which the auncient Martyrs Irenaeus Cyprian Laurens c. suffred persecution and Martyrdom which was for no pointe of Popery but true christianitie yet wil we not be tryed by all poyntes of doctrine which they did holde for that it is certaine some of them had their errors which the Papists them selues doe not holde as Irenaeus is charged by Eusebius l. b. 3. cap 39 to be a follower of the Chiliastes Cyprian did openly in a councel maintaine rebaptising of them which were baptised by Heretikes Againe wee resuse not the tryall of that docttine for which the Christians were persecuted by the Arrians in Africa notwithstanding the terme of Missa vsed by Victor that writeth that Story by which tearme in that time not the popish Masse which then was not made either in matter or forme but the celebration of the Communion and memory of the sacrifice of Christ commonly called in deede but vnproperly a sacrifice yet will we not be tryed by all that they holde for diuerse errors of prayer for the deade and to the dead were then receiued neithet will the Papistes be tryed by that Religion they helde in all pointes For then were Byshops married Lib. 2. 3. Then the Praiers were in the vulgar tounge and all the people sunge Himnes togither lib. 2. There is no reason therefore that the Papists shoulde call vs to such a tryall as they dare not abide them selues The 16. motiue is the 30. Demaunde Their owne Doctors The disâ—orde of Protestants Luther â—ondemneth our Pretestantes Carolstadians Zwinglians and Caluinists Luther corrupteth the Scripture to helpe his heresie of the breade to be Christes body The head of the church to be a Layman is against the Magdeburgenses and Caluine The prophecie fulfilled in the accorde of the Protestants and Puritants Parliament religion The inconstancy of Protestants VVhat an impudent attempt is chaunge of religion True Christianitie by Luther is vnder the Popedome The discorde of our owne Doctors Bristowe would haue to be a Motiue against vs. As though it were not as great a motiue against them whose Doctors dissent as much as ours To omit all other controuersies when will they bee agreed whether the Pope bee aboue the Councell or the Councell aboue the Pope In which discention they haue not onely Doctor against Doctor but also Councell against Councell and Pope against Pope and Cardinall against Cardinall as Constance and Basill against Ferraria Florence Nicolaus Felix with thâ—ir Cardinals against Eugenius and and his Cardinals But now let vs see what discorde he findeth in our Doctors Luther condemneth the Protestants Carâ—â—stadians Zwâ—nglians Caluinistes in the cause of the Sacrameâ—t The more was his immoderate heate and bitter zeale to be blamed and their Christian modestie to be commended which notwitstanding his ouermuch vehemency in maintayning his error yet accepted hâ—m alwayes as a brother The corruption of the Scripture wherwith he chargeth Luther is a slaunder of his owne for Luther altred no wordes of Scripture but declared his vnderstanding of them when he said Take bread and eate â—his is my body And this is the only discorde that he can proue betweene the professors of the truth For it is a meere sophistry of the ambiguitie of the worde head of the Church that maketh that shewe of contrarietie betweene the Magdeburgenses Caluine and vs who in sence and meaning therof doe perfectly agree as I haue often shewed And Bristowe cannot altogether deny where he derideth the Parliament Religion and inconstancie of Protestants for chaunging the title of head into gouernour and then expounding the gouernment by iniunction Whereas in neither of bothe titles was any other meaning of the godly sorte in the time of King Henry Kinge Edwarde or her Maiestie then is contayned in that exposition In deede Stephen Gardiner as Caluine reporteth at Ratisbone abused the title of supreme head not more wickedly theÌ„ absurdly to defend all Papistrie which theÌ„ was not abolished by king Henry And against that grosse errour of Gardiner writeth Caluine and not against our vnderstanding of that tytle But the Apologie prophecieth that shortely the Lutherans and Zwinglians should bee accorded which is fulfilled in the accorde of the Protestantes and Puritanes who in the demaunde he sayth doe abhorre the tytle of supremacie If I knewe whome he did meane by Puritanes I might aunsweare him the better but seeing hee maketh Protestantes and Puritanes members of a diuision If hee recken the Puritanes for such as bee
whiche alwayes Gods holy name be praysed therefore hath turned to the confusion of Popery and the further spreading of the light of the Gospell In the demaunde he vrgeth vs to shewe when the Romanes went out of the truth fâ—rsaking any company of Christians then liuing This hath bene often shewed that the Romanes though not all at once yet by litle and litle euen as the mysterie of iniquitie got strength which began to worke in the Apostles tyme haue departed from the communion of other Christians The first storye that maketh notable mention is Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25. of Victor which did cut him selfe from all the Churches of the East about a ceremonye since which tyme the Romane Bishops by litle and litle haue departed vntill they made a generall apostasie and defection from the vniuersall Churche condemning all the Christians in the world except such as held of their particular schismaticall and hereticall Churche of Rome The 19. motiue is the 4. demaund Risinge afterwarde Saynt Ireneus and Tertullians motiue He spendeth muche labour in vayne to proue that the first religion is the onely true religion and that all sectes that arise after are false which we graunt most willingly with Irenaeus Tertullian and the Scripture it selfe But he hath not one worde to proue that our religion is of a later springe then the Apostles and therefore like an asse he flyeth to their common stable saying that Luther liued but yesterdaye as though Luther were the firste author of our religion Which if it be not as auncient as Christ and the Apostles might easiely be confuted by the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles contayned in the holye Scriptures The 20. motiue is the 5. demaunde Beginninge with wondringe and gaynesaying of Christians then in vnitye vvhich is Saynte Irenaeus motiue Our religion of Christ reuealed in the fleshe began with wondring and gaynesaying of Scribes Pharisees as it is manifest by the historye of the Gospell Marke 1. yet was not the doctrine of Christ newe or straunge but newely begonne to be restored which was by them corrupted so is the same now wondred at and gaynesayde by their successors the Papistes but of true Christians it is nether wondred at nor gaynesayde contrariwise the heresie of Papistes in manye poyntes was wondred at and gaynesayde by true Christians whiche Bristowe saythe we can not proue to be in anye one For example I will name one of the chiefest articles which they holde namely the Popes supremacye vpon which all the rest in Eusebius testifyeth that when Victor Bishoppe of Rome which was the first that challeÌ„ged any supremacie tooke vpon him to excommunicate the Churches and Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter His presumption was wondred at and gainesayde not only by those Churches and their Bishops but euen by others neere hand as by Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce which sharpely reproued him therfore more theÌ„ two hundreth yeeres after when Zozimus other Romish Prelates made claime to a kind of supremacy in resisting appeale out of Africa and for that purpose had counterfaited a decree of the Nicâ—ne councel They were wondred at and gainesaid by the whole councell of Carthage The like might I shewe for worshipying of Images the reall presence transubstatiation c. But where hee sayeth that all heresies were wondered at and gainesaide immediatly after they arose it cannot be proued Nor that all was Heresie that was gainesaide by them that were in vnitie For the baptisme of Heretikes was gainesaide by Saincte Cyprian and all the Bishoppes of Africa yet was it none heresie that Infants might be sauedwith out receiuing of the communion was gainesaid by Innocentius Bishop of Rome and by S. Augustine and by all the church that was at vnitie against the Pelagians August contra duas epistolas Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 2. Cap 4. Yet was not that opinion then helde by the Pelagians otherwise horrible Heretikes and heresie but that which the Bishop of Roms the rest of the known visible church did holde was an erâ—or whereby you may see how truely the commaundement of Christe vnto Peter to confirme his Brethren after his conuersion doth giue the Byshop of Rome ' power neuer to be deceiued nor to fall into error And that the Church may be the piller and stay of trueth although the chiefe members thereof and generally all that are knowen to be members thereof may be taken in some particular error The 21. Motiue is the 42. demaunde Vnsent Orders Protestants allowe better of our orders theÌ„ of their owne Wheras Bristowe chargeth vs to be vnsent it is nothing else but a popish slaunder and petition of principle for we are called and sent ordinarily by the Church and elders of the same to preach the word of God and to minister the Sacraments Neither are we ordayned by a lay Prince as he like a lewde Papist doth slaunder both our Christian Prince and vs. And although the Prince by letters Patents hath sent some to preach and visite the Churches of her dominions yet shee hath doone it by authoritie of the worde of God and by example of godly Princes Iosaphat and other 2. Chro. 17. not taking vpon het to execute any ecclesiasticall function but according to her kingly authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall And where Bristowe saith we allowe better of their popish orders then of our owne secking as much as we can possible to be consecrated by one of their orders except it be some such proude hypocrite as Bristowe is that so iudgeth and seeketh it is a moste abhominable lye For withall our heart wee abhorre defie detest and spit at your stinking greasie antichristian orders Neither doth our Church receiue any of your execrable ordering to minister in the Church before they haue solemnly by othe renounced your Antichriste and publikely as well professed to imbrace all true religion as Protested that in their conscienses they defy all papistry and other heresies Although many godly men wishe yet a more seuere discipline in examining and receiuing such as come our of your heresie to serue in the Church of God The 22. motiue is the 43. demaund Suceession S. Optatus motiue The Church is euerlasting visible S. Hieroms S. Augustines motiue the Church euerlasting The communion of the B. of Rome to be kept of all Christians Succession in the see Apostolike Tertullians and Augustines motiues That the Church is euerlasting Bristow neede not haue takeÌ„ such paynes to proue that this continuance is preserued by succession is also to be confessed But y t this succession is visible limited to any one sea of bishops it is false For euen as he him selfe sayth it is necessary that all Adams children to be come of Adam by a continuall pedegree of fathers and grandfathers and other progenitors euen vntill his time and yet no one of Adams childreÌ„ can deduce this pedegree by
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
t the straungens thereof so long as the trueth of the little flock the falshod of the reuolted multitude are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures The conclusion of all his Preface is that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superfluous Yea verely all Scriptures Doctors and Councelles be needlesse where there is such a person alwaies at hand who cannot erre in any thing that he commandeth men to beleeue or doe And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures doctors couÌ„cels Learning Tounges c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth But what saye you M. Sander did there neuer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre Was that See neuer voyde many dayes many monethes and many yeeres togither And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes who sat in Peters Chaire You will say one of them but which you cannot tell Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar The one cursed the other absolued the one commannded the other forbadde Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire and vnitie thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth and with his glorious appearance and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse for euer and euer Amen The first Chapter THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after him VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope and of S. Peter he sayth we deny all primacie and chiefe gouernment in the Church Wherevpon he rayseth three questions to intreate of Whether it be against the worde of God that there should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe authoritie Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church that we affirme there is a spirituall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ which neuer was giuen to Peter nor to any mortall man Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches there is must be a primacie of order which is temporall according to the disposition of the Church And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime but that he had it not alwayes it appeareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers consent was President and Primate and vpon the controuersie beeing throughly debated pronounced the definitiue sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia Syria and Cilicia was written in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren But concerning S. Peter M. Sander moueth newe questions First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter whiche is a stone or Rock Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise wheÌ„ he chose him to be an Apostle Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke the question is whether Peter himselfe be that Rock vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church or Christ himselfe or the fayth and confession of peter M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists passing ouer the second question that is whether Christe himselfe whom Peter confessed by this rock denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter not barely confirmed but in respect of the promise past the present confession and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection of which foure conditions the Protestantes hee sayth doe lack no lesse then three But what doe the Papists lack when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ the only foundation then the which none other can be layde 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone I wil franckly yeelde vnto him that which he coulde neuer win by force that Christ saying to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building for then hee should put him selfe out of place but one of the prâ—ncipall stones of the foundation euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were for so the holy Ghost speaketh Ephe. 2. vers 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted groweth vnto an holy temple vnto the Lord. Nowe let vs consider whether any singular authority was committed to peter when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea because it was sayd to him alone feede my sheepe and no particular flock named it must needes be ment the whole flocke Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock Christ saide onely to Peter come after me Satan for thou art an offence to me c. Therefore Peter onely was an enemie of Christe If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him let him take the other also Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter 5. Heere is no particular slocke named therefore he meaneth the whole vniuersall flocke But he vrgeth farther that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors But if labouring in preaching the gospel be the feeding of Christes flock not Peter but Paule laboured more then he and all the rest of the Apostles 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe that by thrise confession and iniunction to feede he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship from which he deserued to be depriued M. Sand. liketh not for three causes First he sayth hee had not lost his Apostleship because his fault was not externally proued nor confessed in iudgment nor stubbernly defended c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell had neede of externall proues or a Commissaries court to depriue Peter of his office O blockish reason Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme that hee was altogither excluded from his office by his fault but
the later byshops vsurped and practised vnder pretence of Peters supremacie His words ate cited in Ann. ass ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum c. Vppon this stone this soundnes and strength I will builde an euerlasting temple and the hight of my Church which is to reach to Heauen shall rise in the strength of this Rocke A great extolling of Peter vsuall to the Byshops of Rome but yet no more is saide of him then may be truely faide vpon euery one of the Apostles The 6. reason is vttered by Augustine Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram c. Our Lorde saide to Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church vppon this rocke I will builde my church And againe in Ioan Tr. 124. Ecclesiae c. Peter the Apostle by a generalitie that was figured did beare the person of the Church by reason of the primacie of his Apostleship Heere he maketh much adoe aboute his primacie by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church willing to inferre that because hee was primate of the Apostles and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church therefore he was soueraigne ruler and generall officer of the whole militant Church But it followeth not that euery one which is made an atturney or Proxei to receiue a thing for a whole comminaltie is thereby made generall ruler of al that comminaltie The Papistes them selues in the Councell of Basill discharge vs of this conclusion where they agree to the sentence of Iohn Patriarch of Antiochia which citeth Augustine to witnesse that Peter receiued the Keyes as minister of the Church And Augustine writeth De Agone Christ. cap. 30 Non enim siae causa inter omnes Apostolos huius ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus Huic enim ecclesie clauis regni caelorum datae sunt Et cum ei dicitur ad omnes diâ—itur Aâ—nas me Pasce oues meas For not without cause amonge all the Apostles Peeter sustaineth the person of this Catholike Churche For to this Churche the Keyes of the kindome of Heauen are giuen And when it is saide vnto him it is saide to all Doest thou loue me feede my sheepe By this sentence it is playne that Christe after Augustines minde preferred not Peter in power before all the rest but to receiue equall power with the reste hee made him as it were the Attornye of the rest So that all these reasons duely considered the sayinges of the Doctors which affirme Peter to be a rocke or stone on which the Church is builded doe not prooue that hee was an onely foundation of the whole Church but with the rest of the apostles he was one and the firste of the twelue stones whereon the Church was founded and that in respect of his office and doctrine not of his person as he wasa mortal man The seuenth Chapter THE authorities alleadged by M. Iâ—well to proue that Peter was not this Rock proue against him self that Peter was this Rocke although they proue that there was an other kinde of Rock also beside him which thinge wee denye not THE first authoritie is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc vet test Thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will build my church He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had sayd before Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God M. S. replieth that it is neither said that Peter was not this Rock nor that Christ was this rock But that the confession of Peter was the Rock whiche he graunteth and therefore Peter much rather muste be the rock For his confession which commeth from his soule and heart as from a fountaine or springe is greater then the acte of confession Firste I deny his Argument because Peters confession came neither from his soule nor hart but from God which reuealed the trueth vnto him as Christ saith Flesh and bloode c. Secondly I say Gregory meaneth by Peters confession him which Peter confessed namely Christe which is the onely Rocke of the Church whereon the whole Church is builded as his wordes doe sounde for he had sayde before Thou art Christ c. But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke findeth faulte with M. Iewels argumente comparing it to this There commeth eloquence from a man but he is not eloquent Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is not the Rocke Would a man thinke that a Doctor in Diuitie should either be so ignoraunt in the Arte of reasoning or so impudent in peruerting a good reason that a very Childe might reproue either the one or the other I appeale to Logicians whether this reason of M. Iewels The Rock commeth from Peter by confession Ergo Peter is not the Rock be like this argument Eloquence commeth from Cicero therefore Cicero is not Eloquence and not as M. Sand. inferreth Ergo Cicero is not Eloquent But he hath another Example A mans Oration is eloquent therefore the man him selfe is eloquent So Peters confâ—ssion is the Rocke therefore Peter hâ—â—selfe is the Rocke I deny the resemblance for there is resembled the Adiectiue in the one and the substantiue in the other But thus he shoulde compare them Tuilyes defence of Mylo is an eloquent oration therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration which reasoning is no more absurde then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is the Rocke Contrarywise you may reason Peters confession was the Rock therefore Peter was Rockey or stony The seconde authoritie is Hilarie Haec vna est c. This is that onely blessed rock of Faith that Peter confessed with his mouth M. Sander caueleth that this is not spoken vpon the wordes said to Peter but vpâ—on the wordes spoken by Peter But beside that the whole context of the place is against him both in that lib. 2. De trinit and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifiâ—ato est vpon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church which M. Sand. would auoyde by bringing in of two rocks Christ Peter the particle exclusiue shutteth him cleane out of the dores for Hillarie sayth not that Christe is a Rocke but that he is the onely Rocke Therefore this is but one Rocke and one building and not as M. Sand. sayth two Rocks and two buildings for aswell hee might say two Churches Now where Hilarie vpon Mathew acknowledgeth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church it is answeared before that he was one of the xii foundations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a farre other meaning then Christ is the onely Rock The 3. authoritie is Cyrillus Dial 4. de trini The rock is nothing else but the strong assured faith of the disciple This saith M. S. is that I would haue for this disciple was S. Peter and the rock here spoken of is nothing else but S. Peters faith therfore it is not Christ. Nay rather the rock is nothing but S. Peters faith therfore it is not his
same And in order and office he confesseth that all Byshopps of the worlde are equall as Hierome sayeth ad Euagrium and Cyprian De vnitate ecclesâ—e but not in authoritie But seeing he rehearseth the testimonie of Hierome imperfectly I will set it downe at large that you may see whether it will beare his distinction He writeth against a custome of the Church of Rome by which the Deacons were preferred abooue the Priestes whome hee proueth by the Scripture to be equall with Byshoppes excepte onely in ordaining Quid enim facit exempta ordinatione Episcopus c. For what doth a Bishop excepting ordination which a Priest or Elder doth not Neither is it to be thought that there is one church of the city of Rome and an other of the whole worlde Both Fraunce and Britayn Africa and Persia and the East and India all barbarous nations worship one Christ obserue one rule of truth If auctoritie be sought the world is greater then a citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tunis he is of the same worthines of the same Priesthoode Power of riches basenes of pouerty make not the Bishop higher or inferior But they are all successors of the Apostles And lest you should thinke he speaketh onely of equalitie in order office not in authority He doth in an other place shew that the authoritie of euery Priest is equall with euery Bishop by Gods disposition that the excelling of one Bishop aboue other Priests came only by custom In Titum cap. 1. Sieut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subiectos it a Episcopi nouerint se magis consuctudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maieres Therefore as Priestes do know that by custom of the Church they are subiect to him that is set ouer them so let Bishops know that they are greater then Priests rather by custom then by truth of the Lordes appoyntment If the authoritie then iurisdiction of Bishops dependeth vpon custoÌ„ not vpon gods appointment Peter was not by our lords appointmeÌ„t preferred in bishoplik authority before the rest of y e Apostles nor the Bishop of Rome before other Bishops Priestes but only by custom as Hierom saith S. Cyprians wordes also inferre the same Episcopatus vnus est cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Bishops office is one whereof euery man doth partake the Bishops office wholy Now if authoritie iurisdiction doe pertayne to the Bishops office euery Bishop hath it wholy as to follow M. Sanders example whatsoeuer is incident to the nature or kind of a man is equally in euery man But now the greatest matter resteth to proue how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles and that he taketh on him to proue by this reason Peter loued Christ more then all the rest of the Apostles therefore he gaue him greater authoritie in feeding his sheepe then to the rest But I deny the argument For Peter loued Christ more then the rest because Christ had forgiuen him greater sinâ—es then to the rest Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof he required greater diligence in doing his office but gaue him not a greater charge or authoritie Now where M. Sander reasoneth that Peter loued Christ most because Christ first loued him most and Christ loued him most because he would make him gouernour of his Church it is a shamefull petition or begging of that which is in question For the nearest cause of Peters greater loue was the greater mercy which he founde which mercy proceeding from the loue of God as the first infinite cause can haue no higher superior or former cause But Peter in respect of greater loue shewed to him in that greater sinne was forgiuen him was bound to shewe greater loue toward Christ which he required to be shewed in feeding his sheepe yet this proueth not that greater authoritie was giuen him or that he did feede more then all men For S. Paule sayth truly of him selfe I haue labored more then they all 1. Cor. 15. 10. wherby it appeareth that Peter as a man was not equall with Christ in the effect of excellent loue which was in him in comparable And whereas M. Sander talketh so much of his commission of feeding I say these words feede my sheepe c. be not wordes of a newe commission but words of exhortation that he shew exceeding diligence in the commission equally deliuered to all the Apostles As my father hath sent me so I send you Ioan. 20 21. But the auncient fathers expound it so that it might seeme to be a singular commission to Peter It can not be denyed but diuers of the auncient fathers otherwise godly and learned were deceyued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue which appeareth not in the Scriptures but was chalenged by the Bishops of Rome which seemed to haue a shew of some benefit of vnitye to the Church so long as the Empire coÌ„tinued at Rome the Bishops of that â—â—ie retayned the substance of Catholike religion yet did they neuer imagine that such blasphemous tyrannicall authoritie yea such false hereticall doctrine as afterward was mayntayned vnder the preteÌ„ce of that prerogatiue shoulde or ought to haue bene defended thereby But let vs see what M. Sander can saye out of the aunâ—ient writers August in Hom. de past cap. 13. writeth Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe There were many Apostles and it is sayde to one feede my sheepe God forbid there should now lacke good pastors but all good pastors are in one they are one This maketh nothing for Peters authority ouer the rest but only the author supposeth the vnitie of all Pastors to be allegorically signified in that Christ speaketh that to one which is common to all good sheepeheardes namely to feede his sheepe And againe de sanct hom 24 In vno Petro c. The vnitie of all pastors was figured in one Peter So might it wel be without giuing Peter authoritie ouer all Pastors Chrysostom is the next lib. 2. de sacerdotio who sayth that Christ did aske whether Peter loued him not to teache vs y t Peter loued him but to enforme vs quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura howe great care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock Here he would haue vs marke that Chrysostom calleth it a rule gouernment of the flock which Christ intendeth Yea sir we see it very wel but you would make vs blind if we could not see that Chrysostom speaketh not of a general rule graunted to Peter only but of the gouernment of euery Churche by euery Pastor And therefore you daunce naked in a net when you alledge the words following absolutely as though they pertayned to Peter
onely Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to euery Priest shewing how careful he ought to be in his office in respect of his high calling the excellent dignitie thereof sayth Etiam ne nune nobisium contendes fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse quiper eam vniuersis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus quuÌ„praesertim ea agas quecuÌ„ Petrus ageret illuÌ„ Christus auctoritate predituÌ„ esse voluit ac reliquos item Apostolos longeÌ„ praecellere Wilt thou then stil contend with vs that this fraude hath not happened well luckely to thee which by it art to be made ouerseer of all the goods of God almightye especially when thou doest those thinges which when Peter did Christ would haue him to be endued with authoritie also farre to excel the other Apostles Here M. Sander wil haue vs note 3. things 1 Peters authoritie 2. passing the Apostles 3. farre passing We marke them all that they are directly ouerthrowing M. Sanders rocke of the popish Churche For they declare that Peter in doing those things was endued with authoritie farre passed the other Apostles euen as euery Priest to whoÌ„ Chrysostom speaketh when he doth the same thinges is endued with the same authoritie farre passeth all other men So that here is none other authority nor excelleÌ„ce of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in executing their charge and was common to all the Apostles when they did the same things that Peter did For Chrysostom proueth to Basil that he did him no hurt when by pollicie he caused him to be called to the ministery against his will seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithfull wise seruaunt and equall in authoritie with Peter if of loue towardes Christ he would diligently feede his flocke So that Leo had no iust cause to saye that in respect of any greater authoritie Peter had a speciall care of feeding the sheepe committed to him but rather in respect that he had greater cause to loue Christ which had so mercifully forgiuen him so shamefull a fall But Arnobius is a lesse partiall witnes then Leo a Bishop of Rome he vpon the Psal. 138. writeth thus Nullus Apostolorum nomen c. None of the Apostles receiued the name of a Pastor For our Lord Iesus Christ alone saide I am the good pastor againe my sheepe follow me Therefore this holy name the power of this name after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting And he that was thryse denyed gaue to his denyer that power which he had alone Arnobius saith he noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a pastor giuen to him by Christ beside S. Peter alone But I demaund of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word euer For he sayth y t Peter had this name after y e resurrection w c none of y e Apostles had before He writeth against the Nouatians w c denied helpe to such as repented after baptisme prouing by exaÌ„ple of Peter that they are to be receyued seeing Christ gaue him greater dignitie after his repentance then he had before his fal But that Peter had greater authoritie theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles he neuer thought or sayde M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tayle In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appeare for thus he writeth Dicis certâ— baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur qui est Episcoporum Episcopus maiâ—r gradus additur ploranti quam sublatus est deneganti Quod vt doceam illud est endo quod nullus ApostoloruÌ„ nomen Pasioris accepit c. In deede thou sayst that such as repent being baptised ought not to be helped Beholde the Apostle repenting is helped which is a Bishop of Bishops and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying Which that I may teach this I shew that none of the Apostles receyued the name of a sheepeheard c. Againe in the ende following the wordes before cited by M. Sander he sayth vt non sâ—lum recuperasse quod amiserat probaretur verum etiam multo amplius poenitendo quam negandâ— perdiderat acquisisse He gaue his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had That he might be proued not onely to haue recouered that which he lost but also to haue gotten much more by repenting then he lost by denying This speaketh Arnobius of the general authoritie which Peter had ouer all the Church as euery Apostle had likewise was a Bishop and ouerseer of Bishops as well as Peter and a Pastor of the vniuersal Church which thing Arnobius neuer did deny These therfore be M. Sanders arguments none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christes resurrection ergo they neuer had it Peter was called to greater dignitie after his fall then he had before ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles Again Peter was a Bishop or an ouerseer of Bishops ergo he was Bishop ouer the Apostles Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first ayd that Peter was euery where ether alone or first And theÌ„ vpon these words Peter doost thou loue me sayth Dominus interrogat c. Our Lord asked net to learne but to teach whoÌ„ he beeing to be lâ—fted vpp into heauen did leaue to vs as the Vicare of his loue For so thou hast â—â— Simon thou sonne of Iohn doest thou lâ—ue me Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee Iesus sayth to him feede my lambes Peter being priuy of a good conscience doth testifie his owne affection not taken for the time but already well knowen to God For who else were able to professe this thing of him selfe Aâ—d because he alone amongst all professeth he is preferred before all M. Sander omitteth the conclusion Maior enim omnibus charitas For the greatest of all is Chariâ—ie So Peter is heereby declared to haue the greateste loue but not to haue the greatest authoritie M. Sander vrgeth that he is the Vicar of Christes loue and pastorall office The one indeede Ambrose sayth the other Sander sayeth but is not able to proue no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose that Peter had committed to him to feede not onely the Lambes with milke as at the first nor yet the little sheepe as at the seconde time but the sheepe to the end that he beeing more perfect might gouerne the more perfecte For euery one of the Apostles hadde the same charge to feede the sheepe of Christe and not the Lambes or little sheepe onely Neither doth the woorde of gouernment helpe him For euery Apostle had the like gouernment ouer the whole flock w c Peter hath and there is an ordinary gouernment in euery particular church 1. Co. 12. w c
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
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
all Churches when the history is plaine he did M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledgged before which acknowledged a certaine primacie of the see of Rome And certaine it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas tyme affected a great primacie which of many was acknowledged but yet neuer absolutely neuer without coÌ„trouersie vntil Phocas for a great summe of money receyued of Boniface the thirde strake the stroke and made the decree for which in all popish writers he is highly praised although in the Greeke church his decree was not long obserued Touching the examples of Emperours and Princes of later times although I could shewe they haue often resisted the Pope yet I know many may be alledged that haue submitted them selues to his Antichristian tyranny which I will not staÌ„d to examine because they can be no preiudice to the truth approued by examples of the eldest age As for the history of Lucius king of Britayne that sent to Eleutherius for preachers if it were true it maketh nothinge for the supremacy of the romish Bishop I will therefore conclude this chapter with a saying of Socrates in proe lib. 5. to shew what authoritie he iudged them perours to haue in Ecclesiasticall matters Etipsos quidem Imperatores hac historia continua complectimur prâ—pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt res Ecclesiasticae pendent maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia congregatae sunt congregantur And in this continuall history we comprehend the Emperours them selues because that vpon them since they began to be Christians the matters of the Church depend and the greatest synods haue bene gathered are gathered by their authoritie The punishment he threatâ—eth to them that forsake the Church of Rome shal one day fall vpon them that take part with â— Church of Rome as in part it doth already The 17. chapter THeir doctâ—ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be Aâ—â—ichrist him selfe is confuted by the auctoritie of Gods worde and by the consent of auncient fathers VVhy Antichrist is permitted to come AFter he hath shewed his opinion what maner a one Antechrist shalbe alleaged â—â—â—â— cause of his coÌ„ming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men haue not receaued the loue of the truth that they might be saued God shal sende theÌ„ the working of error y t they may beleue lying c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants for that they can find no place to setle Antichrist in but in the see of Rome so beautified dignified by Christ and all the primitiue Church But seeing Antichrist is appoynted to sit in the temple of God which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer it is no meruayle if Satan haue thrust him into that see which of olde tyme was accompted the toppe and castell of all religion But let vs see his reasons taken out of Gods word by which it is proued that the Pope can not be Antichrist him selfe The first is because in S. Paule he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man of sinne which signifieth one singular man and not a number of men in succession and this is affirmed to be the Greeke article in this worde man by Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how frendly Cyrillus was deceaued you shall see by some examples euen out of the new Testament In S. Mathew cap. 12. 35. you haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart and an euill man out of the euil treasure of his heart bringeth c. where no one singular man is ment In S. Mark cap. 2. verse 27. The Sabboth was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man not man for the Sabboth In S. Luke cap. 4. verse 4. Not with breade onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man shall liue but by euery woorde of God S. Paule 2. Tim. 3. ver 17. That the man of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be perfect and prepared to euery good woorke These places and an hundreth more which might bee brought doe proue howe vaine the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke article Nether is Hierom or any of the auncient writers to be heard without authoritie of the Scripture which supposed that Antichrist should be one man Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man as Christ was Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. sayth we must not thinke that Antichrist should be a Deuill but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell This proueth not that he should be a singular man no more then the fourth beast which signifieth the RomaÌ„e Empire out of which he should rise should be one singular Emperour No more doth it proue that because Antiochus was a figure of him he must be but one man And as litle that Ambrose in 2. The. 2 sayth Satan shall appeare in homine in a man which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince and last Antichrist meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last may agree to a whole succession of men in one state as well as the wordes king and beaste to a whole succession of Emperours in Daniel To conclude there is not one whome he nameth that denyeth Antichrist to be a whole succession of meÌ„ in one state of deuilish gouernment And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Romane kingdom lib. 5. The second argument is that Antichrist is called the aduersary therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ denying Iesus Christ to be God and man or to be our Mediatour I aunswer the Pope doth so denying the office of Christ although with the deuills he confesse in wordes Iesus to be the holy one of God and to be Christ the sonne of God Marke 1. 24. Luke 4. 41. his diuinitie the Pope denieth by denying his onely power in sauing his wisedom in his word to be onely sufficient his goodnes in the vertue of his death to take away both payne and guylt of sinne which he arrogateth to him selfe by his blasphemous pardons Christes humanitie he denyeth by his transsubstantiation his mediation in which he is principally Christ he denyeth by so many meanes of saluation as he maketh beside Christ videlicet mans merits ceremonies inuented by man pardons a newe sacrifice of the Masse c. The third argumeÌ„t is that Antichrist shall not come before the Romane Empire be cleane taken away For that which Saint Paule sayth ye knowe what withholdeth c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Romane Empire yet following the olde writers that so vnderstood it I say the Romane Empire was remoued before Antichrist the Pope was throughly enstalled For beside that the see of the Empire was remoued from Rome the gouernment it selfe was in a manner cleane remoued the title of the Romane Emperour onely remayning at last an
Homousians Athanasians c. but the doctrine of the Cathotholike Christians agâ—eeing with the woordes of God proued them to be no sâ—ctaryes nor Hetetikes so doth our doctrine iustifie vs what names soeuer be deuised against vs. But Maâ—ster Sander woulde haue vs to shewe a man whose pâ—oper name was Papa or Romanus as though many Heretikes were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came and not of proper names of men Angelici Apostolici Barbarita Cathari Collyridiani Enâ—ratitae Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresie Cataphryges Pepuziani and such like were called of the place where they were Wherefore the name of Papistes and Romanistes agreeth â—ith the example of olde heretikes As for the longe tarying large spreadinge and straunge commng in of the Popishe heresie is therefore without example in all poyntes lyke because Antâ—christ is not a common pettit heretike but the greatest and most daungerous enemy that euer the Gospel had The names of Benedictines Fraunciscanes c. Maister Sander woulde excuse because these sectes maintaine no doctrin dissenting froÌ„ the Pope but all seeke the perfectiou of the Gospell by diuerse wayes as though there were any other way but Iesus Christ. Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Peter of Paule of Apollo when the Doctrine was all one and counteth them schismatikes that so did And the purer Pâ—imatiue church condemned such apish immitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and possessing nothing in abstayning from Marriage c. for Heretikes and called them Apostolicos witnesse Epiphan Cont. Aposto haer 61. The thirde Marke of an Antichristian is dissagreement among Heretikes and heere not content to charge vs with the dissagreeing of Anabaptistes from vs he amplysieth the dissention betweene Luther and Zwinglius about the presence of Christes body in the sacrament for which contradiction he thinketh it muste needes followe that one of them is an Antichriste I aunswere euery errour stifely mayntayned maketh not an Heretike except it be in an article of fayth necessary to saluation Cyprian againste the Byshopps of Rome Stephanus and Cornelius helde an errour in Baptisme as greate as that same of Luther dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lorde yet is not Cypryan accoumpted for an Heretike Maister Sander replyeth and sayeth that Cyprian was not so stubborne that he woulde excommunicate them that held the contrary Luther also and Zwinglius althoughe they coulde not bee reconcyled in opinions yet agreed to abstaine from contention at Marpurge Anno domini 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Maister Sander sayth further that in the contention of Cyprian and Stephanus the Catholike Faythe was not fully and vniuersally receiued in any generall Councell But hee forgeteth that the Byshoppe of Rome was one partie whose iudgement should haue ended the striefe if his authoritie had beene such then as he vsurped moste ambiciously afterward Nowe where as he defendeth the Papists for their vnitie which he sayeth could not bee with out the spirite of God I aunsweare he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes where is greater vnitie then euer there was amonge the Papistes who to omit an hundreth small contentions of the schoolemen are not yet agreed of the greatest question of all whether the Pope be aboue the councell or the councell aboue the Pope For seeing some of the Papistes make the Popes determination to be the rule of truth other make the councell there is no vnitie among the Papistes in truth when they are not agreed what is the onely rule of trueth whereas we all agree that the word of God is the only rule of truth wherby we would haue all doctrine tried and examined The fourth marke of an Antichrist is to reigne but a short tyme and here he woulde haue vs to marke howe Luthers kingdome is come to an ende whose doctrine Melancthon hath chaunged although Illyricus woulde defend it What depe roote y e doctrine of God deliuered by Luther hath taken it is so well knowne that it can not be dissembled Neither hath Melancthon departed from him except it were in his opinion of the reall presence Wherefore this is a great impudency to triuÌ„phe ouer the decay of Luthets doctrine which dayly encreaseth to the ouerthrow of the Popish kingdom The fall of Hosiander an heretike no man either marueleth or pitieth The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Caluine teacheth as euery wise man doth know and their learned workes shall liue and be in honor when the Popes decretalls and his Masse bookes c. shall stoppe mustard pottes and be put to viler vses Neither is Caluines doctrine failed by our othe of supremacie for Caluine in the right sence of it taught the same supremacie of Christian Princes which we sweare to acknowledge in our soueraigne Neither doth Beza teache any otherwise of the descending of Christ into hell then Caluine did nor otherwise expounded the place of the Psalme cited in Actes the 2. then Caluine doth as all men that wil read them both may see notwithstanding the shamelesse cauill of M. Sander The long continuaunce of the Popish kingdome is a small cause to bragge of when it being sound enemie to the kingdome of Christ is nowe entered so farre into destruction out of which it shall neuer escape although Maister Sander sayth it doth florish when it is banished out of so many regions and dayly decreaseth in euerie place Gods holy name be praised therefore The fift marke of Antichrist he sayeth is to preach without commission as Luther did who was sent of none I aunswere in the state of the church so miserablie deceaued as it was in his time God sendeth extraordinarily immediatly from him selfe as Helias Helizaeus the Prophetes were sent to the Iewes Israelites which were not of the Priests ordinary teachers so Christ sent his Apostles and Euangelists And so was Luther and such as he sent to repaire the ruines of the churche And yet the Papistes haue small aduauntage against the calling of Luther seeing he was a Doctor authorised to preache in that church where he first beganne which after he had reformed the abuses therof and restored true doctrine in many poyntes banished by the false doctrine of Antichrist The same reformed church hath euer since sent forth ordinarie pastors and teachers and shall doe to the end of the world The sixt marke of an Antichrist is that heretikes preferre the temporall sword before the spirituall And therefore Antichrist shall by force of armes compell men to a new faith for he shall come as S. Paule sayeth in virtute that is to say in power or strength O impudent falsifier of the holy Scripture doth not Sainct Paule say that his comming shalbe according to the efficacy of Satan in all power signes and lying wonders in al deceitfulnes of vnrighteousnes 2. Thes. 2. by which is shewed seduction by false
doctrine but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. 17. c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham that the ciuil Magistrate may visit correct reforme and depose any Bishop in their owne realme Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche then the power of a Bishop And what inconuenience is this in thinges perteining to his office seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching ministring c. is confessed to be aboue the King Hereby we make the body aboue the soule saith M. Sander the tēporal reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen Not a whit no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome Onely this we say that M. Sander dissembleth The cause must be iust for which ◠King shoulde depose a Bishop or pastor for thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop the poorest Priest from his benefice This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vpon iust cause Now if the cause be iust it must be either manifest or doubtfull If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther treason adulterie c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe as in all other mens causes may proceede against a Bishop If the cause be doubtfull it is either for life or doctrine The triall of the Bishops life ought to be as all other mens are with due cōsideration of his accusers The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling if he be culpable and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place from his life also if his offence deserue it But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y e Bishops pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde haue them ruled none of vs did euer affirme for that were tyranny not Christian gouernment And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperour doth Athanasius complaine In Episi ad sol vit agent and shew the iudgement aunsweres of the Christian Bishops Paulinus Lucifer Eusebius Dionysius Liberius Hosius vnto him when he would haue enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius for defending the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ. But yet the same Athanasius appealed him selfe to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses as any mortall mā may be deceiued as Dauid was about Mephibosheth gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before threatned to depose him if he were disobediēt he neuer repined but acknowledged his auctority Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat If I shall know sayth the Emperour that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement remoue thy place Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes according to the truth M. Sander fearing we would obiect against him that Constantinus Martianus other godly Emperors vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops replieth that it was only to kepe peace wheras they did not only kepe peace but also prescribe commaūd the Bishops to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell Euangelici enim c. The bookes of the Gospells of the Apostles the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs in the vnderstanding of God Therfore setting all hateful discord aside let vs take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite the explication of the questions They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie like as they called the councells together to make their decrees But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeares of discretion will be able to consider what maner a Bishop he is who layeth the Priestly right vnder the lay mens feete By which saith M. Sander you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellowes be w c geue the most proude intollerable title of supreame head gouernor to lay Princes I answere in geuing this title they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie cōfesse with Augustine that there is no greater then a Priest in his office although Moses after the distinction was no Priest but a ciuil Magistrate in his calling aboue Aaron that was high Priest And although M. Sander say this is the diuinity of England only to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor he sayeth most vntruly for all learned men of all countries doe acknowledge the same in such sorte as we do in England and not as he in Flanders either dreameth or slaundereth vs to do For we confesse with Valentinian the good Emperour that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis c. They which studie by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells knowe to submit them selues to publike offices according to the lawes they speake not against the Emperors power but they keepe the commaundementes of a sincere and great Emperour and the commaundementes of God and are subiect to our lawes but you are found disobedient Finally we neuer ment to geue the Prince by flatteriē auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bishops alone neither would we haue a confusion of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius doth any thing at all touch vs who limit the supremacie of Princes within the compase of Gods worde and Christian religion against which neither Prince nor Priest hath any auctoritie to commaund The seuenth marke of Antichrist is the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse Nay rather it is a setting vp of a new altare sacrifice propitiatorie against the only