coÌ„mission of God to doe all thesâ— things The Suprem gouernour may practise any thing properly belonging to his gouernmeÌ„t It is not possible for a man 〈◊〉 haue the supreame gouernment in 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical causes by lawful power aâ—â— right but that he should thereby haâ—â— also power and right to execute any 〈◊〉 those things which belong to such Ecclesiastical causes as are vnder his gâ—uernment Marck the point I say not he is bound to executâ— euery such matter as falleth vnder hâ—â— gouernment or that it is decent for hiâ— to doe it but that he may doe it anâ— hath right and power to doe it if he bâ— rightly the supream gouernour in thâ— behalf An exaÌ„ple in ciuil Matters For example the King who 〈◊〉 supream gouernour in the ciuil and teÌ„poral causes hath vnder him Iudges shriues maiors Capitains and constables If his maiesty will plaie the iudgâ— in Westminster hal or the shriue in any sessions or the Capitain in warre he surelie may doe it concerning the right â—f his Kingdome Yea he lacketh no â—ight nor lawfull power to play the Solâ—iour the Tailour the Mason Carâ—enter or Tanner albeit he perhappes doe lacke the cunning or experience â—o exercise or practise those Artes so as they ought to be practised Likewise an Archbisshoppe or Priuate who hath Bisshoppes An exaÌ„ple in Ecclesiastical matters Archedeacons Officials Priests and Clerks vnder him may by right of his Suâ—eriorie baptize anie childe blesse or geue benediction burie the dead approue their last wils by his own fact helpe a Priest to Masse cary the crosse in procession digge the graue and to be shorte he maie doe anie thing which anie man may doe who is vnder his iurisdiction If then the king haue the right and power of Supreme gouernement in al Ecclesiastical causes The applying of the rule to our purpose seing it belongeth to the right and power of Ecclesiastical causes that a man may preache baptize blesse or geue benedictioÌ„ to the people and administer the sacrament of Christes body and blood and binde or loose synnes it must needes be that the King euen by that his supreamicy should also haue power and right to preache to baptise to geue benediction to administer the sacrament of Christes supper and to binde or loose synnes A farther declaration I say not that he by his supremacie hath cunning either to preache or to baptize or to geue benediction or to administer the sacrament of Christes supper or to play the tailer or the mason but that no law right and power doth or can forbid him to doe these things if in these things he be the supreme gouernour so that if he otherwise had cunning he might with praise no lesse preache and baptise and geue benediction or administer the sacrament of Christes supper then he might build a howse with his own haÌ„ds or cutte a garment yf he were cuÌ„ning â—herein But now if all the world confesse 2. Para. 20 non est tui officij ô Rex sed sacerdotuÌ„ domini â—hat à King by his kinglie office doth â—ot only lack knowlege but also hath no â—ight or power at al to preache to bapâ—â—ze to geue benediction or to conseâ—rate the sacrament of Christes supper 〈◊〉 a although otherwise he be most cunâ—ing and excellently lerned except â—e haue the office of a priest also geuen â—im and be lawfullie sent and authoriâ—d by the imposition of the hand of â—riesthood doutlesse it ought to be conâ—essed 1. Tim. 4. that a King by his kinglie office â—ath no right or supreme power at all in â—cclesiastical causes vnlesse it be comâ—itted to him from the bisshop And â—hat as wel because he of him self can â—ot practise those causes though he wold as euen our aduersaries coÌ„fesse â—s also because his power be it neuer 〈◊〉 roial reacheth not so high as the â—ower of spiritual gouernmeÌ„t appointed by Christ doth And surely no man by the commission which he onely hath to rest or to prison men maie also hang them or burn them For the lesser authority doth not coÌ„prehend the greater Say now M. Horn whether to celebrate our Lords supper and to preache Gods word and to absolue or bind sins it be a lesser or a greater ministery theÌ„ the Kings authoritie If it be lesser you haue reason on your side For then a greater power may comprehend it being the lesser But if it be incomparablie greater to minister vnto men the heauenly Sacraments then to minister iustice in temporal things if that be a higher power which toucheth the soule then that which only toucheth the body then by what meanes extend you the commission of a King which hath to do with lesse maters not only to the commission of a Priest In the booke agâ—inst M. Feenâ—Ì„ but also aboue it You bring many examples euil applied to make an apparance of somewhat But they al concerne matters of fact which are for many circumstances subiect to much wrangling But either it was no good Prince who medled of his own authority with disposing holy matters Or if he were otherwise good that deed was not good Or if he did it wel he did it by coÌ„mission from a Prophet or froÌ„ a high Priest Or he was deceiued by flatterers Or els being forced by necessity which is vnder no law he only sought the publike peace in that his deed and not to set himself ordinarily aboue the spiritual gouernmeÌ„t For howsoeuer the deeds of men be vncertaine deceitful aÌ„d vnknowen in al their particular circuÌ„stances the word of God can not fail which saith to Peter and to other Bishops after him Feed my sheep Ioan. 21. Here I aske whether the King or Emperour who is christened be Peters sheep or no If he be not he is not only not aboue the Church but he is not at all of the Churche If he be his sheepe then I say boldly that as it is against the law of nature which neuer can be wholie changed for a shepe to rule his shepheard in anie manner of such sort wherein he is the shepheard euen so it is vtterly impossible for anie King or Prince to be in anie respect of Ecclesiastical gouernment aboue his own pastour who soeuer he be for the time And yet farther to make this matter more plaine be it that a Christian King doth take vpoÌ„ him the supreame gouernment in Ecclesiastical matters What if a bishop being called before him Epist 32. sequeÌ„t say boldlie as S. Ambrose in a like case did may it please your maiestie to coÌ„maund my goods my laÌ„ds my body my life it shal be at your coÌ„mandemeÌ„t But as for the ordering and gouerning of my bishoprike I will not yeld it to you because Christ and not your maiestie committed the same to me what could that Christian King doe to that bishop more theÌ„ Nero or Traian might haue done Could he excommunicate him by his roial power M.
Apostoke Priesthood or Bisshoplie power is made greater by the chiefe Castell or Fortresse of Religion then by the Throne of Imperiall power In anuiuersa assumpt serm 2. Leo the Greate hauing saied that in Saint Peters Seat his own power liueth his authoritie excelleth in an other place sheweth himselfe to haue bene the successour of S. Peter and therefore to be the president of the Churche For thus he writeth to Iulianus the Bisshop epist 30. Memor sum me sub illius nomine Ecclesiae praesidere cuius à Domino Iesu Christo est glorificata confessio cuius fides omnes haereses destruit I am mindfull that I am Praesident of the Churche vnder his name Matth. 16 whose confession was made gloriouse of our Lorde Iesus Christe in epist 82. 87. and whose faith destroieth al heresies It were infinite to bring all that Leo saith in this behalfe Eulogius the Patriarche of Alexandria wrote to S. Gregorie after this sense Lib. 6. ep 37. as S. Gregory himself doth report it Suauissima mihi sanctitas vestra multa in epistolis suis de sancti Petri Apostolorum principis Cathedra locuta est dicens quòd ipse in ea nunc vsque in suis successoribus sedeat Your most swete Holinesse hath said manie things in his letters concerning the chair of S. Peter the prince of the Apostles saying that S. Peter himself sitteth it it euen til this present tyme in his successours And S. Gregory with great humility acknowlegeth it to be true affirming in an other place that Lib. 11. Ep. 54. the Apostolike See is head of all Churches For the honour of our country I wil not omit the testimony of S. Bede who in a sermon made vpon the Feast of a certain Abbate of England named Benedictus In Natali Benedicti inter homilias hyemales de Sanctis affirmeth him to haue gon to Rome vt ibi potius perfectā viuendi formam sumeret vbi per summos Christi Apostolos totius Ecclesiae caput eminet eximium That he might there rather take the perfit example of liuing where the excellēt head of the whole Churche doth appere aboue the reast through the highest Apostles of Christ Whereas much more may be alleaged yet these few testimonies may suffise to proue that the bishop of Rome is the Successour of S. Peter in his most principal and chiefe pastoral office And surely if we may be deceaued in any point of the faith which is so wel groūded in Gods word so vniformly cōfessed by the holy Fathers and so notoriously practised in the Catholike Churche as the Supremacy of S. Peter and of his successours in the See of Rome is I can not deuise when a man may be sure of any article of his faith But if there be a meane whereby a man may be sure of his belefe surely that meane whatsoeuer it be shall wel appeare to be found in the prouf of the supremacy of S. Peter and of his successours That the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke them selues to be the Suprem Heads of the Churh in Spiritual causes but gaue that honour to Bisshops and Priests and most speciallie to the See of Rome for S. Peters sake as wel before as after the time of Phocas The XVI chap. An D. 246 PHilippus who was the first Christian Emperour did so litle think him selfe to haue bene the Heade of the Bisshoppes in Spirituall causes throughout his Dominion that wheras on Easter daie he would haue bene at the Vigils and holy watches and would haue communicated of the holy Mysteries the Bisshope of the place would not lette him doe it Nisi consiteretur peccata sua except he hadde first confessed his sinnes and stood amōg them that did penance and so by penance had washed awaie the faults which were reported of him Ferunt igitur libenter eum saith Eusebius quod à sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse eccles histor lib. 6. c. 25. apud Ruffinum diuinum sibi inesse metum fidem religionis plenissimam rebus atque operibus comprobando They saie therefore that he toke gladly that whiche was inioyned to him of the Priest Imperatū making faith by the things and workes that the feare of God and most full persuasion of Religion was in him Is he chief in al causes who in some must obey the Priest the priest vvas aboue the Emperor in Ecclesiastical causes Or can he that is supreme gouernour in all things and causes Ecclesiastical haue an other aboue him in puttng him back from the mysteries and in enioyning him publik penaunce and in constreining him to confesse his sinnes Or is the comming to the Mysteries no cause Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Or is not the Bisshoppe or Priest who in this cause gouerneth the Emperour the Superiour and gouernour of the Emperour in the same cause Or is it not a kind of gouerning to command him to stand back to threaten him if he repine to punish him if he be stubborne Yea how to punish him to come to him in a rod as S. Paule speaketh that is to say 1. Cor. 4. in power and authoritie to beate or to correct And is not he a gouernour who may iustly beate the child If then in prescribing confessiō satisfaction and abstinence from communion the priest be the gouernour of the king I ask whether al other Ecclesiastical causes be greater or lesse then these are Note an infallible argument against your Antichristian supremacy The one parte of the Dilēma M. Nowel If other Ecclesiasticall causes be greater then these were surely the Emperour or king who is gouerned by a priest in the lesser Ecclesiasticall causes and therefore can not be supreme head in them is much more to be gouerned by a priest in the greater causes of the same kind And therefore he is much lesse supreme head in them For if when one thing standeth aboue an other I am to low to reache the lower much more I am to low to reache a higher then the other was But if other Ecclesiastical causes be lesser then the suspending from communion the other part or the inioyning of publike penance then the bishop or priest who is the gouernour of the Emperour or King in the greatest Ecclesiastical causes is much more his gouernour in the lesser Ecclesiasticall causes Because the lesser are of the same order kind and kinred whereof the greater are As therefore he that is supreme head in the greatest temporall causes as in iudging ouer life and death A similitude is much more supreme head in the lesser temporall causes as in iudging ouer lands or goods and as he that is not of sufficient authority to be supreme ruler in sitting iudge vppon mens lands or goods can much lesse sitte iudge ouer their liues by anie his former authoritie euen so neither the King who can gouern in the lesser causes
can by his Kingly power iudge in the greater nor the priest who is the Kings superiour in the lesser can possibly but much more be his superiour in the greater The remouing of the obiection Or haue we diuerse Kinds of Ecclesiastical and of spiritual causes Be there neuer so manie the Act of parliament geueth the highest and the supreme gouernment of them all In al causes vnto the King And yet the King lacketh not onelie practise experience or cunning but also he lacketh spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power to heare confessions to absolue men from their synnes to inioyne penance to consecrate the Sacrament of the altar to Ordre bishops and priestes by the Imposition of hādes or to excommunicate open synners Here Master Iewel wolde say that he neuer meant the prince should be supreme gouernour either in administring or in frequenting or in directing others to frequent the holy mysteries or in any like sacramental functions Why then doth he and his fellowes sweare men The othe of the supremacy generally to acknowledge the secular Christian prince Supreme gouernour in all things and causes Why doth he not rather declame and speake with all his force against that most impiouse and blasphemouse othe Yea so impiouse that those Protestants who most earnestly pressed the setting foorth therof dare not now iustifie the foorm of it Shall men in a Christian realme be sworen vpon the holy Euangelistes to keepe beleue or acknowledge that which noman at all no not they who procured it dare mainteine See good Countrie men see the discretiō of your parlaments in matters of Religion A men aliue abhorre from that act which the Laity made and enacted as a form so warely drawen wherevnto men might commit their euerlasting saluation or damnation Mark I say that M. Nowel M. Horn M. Iewel dare not warrant the King to be suprem gouernour in al Ecclesiastical causes But rather they confesse that a Bisshop or Priest may and ought to gouerne the King concerning his comming to the Mysteries and in such like matters This much being said cōcerning Philippus the first Christian Emperour who obeyed but gouerned not the Bisshop in Ecclesiastical matters let vs now goe forward An. Dom. 324. Constantinus the Great perceiuing the Bisshops which came to the Synod at Nice to haue many quarels and sutes among them selues appoynted a day wherein euery man should offer his complaint in writing and when he had takē al their libels without disclosing the contents of them Ruffinus lib. 10. Eccles histor cap. 2. he said vnto the bishops Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatē vobis dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi ideo nos a vobis rectè iudicamur vos autē nō potestis ab hominibus iudicari propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate iudicium God hath made you priests or Sacrificers and hath geuen you power to iudge of vs also And therefore we are rightly iudged of you But yee can not be iudged of men For which cause expect yee or tary for the iudgemēt of God alone among you This discourse of Constantine conteineth three thinges worthie to be noted First he saith the bishoppes are Sacerdotes Priestes or men that haue publik authority to make externall sacrifice vnto God for the whole Heb. 5. peples synnes Secondly he saieth that they haue power to iudge euen of the Emperour himself And this their power of iudging dependeth of their power of priesthod For the highest power may iudge the lower But no power can be higher then the power of a priest because he is the minister of God in that office which most directly toucheth Gods honour and seruice Malac. 1. Wherupon S. Augustin hauing said what was Moyses if he were not a priest In Psal 98 geueth this reason of his words Nūquid maior Sacerdote esse poterat Whether could he be greater then a priest as who should say seing Moyses was the greatest officer amōg the Israelits and yet he could not be greater then a priest it must nedes be that he was a priest The priestes then of God being the greatest officers in earth haue power to iudge euen of an Emperour if any be in their parishes or Dioceses Thirdly of these former points Cōstātine deduceth an other conclusion that priestes can not be iudged of mē How then can they be iudged of the Emperour Neither doth it skill that Constantine seemeth to haue iudged certaine priests or Ecclesiastical causes when the Donatists appealed vnto hī for he did it as S. Augustine saieth à sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus In epistol 162. as one that would afterward aske leaue or pardon of the holy bisshops Who asketh leaue or pardon for that which he may doe by his owne power He did it then through the importunat sute of heretickes for the peace of the Church otherwise detesting them that demaunded his iudgement after that the bishoppes had iudged Optat. li 2 August in epist 162. and finding great fault therewith himself as Optatus and S. Augustine also doe witnesse But take away importunity of heretikes and the commission leaue or pardon of the right bishoppes who may for diuerse respectes either committe certain Ecclesiasticall causes to lay mē or winck for a tyme at such iudgemēts take away I say heresie and permission and ordinarily it is against the law of God that any secular Prince who needeth the office of a priest for his reconciliation vnto God should sitte iudge vpon him in causes of the Churche 2. Cor. 5. at whose handes he must receaue the Sacramentes of the Churche and by whose ministery his soule must be purged Now if one priest doe iudge an other that is Gods iudgement Deut. 17. Num. 3 and not the iudgement of men For God hath sette one priest ouer an other as the high priestes was aboue the Leuites in Moyses lawe and as the Apostles wereof a higher degree then the seuenty Disciples or then the seuen Deacons These woordes then of Constantine vos non potestis ab hominibus iudicari Ruffin li. 1. cap. 2. yee ô priestes of God can not be iudged of men are thus meant the order of priesthood is such as is not subiect to anie secular or earthly iurisdiction And seing all the power of iudgement which euen Christian Emperours or Kinges haue by their own state is earthly and secular it wil follow that no King or Emperour can by his owne power iudge a priest in priestlie causes and in Ecclesiasticall matters That all the power of Emperours though they be Christians is secular Constantine himself pronounceth saying to the Donatists as Optatus recordeth Petitis á me in seculo iudicium De schism Donatist lib. 1. cùm ego ipse Christi iudiciū expectem Yee aske of me iudgement in the world whereas I my self looke for Christes iudgement There are then two iudgements one in the world an other
threatenings of the Emperour what neede is there of men who haue the title of bishoppes When hath it bene heard of since the beginning of the world Note when did the iudgement of the church take his autority frō the Emperor or whē at any time was this acknouleged for a iudgemēt There haue ben very many synods hertofore many iudgements of the Church haue ben kept But neither the Fathers went about to persuade these things to the prince nor the Prince did shew himselfe curiouse in the matters of the Churche Paule the Apostle hadde frinds in Cesars howse and did salute the Philippians in their name in his letters yet did he not take them as his fellowes in iudgement By this ye may perceaue that no Emperours at al were they neuer so good no County Palatines or secular Lords be they neuer so much faithful as Constās was ād those of th' Emperors house of whome S. Paule speaketh haue yet any right or power Philip. 4. to sitte presidents in Ecclesiastical matters otherwise then to kepe ciuil order and peace but onlie those to whom God hath committed the cure of sowles In so much that Athanasius douteth not by name to call Constantius the foreruner of Antichrist because he being a secular prīce intermedled with the spiritual gouernment of the Churche Quid igitur Constantius quod Antichristi non sit In epist vbi antè omisit aut quomodo ille in aduentu suo non repererit sibi expeditam viam ad dolos ab isto praeparatam Siquidem in locum ecclesiasticae cognitionis suum palatium tribunal earum caufarum constituit séque earum litium summum principem authorem facit What hath Constantius then omitted that doth not appertain to Antichrist Or how shal not Antichrist when he cometh finde a fitte way for him to all deceits prepared by this mā ▪ For in steede of the Ecclesiasticall iudgement The part of Antichrist he appointeth his palace to be the place of iudgement for their causes and maketh himselfe the chiefest prince and bearer out of those controuersies Ibidē vbi antè And againe Grauia sunt ista plusquam grauia sed tamen istiusmodi quae congruant in eum qui Antichristi imaginem induerit Quis enim videns eum in decernendo principem se facere Episcoporū praesidere iudicijs Ecclesiasticis non meritò dicat illū eam ipsam abominationem desolationis esse quae à Daniele praedicta est nam cùm circumamictus sit Christianismo caet These things are greuous and more then greuous but yet they are such as doe well agree to him who hath put on the the Image of Antichrist For who seing him in making a decree to take vpon him to be prince of the bishops and to be president in Ecclesiastical iudgemēts may not worthely say that he is the abomination of the desolation which was foretold by Daniel The property of antichrist For when he being clothed with Christianitie doth both enter into the holie places and also being there doth spoile Churches abrogate the Canons vsing force to make men obserue and keepe his commaundements who will at anie tyme dare say that this is a quiet tyme to the Christians and not rather a persecution and such a persecution as neither hath ben before nor perchance no man will at any tyme make again but that sonne of iniquity which is Antichrist Thus haue we the determinate sentence of Athanasius of Athanasius I say the most notable bishop that euer was for vertue and lerning since the Apostles time And his sentence is that the Christiā Emperor and the like is of any Christian Prince who taketh vpō him to be prince of the bishops in making a decree and to be president in Ecclesiasticall iudgements is a mēber of that abominable desolatiō wherof Daniel prophecied Can any plainer sentence be wished for to conclude my present purpose Neither was this doctrine only meant of an heretical Emperour for the Catholike Emperour Constans is praised for not medling with Church matters Philip. 4. Yea S. Paule is alleaged not to haue communicated the Church matters with those good Christians of Cesars howse I know with what wranglers I haue to doe They wil bring examples to shew that some Emperours haue sitten in general Coūcels as Constantine the great Martianus ād some others But I answere that they satte to kepe good order and to preserue peace and quietnes among the bishops speciallie because the Archeheretikes were commonly themselues great Prelates as being the patriarches of Antioche or of Alexandria or of Constantinople Who yf the Emperour were not present would vse force in the stede of holy scriptures as Dioscorus did In the schismatical Ephesine Coūcel and Eusebius of Nicomedia in the tyme of the Arrians For the preseruing thē of ciuil and ecclesiastical peace the Emperour was present ād not as supreme iudge in Ecclesiasticall causes S. Ambrose noteth and thincketh that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeres of discreatiō wil be hable to consider In epi. 32. VVhat maner of bishop M. Horn i◠qualis ille Episcopus sit qui Laicis ius Sacerdotale substernit what manner of bishop he is who layeth the priestly right vnder the laye mens seete And yet by geuing of the most proud and most intolerable title of supreame Head or gouernor in al ecclesiastical causes to lay princes al the religiō vsed now in England wholy standeth What bishoppes then are those of England who making the secular prince their head putte the priestly right vnder his feete S. Augustine being fully persuaded that nothing could be greater then a priest in the house of God therevpon concludeth that Moyses must nedes haue ben a priest for saieth he nunquid maior sacerdote esse poterat August in Psalm 98. Could he be greater then a priest Yea Marie saith M. Horn he might haue ben a King or a secular Prince But S. Augustine knew no such diuinity And yet the worlde toward the comming of Antichrist is growne so wise that these men haue found now that euery Emperor King Prince or Duke who hath any temporall state of his owne is greater euen in Ecclesiasticall causes then the lawfull successour of S. Peter This I say is the diuinity of England For therein our countrie maketh a peculiar Secte of his owne wherein they disagree euen from their fellow Caluinistes But lette them loke to it as well as they will they shal finde it a badge of Antichrist as Athanasius hath plainlie affirmed And when the daie of triall commeth it shall euidentlie appeere that those are most faithfull subiects to the prince who geue him his due place of honour in Gods Churche without derogation to that heauēly power of bishops which Christ himself came down from hauen to plant and whom he hath set euen ouer the Kings themselues Ioan. 21. as being the sheepe of their foldes Theod. lib.
In deserto In penetralibus And then for the space of certain huÌ„dred yers together yee can not name what preachers or pastours your Churche had But thê° to flee into priui places aÌ„d to lack opeÌ„ preachers Math. 24 is directly against the word of God Prouer. 8. and expressely against the coÌ„maÌ„meÌ„t of our Sauiour Isai 62. whose wisdoÌ„ crieth in the tops of the waies and in the gates of the cities whose whatchmeÌ„â—ease not to speak both day and â—ight vpoÌ„ the wals of IerusaleÌ„ in whose house the caÌ„dle staÌ„deth vpoÌ„ the candlestick to geue light to al meÌ„ Math. 5. whose faith must be coÌ„fessed with the mouth Rom 10. 1. Philip. 2. Psal 44. whose gospel must not be blushed at whose seruants shine like stars whose spouse being most beawtiful through internal faith aÌ„d charity Circumamicta varietatibus is yet garnished about with variety of diuers tuÌ„gs which are daily heard to preache aÌ„d ceremonies which are daily sene in Gods seruice amoÌ„g the Catholiks Memor ero nominis Populi coÌ„fitebuntur in aeternuÌ„ Which spouse also hath promised to be mindful of the name of Christ from generatioÌ„ to generation in so much that many peple shall confesse and geue praise to God for euer age after age If such a gloriouse a manifest and a beautifull Churche must be beleued then must Wiclef Hus and their fellowes be avoided and our knowen manifest and in all generations most gloriouse Churche must be imbrace which neuer lacked a chiefe bishop iâ— S. Peters chaire with a number of bishops and faithful nations obeying hâ— doctrin and gouerment The truth 〈◊〉 which Catholik Church and chair thâ— I might the more effectally persuade The cause of this treatise 〈◊〉 haue taken in hand to proue the Sâ—premacy of the bishop of Rome according to the reason and meaning oâ— Gods word The which point alone if iâ— be graunted al other controuersies arâ— superfluous For all is concluded vnder one if one be appointed the chiefe shepheard by God ouer al sithens euery maÌ„ must heare aÌ„d obey the shepheards voice Ioan. 10. I request most humbly of your pacieÌ„ce to reade or to heare the whole treatise readen which is not long and not to condemne the matter before it be wel vnderstanded If my discourse be doutfull I am ready to make it plaine If it seme to faile in proof a charitable â—â—swere made vnto it shal shew by the â—ply how strong the Arguments geâ—erally be concerning the chief points Thus taking my leaue I wish as wel 〈◊〉 your worship as I do to my self beseâ—hing you not to miscontrue my doings â—ut to take them so charitably as they â—re meant For God is my witnesse the â—hing I seeke is as well the reducing of â—hem to their Mother Church who are â—on a stray as the staying of them who â—hrough mans frailty beginne to dout of their faith Which effects God grauÌ„t through Iesus Christ our Lord to his own glory Amen The Chapiters of the Treatise following 1 The state of the question fol. 1. 2 That there is a primacy of spiritual gouernment in the Church and how it differreth from secular gouerment 16. 3 Of the diuerse senses of these wordes vpon this rock I wil build my Church aÌ„d which is most literal 93. 4 These words thou art Peter and vpoÌ„ this rock I wil build my Church haue this literal meaning vppon the ô Peter being made a rock to th end thou shouldest stoutly confesse the faith I will build my Church 108. 5 The Fathers teache that S. Peter is this rock 136. 6 The reasons which the Fathers bring to declare why S. Peter was this rock 155 7 The authorities alleaged by M. Iewel to proue that S. Peter was not this rock proue against himself 171. 8 The conclusioÌ„ of the former discourse and the order of the other which followeth 189. 9 That S. Peter passeth far the other Apostles in some kinde of Ecclesiasticall dignity 194. 10 That the Apostles besyde the perogatiue of their Apostleship had also authority to be particular bishops 204. â—â— How far S. Peter did either excel or â—s equal with the Apostles in their Aâ—stolike office 2â—0 â—â— That S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the â—her Apostles is most manifestly sene by â—s chief bishoply power 232. â—â— That the Pastoral authority of S. Peâ—r was ordinary 267. â—â— That his ordinary authority belonâ—th to one bishop alone 279 â—â— That the bishop of Rome is that one â—dinary pastour who succedeth in S. â—eâ—rs chaire 305. â—â— That the good Emperours and prinâ—s did neuer think themselues supream â—eads of the Churche in spiritual causes 378. â—â— That the bishop of Rome is not Anâ—christ himself 421. â—8 That the bishop of Rome is not any â—ember of Antichrist concerning his â—octrine 464. THE STATE OF THE QVESTION CONCERning the Supremacie of S. Peter and of the Bishops of Rome after him The First Chapiter IN writing to and fro concerning the Supremacie of S. Peter and of the Bishops of Rome after him great controuersies are fallen out the which to th' end they may be the better opened I thought good to propose in order the chief points of the said question The Catholiques beleue that the Bishop of Rome sitting in S. Peters Chaier is by the appointment of Christ himself the chief Pastour of the whole militant Church whose voice euery sheepe ought to hearken vnto The Protestants on the other side denie not only the Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome nor onlie the Supremacie of S. Peter but also they affirme that there is no Primacie nor any one chief gouernment in the Church at al. Therefore the first Question must be whether it be against â—he Word of God or no that there shoulde be in his Church any Primacie or chief Authoritie The second is whether S. Peter had the said Primacie or no. The third whether the Bishop of Rome had it after S. Peter Concerning S. Peter we fal againe into diuers new questioÌ„s as it shal now appeare When Simon the sonne of Iona was first brought vnto Christ by his brother Andrew Iesus loking vpon him said Thou art Simon the sonne of Iona Ioan. 1. thou shalt be called Cephas the vvhich by interpretation is Peter that is to say a stone or a rocke Here is the promise made that Simon shal be called Peter which name is deriued of a rocke or stone Verelie because he shal occupie that place in vpholding the frame of Christes militant Church the which a stone occupieth in holding vp the house which is built vpon it And when it pleased Christ to chose vnto him his twelue Apostles then he gaue the said name vnto SimoÌ„ surnaming him Peter Thirdly Mar. 3. Luc. 6. when Simon hauing the Godhead of Christ reuealed to him from heaueÌ„ had confessed the same saying Math. 16. Thou art Christ the son of the liuing God then Iesus answering said vnto
Christes sheep he must first loue Christ the prince of Pastours more thē these as Peter now doth And by these I shewed before alth ' Apostles and disciples to be meant Therefore they are al excluded from this authoritie wherof Christ speaketh presentlie And yet seing the sheepe of the whole worlde are in other places committed to all Io◠7.20 the Apostles the which power concerning al other beside the Apostles them selues is so great that this cā be no greater if these things be wel conferred and weighed together Note we are forced to confesse that this commission whiche geueth more authoritie ouer the sheepe to one then to the reast is not proprely anie Apostolike power for then al the Apostles should haue it aequally but it is an other kind of power which being perhaps not much inferiour to the Apostolike authoritie must stil so remaine in one aboue others so long as the shepe of Christ doe remain as it is now geuen to one more then to other because he loueth more then the other This kind of power is now called the power of one chiefe Bisshop or pastour wherevpon S. Augustine saith cōcerning this very text of scripture and this one pastour S. Peter Dominus in ipso Petro vnitatem commendauit Multi erant Apostoli In hom de pastor c. 13. vni dicitur pasce oues meas Absit vt desint modò boni pastores sed omnes boni pastores in vno sunt vnum sunt Our Lord hath cōmended vnity in Peter himself There were many Apostles and it is said to one feed my shepe God forbid there shoulde lacke now good Pastours but al they are in one they are one S. Augustine manifestly declareth hereby that Saint Peter alone was spoken vnto among other causes for this also to signifie in him selfe being one Pastour the vnitie which al Pastours haue in Christ De sanctis serm 24 the Prince of Pastours In vno Petro figurabatur vnitas omniū Pastorū The vnity of al pastours was signified in Peter alone or in Peter being one Pastour But whereas the vnitie of all good Pastours in Ghrist alone is not literallie expressed in this place of the holy scripture but is onely builded mysticallie vpon the literal storie of Peter being made one shepheard that mystical and allegorical sense is void except this other literal sense be true 1. Cor. 10. Gal. 4. Heb. 9. For al maner allegories are grounded vpon some true and literal historie Therefore S. Peter is indeed made Pastour alone who may conteine al the Pastours of the earth in his vnitie to the ende he thereby may shew that al the good Pastours which haue ben be or shal be are one in Christ the prince of Pastours So that by S. Augustines discourse it is cleare two waies that Peter hath no fellow in this pastoral office whereof Christ now speaketh Both because he alone loueth more then other and he is one pastour in earth for the time to shew that Christ is one euerlasting pastour of his whole flock both in earth and in heauen From S. Augustine let vs passe ouer to S. Chrysostome who hauinge taught that Christe asketh whether Peter loueth him not to teache vs that S. Peter loued him but to informe vs Quantae sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura how greate care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock concludeth in this wise lib. 2. de Sacerdoti◠Petrū Christus authoritate praeditum esse voluit acreliquos item Apostolos lōgè praecellere Christe would haue Peter to be indowed with authoritie and also to passe a great waie the other Apostles Marke first that it is praefectura gregis the rule and gouernement of the flocke which Christ intendeth Secondlie that Christe would haue Peter to be indowed not onely with grace and vertue but with such authoritie as did apperteine to the feeding of Christes sheep Thirdly that he would him to passe the Apostles and wherein I pray you but in authoritie For he passed them in that thinge wherewith he was indowed But Christ indowed him with authority therefore Peter passed the other Apostles in authoritie Fourthly he passed them longè a great way He passed the Apostles in al other power after some certain sort Hovv S. Peter passed the Apostles either because he had that power first which was geuen them afterward or els because he had that power ordinarily which was extraordinarily geuen them or els because whereas they were heads of the shepe together with him thorough their Apostleshippe he was also their head as being the prince and chefe of the Apostles But aboue all other respects he passed them longè a great way in the power of feeding the shepe as the chiefe bisshop In epist ad Episc per Viennēsem prouinc constitut So that Leo had iust cause to saye Cûm Petro prae caeteris soluendi ligandi sit tradita potestas pascendarum tn̄ ouiū cura specialius mandata est Whereas the power of bindīg and loosing is deliuered to Peter aboue others yet the care of feeding the shepe is more specially committed Will you see how much more specially Arnobius noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a Pastour geuen to him by Christ beside S. Peter alone to whome it was said pasce oues meas feede mie sheepe That is to say be thou the pastour of my sheepe Arnobius in Psalm 138. Ioan. 10. Nullus Apostolorum nomen pastoris accepit Solus enim Dominus Iesus Christus dicebat Ego sum Pastor bonus iterum me inquit sequuntur oues meae Hoc ergo nomen sanctum ipsius nominis potestatem post resurrectionem suam Petro poenitenti concessit Ioan. 21. ter negatus negatori suo hāc quam solus habuit tribuit potestatem None of the Apostles hath receaued the name of a pastour Four our Lord Iesus Christ alone did saie I am a good pastour and againe he saith My shepe doe follow me But this holy name and the power thereof after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting and being thrise denied he did geue vnto him who denied him this power which he alone had Christ alone had the power to feede his owne flocke this power he gaue to Peter in such sort as none other Apostles had it For he gaue to Peter the name of a Pastour ipsius nominis potestatem and that power which the name did import But as Arnobius said before nullus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit None of the Apostles toke the name of a pastour therefore none of them toke the power of feeding after such sort as the name and power thereof was now geuē to Peter And seing euery Apostle had authority before to feede all nations through his Apostleship this feeding which is now geuen to Peter alone and must be meāt of some other power beside the Apostolike function is doutlesse meant of Peters bishoply
S. Paul or said to sit in his chair but onely in the Chaire of Peter as the whole practise of the Church and all the writings of the Fathers doe witnesse Whereby we are infourmed that Rome is the place chosen by Christ him selfe where S. Peters Chaire shoulde reast Ambros lib. 5. post ep 32. In Pontificali For S. Peter retourninge to Rome vppon the former vision didde before his death consecrate S. Clement Bisshoppe cui Cathedram saieth Damasus vel Ecclesiam omnem commisit dicens To whome he committed also his chaire or al the Churche sayinge Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est à Domino meo Iesu Christo potestas ligandi soluendique ita ego tibi committo c. As the power of gouerning of binding and loosing is committed to mée of my Lord Iesus Christ euen so I commit to thée also that thou maist ordein others by whom diuerse causes maie be disposed and such acts as be not meet for the Church may be repelled and thou must not be found geuen to the cares of this world but onely endeuour to geue most leisure to prayer and to preaching vnto the people Clemens in epist 1. The like report S. Clement himselfe maketh of this commission whiche S. Peter gaue to him whose Epistle Ruffinus turned into Latine aboue eleuen hundred yeres past Ruffinus in Praefatione Recognit and in the preface whiche he maketh to the Recognitions of S. Clement he so wel declareth that Epistle of S. Clement to haue bene of ful credit in his time and before that he answereth such obiections as might seme to make against that which is said in it Tertullian also coÌ„fesseth De praescript aduersus haeret that the Church of Rome doth shew euidence that S. Clement was ordeined of Peter And S. Hierom namely saith In Catalogo Plerique LatinoruÌ„ secunduÌ„ post PetruÌ„ ApostoluÌ„ putant fuisse ClemeÌ„tem The most part of the Latins think Clement to haue ben second or next after Peter the Apostle And in an other place he saith Aduersus Iouin Clemens successor Apostoli Petri scribit epistolas Clemens the successour of Peter the Apostle writeth Epistles Leo the second Marianus Scotus and diuers other are of the same iudgement Now wheras Linus and Cletus by the life time of S. Peter as Damasus and Ruffinus do witnesse did administer many things belonging to the Bisshoprike as being in the exterior matters coadiutours of S. Peter the Grecians who were farther absent Vbi supra and were lesse expert in the Romaine affaires supposed Linus to haue bene chosen next after S. Peter Whereas Clement was onely chosen but Clement as other think yelded to Linus for a time as to his elder Howsoeuer that be whether Linus or Clement practised that high autoritie once S. Peters Chaire was setled at Rome not without the special prouidence of Christ In so much that Athanasius writeth that S. Peter and Paule audieruÌ„t In Apologia de fuga sua oportere se Romae Martyrium subire heard that they must suffer martyrdom at Rome And what so euer hearing he meaneth surely he meaneth it of a hearing which came from God either by their owne vision or by some prophetical reuelation such as both they did wel beleue and we also ought to credite But to come neare to our present purpose S. Irenaeus speaking of the successions of Bisshoppes in those Churches whiche the Apostles had first instituted calleth the Church of Rome Maximam antiquissimam Lib. 3. aduersus hereses c. 3. omnibus cognitam à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo fundatam constitutam The greatest Churche and most aunciente and knowen to all menne being planted and setteled by twoo moste gloriouse Apostles Peter and Paule Ibidem Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles To this Church for the mightier principalitie or authoritie of gouernement euery Churche that is to saie the faithful which are round about must needes come or agree Whereas then euerie Churche hath a certaine principalitie or authoritie of gouernemente committed to it by Christe throughe whiche principalitie it maie preache the faith Tit. 3. ouercom synnes and heresies and excommunicat open synners and hereticks The Church of Rome being founded and planted by the most gloriouse Apostles hath potentiorem principalitatem a mightier principalitie then any other Church For it is a wilfull ignorance whereas Ireneus speaketh only of the successours and traditions of faithfull Churches In his Reply 244. for M. Iewel to say as he hath don that the mightier principalty here mentioned is meant of the Ciuil DominioÌ„ and of the Roman Empire as though Ireneus had spoken any syllable in that place of the Roman Empire He spake of the Churches which the Apostles had founded and instituted The Churche of Rome is the greatest among which he calleth the Church of Rome maximaÌ„ the graetest Why so but because it was founded of the greatest Apostle aÌ„d how fouÌ„ded For if S. Peter had only made a bishop thereof as he did of diuerse other Churches surely therby it had not ben greater then the other But because he being the graetest of th' Apostles as a Hist lib. 2. cap. 14. Eusebiê° aÌ„d S. b In epist ad Galat. cap. 2. HieroÌ„ speake left in Rome a Successour in his own primacy that is to say a rock aÌ„d a chief shepherd as great as hiÌ„self had beÌ„ therfore it was the greatest Church in the worlde And thence cometh the priÌ„pality wherof this auÌ„cieÌ„t father speaketh Rome is the most auncient Churche S. Ireneus calleth the same Churche of Rome aÌ„tiquissimaÌ„ the most auÌ„cient Church how so was not IerusaleÌ„ and Antioche before it Yeas verily in time of hauiÌ„g a bishop aÌ„d of ê“fessing the faith but not in the ê‘petual honor aÌ„d resideÌ„ce of the chief bishop For Peter was the first aÌ„d chief bishop of the new testameÌ„t In him was the roote the fountain the head of al bishoply power De simplicitate praelatorum aÌ„d froÌ„ hiÌ„ as S Cyprian witnesseth priestly vnity toke his beginning touching the ministery of the new testament and for that cause his successors being reckoned as in deede they are one with him concerning his office of feeding Christes sheepe cause the Church of Rome stil to be the most auncient and the mother Church of the Romaine circuit Metropolis ad Solitariam vitam agent as also Athanasius doth name it For this cause the mightier principalitie is in the Church of Rome And for as much as the same succession of Peter is now at Rome which was in the tyme of Ireneus the same Church is still the greatest and the most auncient Church wherunto all other faithful meÌ„ ought to resort by reson of the mightier principality or preemineÌ„ce therof S.
deliuered a certain religioÌ„ to the Romans as wel concerning the Trinitie as other things Secondly that the said religion coÌ„ming from S. Peter was kept stil in the Church of Rome Thirdly that it was kept speciallie by the perpetual succession of Bishops For which cause Damasus the Bisshop of Rome is named in the Law After Damasus a blessed Bisshop of Alexandria called Peter is also named not with the intent to shewe also that the Bisshops of Alexandria kept alwayes the true faith for at that momeÌ„t Lucius a raging wolf occupied the seat in Alexandria but because this Peter of Alexandria who is now named was in deede the true bishop of Alexandria albeit he was now kept out of his Church by violence Nicep lib. 11. cap. 26 Whereas then there were two bisshops of Alexandria one who agreed with the bishop of Rome an other who disagreed â–ª because the said Peter did agree with Damasus and fled out of prison to him he is named with Damasus and therby the other bishop is insinuated to be an vsurper So that the whole force of the Decree resteth vpon the tradition and succession of S. Peter at Rome and of those who agree with him If Peter of Alexandria had not followed that succession of S. Peter he had no more ben esteemed then Lucius Georgius Gregorius or Dioscorus An. Do. 4â—4 Tom. 1. CoÌ„cil distinct 97. who being bishops of Alexandria wree al heretiks Pope Bonifacius the first wrote to the Christian Emperour Honorius in this wise Mihi Deus noster meuÌ„ Sacerdotium vobis res humanas regentibus deputauit Our God hath appointed mie priesthood to me wheras you doe gouern woordlie matters And in the same epistle he requireth the Emperours help not I warrant you for the disposing of his own priesthod but for the conseruation of the peace of the Churche To whome the Emperour promiseth his help confessing that he receaued the writings of his blessednes with dew gratulation of reuerence Apostolatus tuus desiring his Apostoleshippe to pray for the safegard of his Empire Honorius faith then was that the Emperours were heads of the ciuill gouernment for the defense of Ecclesiastical peace and not supreme heads in all Ecclesiasticall things and causes to defend I say the lawes of the Churche made by bishops and not to make new Ecclesiastical lawes wheruÌ„to to bishoppes should be subiect against their wils An. Dom. 450. Let vs adde hereunto that which an Empresse also writeth of the same matter for we may wel beleue that she wrote according to the faith of Church in her tyme. In epistol Gallae Placidiae ante synodum Chalcedonens Thus then Galla Placidia saith concerning the Churche of Rome In Apostolica sede primus ille ê“ coelestes claues dignus fuit accipere principatum Episcopatus ordinauit He that was worthy to receaue first the heauenly keyes that is S. Peter hath ordeined the primacy of the Bishoply office in the Apostolik See If this be so Peter was not only first and prince himself but he also ordeined the bishop of Rome to be the first and chief of bishops after him Ad synoduÌ„ Chalcedo Domino meo Theodosio c. When I say Peter ordeined it I meane that Christ by Peter ordeined it Valentinian is of the same belefe and iudgement saying Fidem à nostris maioribus traditam debemus cum omni competenti deuotione defendere dignitatem propriae venerationis B. Apostolo Petro intemeratam in nostris temporibus conseruare quatenus beatissimê° Romanae ciuitatis episcopus cui principatum Sacerdotij super omnes antiquitas contulit locum habeat ac facultatem de fide sacerdotibus iudicare We ought to defend with all competent deuotion the faith deliuered from our elders And to conserue and keepe in our tymes to the blessed Apostle S. Peter the dignity of his proper and owne worship vncontrolled so that the most blessed bishop of the City of Rome to whome â—ntiquity hath geuen aboue al me the cheefty of priesthood may haue place and power to iudge of faith and of priests Lo the honour that is geuen to the bishop of Rome is geuen to Saint Peter verily because the bishop of Rome sitteth in his chaire And when the bishop of Rome is despised the worship of S. Peter is stained If the old tyme gaue the primacy of priestod vnto the bishop of Rome for S. Peters sake and that super omnes ouer al men if eleuen hundred yeres agoe it was true to say that Antiquity gaue the chiefty of priestly power to the bishop of Rome are not they new teachers who after fiften hundred yeres goe about to pluck the primacy of priesthod from the bishop of Rome An. Dom. 4.57 Act. 3. In Concil Chalceâ—o Autoritate Ro. Episcopi Martianus likewise with Valentinian confesseth of the General Councel which came togeather at Chalcedon in â—â—â—â—wise Quae Synodus dum fidem diligenter inquirit authoritate beatissimi Leonis Episcopi aeternae vrbis Romae religionis fundamenta constituit sanctae ciuitati Flauiano palmam mortis tribuit gloriosae The which councel whiles it maketh diligent inquisition concerning the faith it both appointed the foundations of religion to the holy city the Church by the authoritie of most blessed Leo bishop of the euerlasting City of Rome By the authority of Pope Leo. and also gaue to Flauianus the crown of a gloriouse death Al this was done by the autority of the bishop of Rome And why by his autority the same Martianus gaue the cause therof before in an oratioÌ„ which he made in the fourth general councel Act. 1. Fol. 740. where he said of Leo the Pope qui ApostolicuÌ„ gubernat thronuÌ„ who gouerneth the See Apostolike And it is well knowen he ment only the Apostolike see of S. Peter An. D. 534 In Codicadâ— summa Trinit For the honour of that See IustiniaÌ„ writeth thus to Iohn the secoÌ„d pope of Rome Nos reddeÌ„tes honoreÌ„ Apostolicae sedi vestrae sanctitati qdsemê‘ nobis in voto fuit est vt decet patreÌ„ honoraÌ„tes vestraÌ„ beati tudineÌ„ oiÌ„a quae ad ecclesiaruÌ„ statuÌ„ pertineÌ„t festinauimus ad notitiam deferre vestrae sanctitatis We rendering honour to the See Apostolike and to your Holines the whiche thing euer was and is our desire and we honouring your blessednes as it becommeth vs to honour our Father haue hastened to bring to the knowledge of your Holines all things which doe appertein to the state of Churches If the Pope be as a Father to the Emperour and be so to be honoured it is vtterly impossible for the Emperour who is as it were a Sonne to be the supreme head or gouernour in spiritual causes of his spiritual Father Againe he saith Nec enim patimur quicquaÌ„ quod ad EcclesiaruÌ„ statuÌ„ pertinet quamuis manifestuÌ„ indubitatum sit quod mouetur vt noÌ„
euÌ„deÌ„ statim verum Christi vicariuÌ„ esse omnes credereÌ„t That froÌ„ thence forward whom the Clergy people and the Roman armie should chose to be bishop all men should straight beleue him to be the true vicare of Christ The true VicareÌ„ of Christ He saith not the Vicare of Phocas or the Lieutenant of the Emperor but the Vicar and LieutenaÌ„t of Christ It was then the publicke faith not onlie in the Latine but also in the Greeke church that who so was duely chosen Bisshop of Rome was Christes own Vicare An. Dom. 749. Yf the whole nobilitie and people of Fraunce had not beleued the Pope of Rome to be of such authorie for what purpose would they haue sent to Rome to know the mind of Pope Zacharias who should be King of Fraunce whether Chilpericus Paenè nullius potestatis who hadde the bare name thereof without exercising any kingly power in maner or the greate Stuard Maior domus who exercised the publik office and power of the King without the name In Chron. The Pope answered as Ado testifieth Regem potius illum debere vocari qui rempublicam regeret That he rather should be called the King who ruled the common weal. VpoÌ„ which answere Pipinus was anointed King autoritate Apostolica FraÌ„ corum electione saith Sigebertus by the Apostolike authoritie In Chron. An. Dom. 750. and by the election of the Frenche men Neither may this so great credite whiche the whole people and Nobilitie of France reposed in the See Apostolike be righly imputed to the sentence of Phocas who before that had declared the See of Rome to be head of al Churches For euen after this election of King Pipinus the first Emperour of the French men or rather of the Germans for the French men came out of Germanie Carolus Magnus protesting his reuerence to the See Apostolike sheweth the cause why he honoureth it to be the Chaire of S. Peter and not the iudgement of Phocas His wordes are these In memoriam beati Petri Apostoli honoremus sanctam Romanam ecclesiaÌ„ ApostolicaÌ„ sedeÌ„ An. Dom. 806. 19. distiÌ„ct vt quae nobis sacerdotalis mater est dignitatis ecclesiasticae esse debeat magistra rationis Quare seruaÌ„da est cuÌ„ mansuetudine humilitas et licet vix fereÌ„duÌ„ ab illa sancta sede imponatur iugum tamen feramê° pia deuotione toleremus Let vs honor the holy Church of Rome and the See Apostolike for the remeÌ„brance of blessed Peter the Apostle The see of Rome is the mother of priestly Vvorship that as the same See is to vs the mother of priestlie dignitie so it may be the teacher of the Ecclesiasticall trade Wherefore humility is to be kept with meekenes And although a yoke be putte vppon vs from the same holy See which is scant to be born yet lette vs beare and suffer it with godly deuotion Thus we see that Carolus honoured the See of Rome not for Phocas but for S. Peters sake Ludouicus who for his singular vertue and godlines was surnamed Pius hauing ben triatorouslie ordered by Adalgisus the Duke of Beneuentum Regino in Chron. An. 872. who went about to kill him in his palaice and being afterward forced to sweare that he wold not reuenge that iniury was so far from taking himselfe to be the supreme head ouer the Bisshop of Rome that rather he was content to take absolution from his oth of Iohn the pope Authoritate Dei Sancti Petri by the authority not of Phocas but of God and of Saint Peter I woulde goe forward to shew at large the obedience of all good Emperours and Kings to the See Apostolik euen till this day but that it shoulde be accompted a superfluouse labour sith as I suppose no man doth doubt of it And verilie concerning our own countrie as aboue fourtene hundred yeres past An. D. 188 Lucius the first Christian King of the Britans did send to Eleutherius the Bisshop of Rome to receaue from thence by his authority the ordinary meane of administring the Sacraments for him and his realm eueÌ„ so Ethelbert the first Christian King of the English Saxons toke his faith and the gouernment of the Church from the See of Rome S. Gregorie being theÌ„ Pope by our Apostle S. Augustine An. D. 630 And the good King Osui of NorthumberluÌ„d Bedae lib. histo Angli 3. c. 29 and Ecbert the King of Kent vnderstaÌ„ding that the RomaÌ„ Church esset catholica Apostolica Ecclesia was the Catholik and the Apostolike Church sent Wichardus with the consent of al the faithfull of England to Rome that hauing ther takeÌ„ the degré of an Archbishop he might ordein bisshops to all the Catholike Churches through Britannie From that day forward it is euident by al our Chronicles which at the least were made before that schism and heresie began that as euery King not only of EnglaÌ„d but of all Christian CouÌ„tries was best aÌ„d most geueÌ„ to godlines and to vertue so was he most obedient and frindful to the bishop of Rome And coÌ„trariewise as euery of them was most licentious most geuen to extorsion to tyrannie or to robling of Churches so was he most disobedient to the See of Rome So that as all the heathen Emperours froÌ„ Nero to the Renegat Iulianus did alwaies persecute the Apostolike See of Rome and as afterward al the heretical Emperours did the same as wel those of CoÌ„stantinople as of the West so contrarywise all the good Constantines the Theodosians the MartiaÌ„s Carolus Ludouicus Otho and their good successours did so little thiÌ„ck themselues the supream heads ouer the bishops of Rome and of the other Christians in spiritual causes that contrarie wise they obeied them as their chiefe pastours and as the Vicars of Christ aÌ„d the successours of S. Peter And that they did not only being a part euery man in his own Realm but also when that most famouse battell against the Turkes and Saracens was by the inspiration of the holy Ghost begun at one tyme by the Spaniards Sigebertus in Chron. Anno Do. 1096. Gascons Britans Normans English Scotish and Frenchmen by the Burgundions Almains Lumbards and Italians when diuerse Dukes as Godfrid of Lorrain and Baiamund of Apulia wheÌ„ diuerse Erles as Baldwin of MoÌ„s one Robert of Flanders and an other of Normandy StepheÌ„ of Blese and Raimund when Hugh the brother of Philip the King of Fraunce toke that most holy warfare in hand when I say they were stirred vppe with one spirit and hart to recouer the holy land did not they shew as wel their own belief as the vniuersal faith of al their countries and nations in that they had Hamarus the bishop of Podium sette ouer them Apostolica authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie And how marueilouse successe of victory had they conquering as well Antioche as Hierusalem It can be vnknowen to no man who readeth
praescript It hath ben alwaies the fashion of all heretikes as Tertullian saith to destroye other mens buildings as to vndoe that which other men doe Ipsum opus eorum non de suo proprio aedificio venit sed de veritatis destructione nostra suffodiuÌ„t vt sua aedificent Their very worck riseth not of their own building but from the destroying of the truthe They vndermine our things that they may build vp their owne And Hippolytus thinketh the seale of Antichrist to be nego In Homi. de consum mat sec I deny For as saith he the deuil did exhort the Martyrs to deny their God who was crucified so at the last day the seale of Antichrist and of his members shal be Nego creatorem coeli terrae nego baptisma nego adorationem à me Deo praestarisoliatam I deny the maker of heauen and of earth I denie baptisme I deny the adoration which I was wont to doe vnto God Thus in the old tyme whereas the Apostles preached Christ to be true God and man VVHat the old hereticke deny Arrius denied his true Godhead Marcion and Valentinus and Manicheus denied his true manhood Apollinaris is denied his true sowle the Monothelits denied his doble will the Donatists the Continuance of the vniuersality of his Church the Pelagians the necessity of Gods grace and the like may be said of all other heretiks whose opinions alwaies detracted some perfection from Christ or from his Church Now I will shew that the Protestants doe the like in our tyme. For whereas the vniuersal Church as wel by the preaching of the Apostles as by the witnesse of Gods writen word was in possession of a publike sacrifice of priesthood of seuen Sacramentes as of most vndoubted instrumentes of grace and of diuerse other godly and diuine orders and Canons haue they any other Gospell any other Churche or any other doctrine then that which consisteth in deniyng Hovv many things the Protestants take avvay froÌ„ the Churche Ioan. 1. and in taking away that which was before The holy scriptures and Churche tawght that a man being iustified is both really deliuered from his synnes and really receaueth faith hoape and charity Thei deny our synnes to be taken away by the lamb of God who came for that purpose saying they tary still but onely that they are not imputed They teache also that no iustice is at all made in vs by spreading charity in our harts Rom. 5. whereas S. Paul saith iusti coÌ„stituentur multi many shal be made iust But they only say iustice is imputed to vs. Again they fiue Sacraments of the seuen They deny that baptism remitteth our synnes or that baptisme is necessarie to children which are born of Ghristian parents Augustin epist 106. Which was the heresie of the Pelagians They deny the vse of holy oyle and of chrism They deny the reall presence of Christes body the adoration and reseruation thereof the transubstantiation of the bread into his body the vnblody sacrifice of Christes supper the communion of one kinde to be sufficient and consequently they deny that whole Christ in vnder eche kinde and the mingling of water with the wine And that one may receaue alone that Aultars are lawfull that there are Priestes of the newe Testament that Bishops are of any higher degree then Priestes that there is any one bisshoppe chief of all other that Priests can forgeue synnes but onelie may preache that they are forgeuen that it is lawfull to appoint certaine daies of fasting or the abstinence from certain meates for obedience although God both willed Adam to absteine from a certain frute Genes 2. and the Iewes to absteine from certain meates They deny that it is lawfull to pray to the Saints in heaueÌ„ or to pray for the faithful which died in Christ wherein they deny any communioÌ„ of praier betwene the faithful which are aliue and their brethern who liue out of this worlde with Christ They deny the infallible authority of generall CouÌ„cels the visible succession of bishoppes the place of purgation after this life the remaining of paine after the synne is forgeuen the chaÌ„ging or pardoming of the said paine by the high bisshop the vse and moderate honour of Images the signe of the healthfull crosse the making of a vowe to liue chaste or to renounce all propriety of goods or to liue in obedience the reuerence don the reliques of the blessed Martyrs the vse of praier in the holy tungs the vniuersall tradition of vnwriten verities and to be short theiÌ„ deny the bookes of the old Bible such as are not in the Canon of the Iewes These things and many other like whiles they deny what other thing do thei theÌ„ pul down the religioÌ„ of Christ which hath ben a building these fiften hundred yeeres And therein they prepare a way to Antichrist who in the end must deny all that they as yet leaue vndenied For if they should openly deny euery whit 2 Thes â— then the mystery of iniquity should not be a working and many simple men should not haue bene deceaued by them who now are deceaued because they pretend to refoorme and not to take away Christes religion But when the tyme is ripe then the iniquity which is now begun must be fulfilled and so is the whole religioÌ„ destroied I would this were not true And yet it is possible that euery Protestant knoweth not so much because Satan the great capitaine of their army keepeth his Counsel to himselfe knowing that how much the closer he worketh the more hurt he is like to doe But God through mercy detecteth his snares aÌ„d warneth them Genes 1â— 6. who wil be saued to flee into the hil with Loth and to the ship of the Churche with Noe there to prouide for their eternal saluatioÌ„ which our Lord graunt through his bitter passion Amen Finis Librum istum de primatu Romani Pontificis Petra Ecclesiae vniuersalis legerunt viri sacrae Theologiae Auglici idiomatis peritissimi quibus iudico meritò tutò credendum esse vt fine periculo imo summa cum vtilitate euul gari possit Cunerus Petri P.S. Petri Louanij 25. Februa Anno. 1566. A BRIEF SOME OF THE chief points of this treatise THE preface conteineth the marks of the true Church The difference betwen a dominion and a primacy 17. The Apostles strife coÌ„cerning superiority is declared 25. 26. 27. That there was one greater among the Apostles 20. vsque 37. To be a ruler and as a minister do not repugne 46. 47. The preeminence of priests aboue Kings 51. 52. caet A King can not be supreme gouernor in all ecclesiasticall causes because by right and Law he can not practise al ecclesiastical causes 61. 64. 67. The highe priest is preferred before the King by Gods lawe 72. 74. 76. The euil life of a bishop taketh not away his authority 78. 79. The differences betweÌ„ the bisshop of Rome and temporal princes 80. vsque 88. That Moises was a priest 83. 84. 85. The literal sense of holy scripture 96. The promise to be called Peter was the first cause why the church was built vpon him 110. The Protestants can not tell which is the first literal sense of these words vpon this rock I will build my Churche 135. How Peter beareth the person of the Church 165. The obiections against S. Peters supremacy are answered 219. vsque 230. How Christ loued Peter aboue others 237. The Church neuer lacked a visible rock 270. 271. The whole gouernment of the Church tendeth to vnity 299. Why S. Peter died at Rome 313. 313. S. Augustins minde touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome 348. vsque 372. A priest aboue the Emperour in Eeclesiasticall causes 378. The oth of the roial supremacy is intolerable 383. CoÌ„staÌ„tine baptized at Rome 391 Phocas did not first make the See of Rome head of al Churches 405. vsque 410. Why Antichrist is permitted to come 423. Hereticks depart from the Catholik Church 469. Hereticks being once departed out of the Churche haue newe names 471. Why amoÌ„g the Catholiks some are called Franciscans Dominicans caet 477. Heretiks can neuer agree 479. The short reigne of heretickes 489 caet Hereticks preache without coÌ„mission 496. Heretiks doe prefer the temporal reign or sword before the spiritual 499. They are the members of Antichrist who withstand the external and publike sacrifice of Christes Church 518. Hereticks depriue Christ of his glorious inheritaunce in many nations together 517. The intolerable pride of heretikes in making themselues onely iudges of the right sense of Gods word 530. The ProtestaÌ„ts teache the same doctrine which the old hereticks did 553. The Protestantes are the right meÌ„bers of Antichrist in that they spoile Gods Church of very many gifts and graces and articles of the faith 560. FINIS Faultes escaped in the printing Page Line Faultes Corrections 10. 10. shephead shepheard 23. 22. them because them but because 98. 22. resurrection by resurrection by 103. 24. confession Being confession being 106. 13. stedfastnes of stedfastnes or of â—16 9. and promised aÌ„d being promised 145. 8. and in that and that 177. 21. the thing the man 186. 6. rocke of rock or 195. 14. sbme some 208. 23. vvhen Augustine vvhen Augustine 209. 11. hy me by me 214. 1. to true to be true 2â—9 17. in omnibus in ouibus 26â— 1. to the the 273. 15. vvas vvere vvas vvhere 281. 6. the pordinary the ordinary 382. 7. can gouern can not gouern 426. 14. CoÌ„essours Confessours 430. 13. teache teache 432. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 408. 1. out the out of the 496. 2. rom from 516. â— hauen heauen 539. 22. S. Saule S. Paul 553. 21. bishops bishop I F RESPâ—â—ITE VOLATILIA COELI ET PVLLOS CORVORVM
nations but also in a fâ—â— more excellent kinde then the Christian Kings are For to what Christian King did Christ euer say Ioan. 20. As my father sent me I send thee Math. 16. or vpon this rock I will build miâ— Church Ioan. 21. or doest thow loue me more then these fede my shepe â–ª feede my lambs And yet is a King aboue priests â–ª yea aboue the high pastour of Christes flock he is so in dede with them who make lesse accompt of Christes heaueÌ„ly institution and Officer then of him that was first made either by the necessitie of wordly calamities to kepe away a greater euil from the common weale or els by the wanton and proud affection of earthly men ambitiously affecting tyrannical power Let no man thinck that I despise the authoritie of Kings God forbid but thei are a good thing brought in mercifully sumwhere to staye violent iniuries and robberies and other where permitted of God for our iust punishment 2. Cor. 5. and not any like thing to that diuine order of pastours which Christ ordeined purposely for our reconciliation to God the father and for the auoiding of al iust punishment otherwise deserued It was a King as Saint Gregorie In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1 noteth who deuided the ten tribes from the Churche of God and made those by the iust punishment of God to be idolatours who so greedely preferred his gouernment before the gouerment of the priests And are not we now in the same case who for greedines to reiect the Vicar of Christ are come to preferre the secular and temporall power before the spirituall the body before the sowle and earth before heauen In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Nonnulli saith Saint Gregory in tantum dementiae malum proficiunt vt commouere ipsum etiaÌ„ statum Ecclesiastici culminis non vereantur There are some who are come to so great madnes that they are not a feard to moue and trouble euen the state it self of the Ecclesiastical toppe or highest dignitie of the Churche And a little after His autem qui viuebant sub spiritali regimine Ibidem Regem petere quid aliud est quà m eandem spiritalem praelationem in seculaâ—m dominationem transferre geâ—re For those that did liue vnder the spiâ—â—tual gouernment to require a King â—hat other thyng is it then to goe aâ—out to transfer the same spiritual preâ—teship or gouernment into a tempoâ—al dominion Yf any man would deepely weigh with himself that God chose such a â—ecret and extraordinarie way to â—â—ue mankinde that no creature â—ould worck it beside his owne Almightie Sonne and that he comming â—nto the world was so farre from working his purpose by Kings and princes that whereas it was most easie for him to haue made manie Kings and Princes at the beginning to beleue in him 1. Cor. 1. he rather chose the weakest things of the world to confound the strong things and wrought the beginning and increase of his Church by the misbeliefe and persecâ—tion of princes if he would be thinâ— himself how farre the pouerty and hâ—militie of the Kingdome of heauen 〈◊〉 from the pompe and wordly distractiâ—â— of Kings Yea though thei be Christiaâ— and good also he wold much wondâ—â— what sense in holy matters thei haue who dare make that princely state sâ—preme head of the Church which of 〈◊〉 states came last to the faith and the pomp whereof is most contrary of aâ—â— other degrees to the profession of the same And yet what are they who persuade this matter The incoÌ„stancie of the protestants verely those who hauing iustly reproued some lewd and proud bishops for their wordly pompe afterward set vp Kings in the bishops places yea aboue them also as though any King had lesse wordly pompe then the bishops Yea they also doe it who protesting thei will beleue nothing but the expresse word of God yet beleue Kings to be the heads of the Church â—hich they not only can not find in â—ods word but thei rather finde there 1. Reg. â— â—at God was angrie when the â—ouernment of the highe priest â—as reiected and a kingly gouernment â—alled for Moreouer yf by this precept the â—ings of the nations haue domiâ—ion ouer them it shall not be so â—mong you not only all tyrannical or â—ordly power of life and death but also â—l spiritual primacie and superioritie be forbidden to the Apostles ouer the whole militant Church it is forbiddeÌ„â—ikewise that there should be any superiour in any one part of the Church For the parts accordiÌ„g to their degree are of the same nature whereof the whole is Therefore if the whole militant body may haue no one head much lesse any part thereof may haue a head If then no Apostle may be superiour or primate in any parte of the Church much lesse any other Christian maÌ„ wâ—â— is inferiour to an Apostle may be sâ—preme gouernour in any one part of thâ— same Church But euery King in thâ— behalf as he is a Christian is inferioâ—â— to the Apostles for he is both tawgâ—â— his faith of them Matth. 28 and baptized by them and in spiritual matters he must be guided by them therefore seing the King may not be supreame gouernour of any parte of Christes Church in that respect as he is a Christian maÌ„ if yet he shal be supreame head of his own Christian realme by any meane at all it must be by that power which he either had before his Christianity or beside it For by his christianity it is not possible that he shold haue any greater power then the Apostles had Ioan. 20 who were sent into the world with Christes authority If then a King be supreme gouernour of the Church where he is a King besides his christianity he is no otherwise supreame gouernour thereof then any Ethnik prince might haue beÌ„ And so it 〈◊〉 brought to passe by the doctrine of the â—rotestaÌ„ts that an infidel King hah suâ—reme power to visite to reforme to â—orrect and to depose any bishop â—ithin his own realm The which arâ—umeÌ„t wheÌ„ Antichrist or the great Turk shal make vnto the ProtestaÌ„ts â—hey must nedes yeld vnto it and grauÌ„t â—iÌ„ to be supreame head of their Church Be it so of their Church but the Caâ—holikes shal stil keepe them vnder the â—piritual gouernmeÌ„t of the bisshops and â—astours which Christ hath instituted To enter one degree farther in this matter let vs graunt that some King were so ê‘fit so poore in spirit so chast so liberal as euer any bishop or priest was required to be in Gods law VVhat things a King caÌ„ not doe caÌ„ he yet baptize caÌ„ he coÌ„secrate Christes body can he forgeue synnes can he preache can he excommunicate can he blesse the people can he iudge of doctrine by his kingly authority If he can not doe these things how can he be aboue theâ— coÌ„cerning these causes who haue receaued