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
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
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.
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
32. that r. the. 260. 3. petram r. PetruÌ„ 276. 6. den r. doome 279. 3. deforme r. defame 280. 14. vncertainly r. vnreuereÌ„tly l. 38. vvith r. vvhich 281. 4. challeng r. calling 297. 17. Barbarita r. Borberitae 314. 13. Cyrians r. Collyridianes A RETENTIVE TO STAY GOOD CHRISTIANS IN THE TRVETH OF THE GOSPELL WRITTEN BY W Fulke against the Motiues of R. Bristow and by him directed to his friends of the Popish Church AMong such English papistes as haue written within these twentie yeares against the religion of God nowe mainteyned by publike authoritie in this Realme some haue shewed greate witte some muche readinge some flowing eloquence some all these indifferently but among them all none hath shewed lesse witte learning or good vtterance then this Richard Bristow So much the more doe I meruell when I heare that many Papistes make so great accompt of his witlesse and senselesse writinges But it fareth with them as with litle children to whome newe trifles seeme alwayes most worthy to be played with al. And verily I had thought of all other least to haue delt against this peuish prater both because he bringeth no newe matter but such as in other of his cote was with more coullor of trueth set foorth before and also for that I had alreadie made aunswere to Ryshtons challenge which as I take it is that table of the Church which Bristowe confesseth to conteine all his demaundes whiche demaundes are almost all conteined in his motiues But my friendes requiring mee not onely to aunswere this but all other writinges also of the papistes what soeuer they haue set foorth in the englishe tongue since the happie raigne of our soueraigne Ladie I haue condescended to confute euen that which deserueth no confutation and somewhat the rather because Bristow would haue this alone to bee a sufficient motiue vnto poperie that wee hauing nothing to gainesay most of their popish bookes haue not dared I vse his owne wordes once to goe about the aunswering of most of the saide Catholikes bookes But are faine to get them forbidden by proclamation althoughe ourselues haue prouoked confidently the Catholikes to write them Whervppon also he noteth that Iewels challenge is turned into proclamations how rightly or truly he that hath but halfe an eye may see His preface to the reader conteining neuer an argument or motiue which is not repeated either in the treatise it self of motiues or in the demaundes I will passe ouer and come to the firste motiue gathering the principall contentes out of his owne table as I haue done with the rest Name of Catholikes The verie name of Catholikes a certaine marke of right Catholikes Iewel vnwars testifieth the Romane religion to be Catholik Laâ—rence HuÌ„frâ—is Troian horse his pseudocatholicâ— Luthers consciens the Catholike Church to be against him Pontaâ—us erred not whose historie Humfrey himselfe vnawars confirmeth For Catholikes saith he were present as lookers on and earnest defenders What then â— but none such were moderators saue onely lay Lordes and vnlearned heretikes ergo The first motiue is the 6. demaunde In whiche he woulde proue the verie name of Catholikes to whoÌ„ soeuer it is giuen to be a certain marke of right Catholikes to be knowen as readely easely and certainely by that name as such a citie is knowne by the name of London and such a countrie by the name of England If euer he learned any logike at Oxforde he left it behinde him or else lost it by the way when hee ranne ouer the sea For if all thinges may bee knowen by the name whereby they are coÌ„monly called nothing beareth a false name all Idoles are true gods and saintes al deade carcales be liuing men Yea all heretikes which are commonly called Christians in respecte of Iewes Turkes be true Christians But we must bring him a companie of men commonly knowne by the name of Catholikes which proued heretikes Forsooth the Arrians among themselues were commonly called bv the name of Catholikes and so reputed and taken when the true Catholikes were called homousians and heretikes yea all heretikes among the Pagans were coÌ„monly knowen by the name of Christians whiche â— thinke is as glorious a name as the name of Catholikes Yet Augustine saith â—ee maketh much of the name of Catholikes Cont. â—â— Fund c. 4. Tâ—net me postremò c. Last of all the verie name of the Catholike Church doeth holde me which not without cause amongest so many heresies this Church alone hath so obteined that whereas all heretikes would haue themselues to be called Catholikes yet to a straunger which asketh where men meete at the Catholike Church none of the heretikes dare shewe either their minster or house But let vs see howe Augustine and Bristow agree Augustine maketh this name the last motiue Bristowe the first Augustine ioyneth it with many thinges Bristowe maketh it alone to be a sufficient motiue Augustine in the nexte sentence after confesseth the playne demonstration of the trueth wheresoeuer it may be shewed to bee preferred before al those motiues of Vniuersalitie miracles consente succession and name of Catholikes by which he saith that he might be helde in the Catholke Churche although he grounded no argument vppon that wisedome which the Maniches would not acknowledge to be in the catholike church his words are these Apud vos autem vbi nihil horum est quod me inuitet ac teneat sola personat veritatiae pollicitatio quâ—e quidens sutam manifesta monstratur vt in dubium venire non possit praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica tenâ—or Among you Maniches saith he where there is none of these thinges whiche might allure and hold me the onely promisle of trueth doth sounde whith trueth if it be shewed so manifeste that it caÌ„not come in doubt it is to be preferred before al those things by which I am helde in the Catholike Church This is Augustines iudgement of such simple motiues which with the trueth may helpe to confirme it but are not worth a straw when they are alledged against the truth Wherfore seing we make so plaine demonstration of the trueth out of Gods word that no maÌ„ can doubt of it but such as will followe the bare name of Catholike contrarie to the Catholike doctrine of the scriptures against all such vaine motiues wee may be bolde to oppose the trueth it selfe What a mockerie is this that hee saith that anâ—eretike in Germanie being asked where the Catholike Church is will point to â—â—â—â— popish Church Admit this to be so doth this proue the Massing Church to bee the Catholike Church In France if you aske a Papist which is y e reformed Church he will point you to the place where the congregation of true Christians vse to assemble Doth the Papist therfore acknowledge the Church of protestantes to bee in deede the reformed Churche Iâ— hee doe not the name of Catholikes proueth no more on the one syde theÌ„ the
naming of all his progenitors from Adam vnto his time so there is no doubt but the Church hath had a perpetuall succession in the world from y e beginning thereof vntil this day although she can not name a particular succession of persons in any one place for all ages that are past But euen as by the Scriptures we are taught that Adam is our naturall father although we can not name all our auÌ„cestors that haue bene betwene vs and him right so by the Scriptures we are taught that the Church is our heauenly mother although we can not frame such tables of succession as the Papistes require vs to shew which they can not performe them selues For although they can name a number of Bishops whereof some haue taught at Rome some haue sitten and slept in their chayer at Rome and some at Auynion some haue played the deuill therein an hundreth of the last being no more like to a score of the firste in doctrine and life then God whose children the first were is like the deuill whose derlings the last were yet what is this to shewe a succession of their Church And howe doth this proue them to be the true Churche can not the Churche of Constantinople and other Churches in Greece doe the like vnto this daye Yet doe the Papistes count all them for heretikes and scismatikes Whatsoeuer therefore Optatus Hierom Augustine Tertullian or any other haue written of succession of Bishops in the Apostolike sees they meane so large and so farre forth as they continue in succession of Apostolike doctrine Otherwise woulde not Hierom haue embraced Arrianisme because it was receyued by Liberius who sate in the Apostolike see of Rome and coulde name his predecessors from Peter Nor Optatus haue receyued Eutychianisme because it was defended by Dioscorus which satte in the Euangelisticall see of Alexandria and coulde name his predecessors from S. Marke the disciple of S. Peter Nether woulde Augustine haue consented to Arrianisme because it was mayntayned by Eulalius and Euzoius Bishops of the Apostolike see of Antioche althoughe they were able to shewe their succession by many Bishops euen vnto S. Peter him selfe who planted his chayer at Antioche by all Papistes confession seuen yeares before he came to Rome You see therefore howe farre the motiue of succession may drawe or driue any man to haue regard vnto it euen as long as there is succession of doctrine as well as of place and person and not longer nor further The 23. motiue is the 44. demaund Apostolike Church The Communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians Apostolike Church is the Romane Church Apostolike Church as the Romane is S. Augustines motiue Succession of the Bishops of Rome the motiue of Optatus S. Augustine and S. Irenaeus This motiue in effect is all one with the former and in a maner so confessed by Bristow him selfe But thus he takâ—th his principle of their singing in the Masse our saying in the communion of the creede in which we confesse that we beleue one onely Catholike and Apostolike Church This one Catholike Church sayth Bristow is our Church that is Apostolike because it agreeth with the faith of the Church of Rome which is the sea of an Apostle holding on to this day by succession and to which was written an Epistle by an Apostle I aunswer it is not the popish Romane Church because that Church is departed from the vniuersal Church of Christ planted by the Apostles through out the worlde and holdeth not on in succession of the doctrine of the Apostle which did write that epistle to the Romanes But Bristowes wise reasoning is to be noted S. Peter was an Apostle That is true he was the first Bishop of Rome It is a great doubt whether he euer came at Rome and it is out of doubt by the Scriptures that he taried not there so longe as the histories affirme and last it is false that he was a Bishop of a particular Church which was an Apostle ouer all the world and specially ouer the circumcision There is a citye in the worlde named Rome And that citye by the Scripture is the seat of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. vers 18. S. Paules epistle to the Romaines is extant and euen that epistle will proue the Church of Rome at this day to be not apostolicall but apostatical as in many articles so in the article of iustification Rom. 3. vers 28. Are not those causes why a Church is called Apostolike sayth Bristow No verily but onely because it holdeth and mayntayneth the Apostolike doctrine which if it doe in all necessary articles then is it Apostolike hath succession and plantation of the Apostles or els not although it be gathered in such cities in which the Apostles haue preached planted and to whome they haue written But Tertullian doth so define Apostolike Churches sayth Bristow I say it is vntrue for Tertullian against newe heretikes sendeth vs not to the emptye chayres of the Apostles which had written to such cities but vnto the the testimony of their doctrine receyued from the Apostles and continued vntill that time So he sendeth them that are in Achaia to Corinthe such as are in Macedonia to Philippi those that are in Asia to Ephesus them which be neare Italy to Rome from whence they of Africa had their authoritie not by excellency of that Church aboue other Apostolike Churches but by nearenes of place Therfore he saith Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es à Macedonia habes Philippos Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adieceris habes Romam vnde nobis quaeque auctoritas presto est statuta Is Achaia nearest vnto thee thou hast Corinthe If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi If thou canst goe into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thoulye neare to Italy thou hast the Church of Rome from whence vnto vs also in Africa authoritie is setled nearer at hand Tertul de praeser But Bristow sayth that the auncient fathers when there were many Apostolike Churches standing they did principally and singularly direct men alwayes to the Church of Rome This you see to be false by the place of Tertullian last ciâ—ed But that they did more often direct men to the testimony of the Church of Rome it was for that by meanes of the Imperiall citie it was more notorious and best knowne Otherwise it is a very lye of Bristow where he sayth that when the fathers name the Apostolike church they do meane the Romane church by excellency as the Poet signifieth Vergil and the Philosopher Aristotle A like lye it is that no Church remayneth in the world founded by any of the Apostles but onely Rome For many Churches remayne to this day that were planted by the Apostle Paule who from Hierusalem to Illyricum filled all the contryes with the doctrine of the Gospell of which
many vnto this day continue in profession of Christianitie beside all the Churches of India AEthiopia which were also planted by the Apostles Thomas and other The more beastly is the blundering of this Bristow who dreameth that the councell of Constantinople the 1. which made this confession by the Apostolike Church did not onely meane the Romane Church but also none other but the Romane Church As though that councell could not distinguish the Catholike Apostolike Church dispersed ouer all â—â—â—â— face of the earth from the particular Apostolike Church of Rome which was but a member therereof when the same councel gaue the like priuiledges of honor to the Church of Constantinople which the Church of Rome had reseruing but the senioritie to y e Church of Rome And being called to a councel at Rome by the Princes letters procured by Damasus Bishop of Rome other Bishops of Italy the West they refused to come as hauing already by the Emperour of the East being gathered to Constantinople â—oncluded what they thought good to be decreed Histor. trip lib. 9 cap. 13. And in their epistle written to their fellow ministers Damasus Ambrose c. gathered in councell at Rome wherein they excused their refusall to come they call the Church of Antiochia seniorem vere apostolicam Ecclesiam the elder truly an Apostolike Church The church of Ierusalem they call the mother of all Churches Ep. Concil Constanti Hist. trip lib. 9. cap. 14. Nether was it euer in their mind to make the particular Church of Rome the only Apostolike Church of the world but onely a principall member consenting with the same The succession of bishops of Rome alledged by Irenaeus Tertullian Augustine Optatus doth nothing in the world defend the popish bishops in their successioÌ„ vnto this day for so much as they succeede not in doctrine as well as in place Nether doe we make any leape from Luther vnto the Apostles but prouing our doctrine to be the doctrine of the Apostles we doubt no more of perpetuall succession thereof then knowing our selues to be descended from Adam we doubt whether we haue had a line all discent of progenitors vnto this time that I may vse Bristowes owne example to declare that numbring of Bishops is no more necessary in the one theÌ„ shewing our pedegrie in the other Seing the question is not how many men in what places were professed this doctrine but whether it be the same which â—â—â—â— Apostles taught but that can not better be proued then by the writings of â—â—â—â— Apostles The places cited by Bristow for succession out of Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Augustine you shall sinde answered in my confutation of Stapletons fortres part 2. cap. 1. of Sanders rocke cap. 15. where also is answered the place of S. Luke cap. 22. of Christ praying that Peters faith might not faile The 24. motiue â—â— the 45. demaund The Romaines neuer chauÌ„ged their religion S. Bede of our religion the Râ—maine church his motiue ProtestaÌ„ts be of many old heresies The Apostles were of our religion Prayer for the dead vsed alwayes If the Romaines had not chauÌ„ged their religion since their faith was coÌ„mended by the Apostle there should be no controuersie betwene vs them And if Bristow caÌ„ proue by the Apostles writing that he is of their religion or that they were of the Popish religioÌ„ the strife is at an ende How farre Bâ—de was of your religion I haue shewed in the answer to Stapletons fortresse But he vrgeth vs to shew what Pope chaunged their religion what tumults rising in the worlde thereon what Doctors withstoode it what couÌ„cels accuâ—sed c. which he saith they can shew in all innouatioÌ„s both great sinal that euer by heretikes were atteÌ„pted What an impudent lyar is this Bristow to brag of that which at this day is impossible to be don by any maÌ„ liuing in the worlde For of so many heretikes as are rehersed by Epiphanius Augustine not the one halfe of theÌ„ can be so shewed as Bristow like a blind bayard boasteth they can doe But if we say the chaunge was not made al at once we must shew wheÌ„ euery pece was altered as they do of our doctrin of old taught by many old heretiks AErius denying praier for the dead c. Whereof many are slauÌ„ders lyes the rest if we can not defend by Scriptures let them be takeÌ„ for heresies To the purpose we haue often shewed and are ready daily to shew the beginning of many of their heresies errors as of the Popes supremacy in Victor of prayer for the dead in the Montanists of their crossing in the Valentinians of images in the Gnosâ—ikes and Carpocratians and so of a great many other errors which are contrary to the holy Scriptures by which we first reproue them of falshood and as stories serue vs we open their beginnings And wheras Bristow without all shame affirmeth that prayer for the dead was vsed alwayes citeth Irenaeus among other for his auctor he sheweth nothing but impudency matched with his heresie for there is no worde in Ireneus to proue that prayer for the dead was vsed of any godly man of his time Tertullian a Montanist is the first that maketh any mention of prayers for the dead only in such bookes as he wrote when he was an heretike Whereas Augustine sayth Ep. 119. That y e church of God nether appâ—oueth nor keepeth secret nor doth such thinges as be against the faith and good maners it is to be vnderstanded of such things as the church knoweth to be against the faith For of some thinges the church may be ignorant as Augustine confesseth in his retractations lib. 2. cap. 18. Vbicunque in his libris commemoraui ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugaâ— non sic accipiendum est quasi iam sit sed quae praeparatur vt sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa nunc enim propter quasdam ignorantias infirmitates meâ—brorum suâ—rum habet vnde quâ—tidie tota dicat Dimitte nobis dâ—bita nostra Wheresoeuer in those bookes I haue made mention of y e church not hauing spot or wrinckle it is not to be takeÌ„ as though she were so now but which is prepared that â—he may be when she shall appeare also glorious For now because of certaine ignorances and infirmities of her members euen the whole church hath cause to say euerie day forgiue vs our trespasses Notwithstanding the watchmen therefore prophecied by Esay continually geuing warning vpon the walles against the inuasion of open enemies and blasphemous heretikes yet many hypocrites haue crept into the church secretly and vnder shew of pietie haue shewed many errors and superstitions while the mysterie of miquity wroughâ— the full manifestation and Apostasie of Antichrist In the demaunde Bristow denyeth that any Pope did erre although I haue shewed both out of stories S. Hierom the Pope Damasus and the generall
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
altogether purged from all similitude of popish actions by yelding vnto the infirmitie of the weaker sort yet is the Church of God perfect in her selfe and needeth not to borrow of any secte any thing for her perfect furniture in doctrine ceremonies or discipline but hath absolute rules to direct her in any of these expressed in the holy Scriptures For the diuision of parishes the holding of Councells excommunication suspension publike solemnising of mariage with the lawes of the same punishing of heretikes by death c. are all manifestly proued out of the Scriptures Probat of testaments and such like matters pertayne to the ciuill lawe And whereas Bristow sayth we could not tell that we shoulde vse baptisinge of men more then washinge of feete or this lesse then that or one to be a sacrament and not the other except we had bene taught by the popishe Churche it is a greate falshoode For althoughe we might alleage the iudgement of the moste auncient Churche of Christ which did not accept that action of Christ as a sacraments yet the wordes of our Sauiour Christ are manifest which doth not institute a sacrameÌ„t or visible signe of the inuisible grace of God giuen vnto vs but onely giueth vs an example thereby of seruice able humilitie one to an other Ioan. 13. 12. Wherefore no more in this then in any other matter doe we take any light out of the bookes and doings of those owles that flye in the darkenes of mens traditions but onely out of the lawe of God which is a light vnto our steps and a lanterne vnto our feete that we neede not like apes counterfeit externall toyes as they doe but being followers of God as wellbeloued children we may walke in loue as Christ hath loued vs and so faâ—re to followe the steppes of other men as we see plainly that they haue followed Christ. The 35. motiue is the 25. demaund States of perfection Monkes Monasteries Parliament religion We confesse that we haue no states of perfection in this life amonge vs which to affirme in any mortall man is blasphemye against the bloode of Christ. As for Monkes and Fryers names Eremites c none were farther from a Christian or honest life then they as the worlde knoweth sufficientlye And therefore by lawe they and their Monasteries were iustly subuerted As for the solitarye men of the auncient tymes dwelling by them selues or in the desert places called Mâ—nachâ— Anchoritae or Eremitâ—e these popishe orders of whose subuersion Bristow complayneth were no more like vnto them then Apes and Monkeyes are to men and women The communitye of goodes that was in the Church of the Apostles Act. 4. was none other then suche as is and ought to be amonge all true Christians which was not as Bristowe ignorauntlye and impudently affirmeth to liue without propriety of goodes hauing all thinges in an Anabaptisticall communitie but that they accompted nothing of that they possessed to be their owne when the necessitie of their brethren required the vse therof Act. 4. 32. 34. And Act. 5. 4. Peter affirmeth that both the lande and the price thereof was in the proprietye of Ananias so that he might haue retayned ether his land or the whole price thereof but that he was an hypocrite and would beare the Churche in hande that he had brought the whole price when he withdrewe a parte thereof As for Virgines although there be fewer amongest vs that boast of that profession yet are there more both men and women which freely keepe their purpose of virginitie then were amonge those popishe vowed cloystralls The 36. motiue is the 46. demaund The state of our predecessors Prayer for the deade the ground of building Christian monuments Vniuersities of heretikès and Catholikes Protestants be ashamed of their fathers The demaund serueth to be contrary to the motiue for in the motiue he confesseth that we will not condemne our auncestors that haue dyed these many hundred yeares in popish ignorance nor the auncient doctors which haue held some errors which the Papistes doe hold but in the demaund he asketh if all these are damned in hell if not then theirs is the true Church those errors are truth I aunswer we deale not with condemnation of men for lacke of two causes which make a Iudge the one austeritie the other is knowledge Concerning the first it pertayneth onely to Christ to be the Iudge of the quicke and the deade whose office we dare not vsurpe otherwise then he hath commaunded vs to pronounce sentence out of his word concerning the latter we take not vpon vs to knowe ether the faith or repentance of them that dyed before our time and therefore we commit their iudgement to God But generally we are taught by the Scriptures that such as holde the onely foundation which is Iesus Christ in a true faith shall be saued although they build vpon this foundation chaffe straw wood c. 1. Cor. 3. And therefore we doubt not but S. Augustine Chrysostom Hierom Gregory Bernard many thowsands euen in the tyme of great blindnes holding the same only foundation may be saued notwithstanding the chaffe and stubble of a few errors which the former sort did hold or a number of errors and superstitions wherewith the later sort were defiled As for Fraunces and Dominike such late leaders of the locustes we rather thinke they are returned into the bottomlesse pit from whence they came then that they be Saincts in heauen But if we excuse the rest by ignorance Bristow asketh why we condemne not Augustine which was not ignoraunt of our doctrine because he condemned it for most wicked heresie in Aerius Iouinian and Vigilantius who although they be our fathers he sayth we are ashamed to blesse their memorie First concerning Iouinian although he helde an heresie in not preferring virginitie before mariage in some respect yet haue we nothing to doe with him for we hold not that opinion which if we did yet were it no damnable heresy Touching AErius he is coÌ„demned of Augustine for an Arrian his opinioÌ„ of prayer for the deade although it were not liked of Augustine yet doth he in no place condemne it for most wicked heresie as Bristow calleth it but that he did allowe prayer for the deade it was an error of ignoraunce euen in S. Augustine as that he thought the communion necessary for infants Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 4. As for Vigilantius I finde him not reckened ether by Epiphanius or Augustine for an heretike or for one that erred in doctrine although Hierom did write so bitterly against him who likewise did write against Augustine and Ruffinus yet are nether of both accompted for heretikes And AErius as he helde some truth with vs against prayer for the deade so helde he also much popishe superstition and errour for like the order of Carthusians they of his sect admitted none to their felowship but such as professed
continence so renounced the world that they possessed nothing in proper As testifieth Epiphanius and Augustine And Philaster affirmeth that they absteyned also from cating of flesh So that all thinges considered Aerius mainteyned the doctrine of the Papistes as much as of the Protestantes That our preachers in pulpits praise God for the founders of colledges and schooles of learning by name what maketh this for allowance of their religion God is to be praised for such benefits as he hath bestowed vpon his church or any members thereof euen by Turks and Heathen men Wherfore this is a very slow motiue vnto Popery For whether the founders were good or euill men and what intent soeuer they had their benefits are now vsed to the glory of God therefore God for them and their benefits is greatly to be praised The 37. motiue hath neuer a demaund that I can aptly referre vnto it The only knowne vndoubted mother of Christs children for a thousand yeares together The church is euerlasting and visible The Popish church hath not only bene y e only known church and vndoubted mother of Christes children for these thousand yeares First because it is not of so many yeares continuaunce the mysterie of iniquitie hauing not bene in highest degree of wickednesse before the councell of Constance where notwithstanding the institution of Christ and the practise of the primitiue church the communion of the Lordes bloud was taken from the people Secondly the Popish church was neuer acknowledged by all the true children of Christes church for their mother which was a steppemother and a persecuter of them Thirdly the Popish church was neuer y e only reputed church or mother of Christs children of all them that professe Christianitie for the churches of the East as great and as large as she was in the West woulde neuer so accompt the Popish steppedame of Rome but did separate them selues from her communion Fourthly the Catholike church of Christes members dispersed ouer all the world vnder the tyranny both of the Turke the Pope haue in all times protested that y e Romish Apostolical synagoge is the whore of Babylon and see of Antichrist The places of Mich. 4. and Esa 61. which he citeth to proue that the church must be alwayes visible you shall finde aunswered with many other in mine ouerthrow of Stapletons fortres lib. 1. cap. 13. And wheras Bristow confesseth that a mist may hide an hil that is neuer so high from some wicked sighted men that are without it but neuer from them that are within it no meruaâ—le if the spirituall church of Christ being lifted vp aboue the top of all hills not in worldly glory but euen vnto heauenly dignitie hath long remained hid from them that haue no spirituall eyes at all But Bristow thinketh it strauÌ„ge that a mist should continue a thousand yeres together Then I aske him what hath hindered the greatest parte of all the worlde seduced by Mahometistrie and Gentilitie that for these thousand yeres they haue not seene the height of the Popish church If he say not a mist about their church but a blindnesse in the others eyes to be the cause the same I aunswere for the Catholike dispersed church of Christ which the Papistes pretend that this thousand yeares they could not see Although as I haue often sayd Papistry is not halfe so olde in the greatest heresies and absurdities which now she maynteyneth The 38. motiue is the 24. demaund also the 48. and the 17. Celebration operation of Christes death The sacrifice of Bristow the masse Priestâ—oode VVhere Christ worketh Only faytâ— Exorcising of deuills In the Popish churchis no celebration but a derogation of the merite of Christs death by the blasphemous sacrifice of the masse But Bristow in the 24. demaunde asketh vs whether we be content to trie religion by the Priesthood that hath bene froÌ„ the beginning of Christs church I answere that we must first consent of the name of Priest and Priesthoode whereof also in the same demaunde he cauilleth that we haue chaunged the name therefore haue chaunged the order The name I say of Priesthood Priest must be coÌ„sidered either according to the Etymologie deriuation or els according to the present vse thereof And according to the deriuation we coÌ„fesse y t this word Priest coÌ„ming of the greeke word Presbyteros signifieth the same oâ—der which is instituted by God like as the word Bishop câ—mming of Episcopus for which if any man vse the name of Elder superintendent he varieth nothing in the worlde from the signification of Presbyter and Episcopus and much lesse setteth vp a new order as Bristow most vainly doth cauill For in that sence we abhorre not the name of Priest Bishop But when according to the present vse this word Priest is takeÌ„ for him which in greke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine Sacerdos that is one appointed to offer a special sacrifice for which our English tongue hath none other worde but Priest as Bristow doth well confesse In this sence we deny that we haue any speciall Priesthoode or Priestes among vs but the only Priesthoode and high Priest our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ and the generall Priesthoode that is common to all the Saynctes of God Apoc. 16. But in the former sence we haue the same office of Bishoppe Elder or Priest which being ordeyned by the holy Ghost hath continewed in the church vntill this time But this will Bristowe disproue by two reasons First that auncient Bishoppes and Priestes were made by Bishoppès and Priestes and not by Kinges and Queenes secondly they were made to offer sacrifice and euen for the deade Concerning the first it is true that the auncient Priestes were so ordeyned but it is a most impudent slaunder that we are made Bishoppes or Priests by Kinges or Queenes For the worlde knoweth we are ordeyned by the Bishoppes and Elders of the church and not by the Prince But that the auncient Bishoppes and Elders of the church since Christ were ordeyned to offer sacrifice for the quicke and the dead it is vtterly false For albeit the auncient writers vnproperly vsed the names of Priest and sacrifice yet did they neuer meane to set vp a newe Priesthoode or sacrifice to ouerthrowe the only true Priesthode and sacrifice of Christes death as in many places of their writinges most manifestly doth appeare but only they did continew a memory of the sacrifice of Christes death in the celebration of the Lordes supper Chris. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. and a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgeuing August De ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap 6. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quod in ea oblatione quam offâ—rt ipsa offeratur This sayth Augustine speaking of the sacrifice of thankesgeuing is the
gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
lyneall succession from Christ it is vnpossible for them to shewe But Bristow wil proue that we were neuer before this time For as for AErius he knoweth we are ashamed of him But he will proue that nether Hus nor Wicklefe were Protestants Because they held some opinions that we doe not By the same reason he may proue that the fathers of the councels of Constance and Basil were no Papists because they tooke vpon them to depose Popes and decreed that the councell was aboue the Pope which most Papistes at this day dare not affirme AEneas Syluius doth slaunder Wicklefe and Hus that for euery mortall sinne a Magistrate should lose his office for their Apologies are extant to be seene to the contrary But Luther sayth he denyeth that he was an Hussite affirming that Hus was not of his opiniō Although he had bene in all poyntes of his opinion as he was in the chiefe yet might Luther iustly deny the name of a man which is proper to sectaries as Franciscanes Dominicanes c not to Christians Yet Wicklefe sayth he is condemned by Melanthon How I pray you First that he found many errors in him by which iudgement might be made of his spirite If Wicklefe liuing in a time of so great blindnes and darkenes coulde not see the truth in all matters it was no maruell and that he had errors he sheweth that he was a man euen as the best writers of the Church since the Apostles tyme which might be deceyued But as we condemne not Augustine Hierom Chrysostom Cyprian and other auncient writers because we know rhey erred in some things no more haue we iust cause to cond emne Wicklefe for some errors which it is not vnlike but he did holde yea but Melanthon chargeth Wicklefe sayth he to be altogether ignoraunt of the righteousnes of faith which is the foundation of religion I will rather thinke that Melanthon was ignoraunt of Wicklefes opinion as one which had not seene but fewe of his workes In which as perhaps he might vse the tearmes of merit and deseruing then commonly vsed in his tyme yet that he had not the same meaning in them but did well vnderstand and holde the righteousnes which is of fayth I can playnely proue by his owne writings in diuerse places As vpon the Heb. 10. he sayth Sith Christ is God and man satisfaction for the sinne that he made thus freely is better then any other that man or Angell might make The same man in nowmber that sinned in Adam our first fadir the same man in nowmber made asseeth by the second Adam Christ. And sith he is more of vertue then the first Adam might be and his payne is much more then sinnefull lust of the first Adam who shoulde haue conscience here that ne this sinne is clansid all orst And sith our Iesu is very God that neuer man forfete this mede he is a sufficient medicine for all sinners that bene contrite for Christ is euer and euery where and in all such soules by grace and so he clanseth more cleanely then any bodye or figure may clense and herefore as Poule sayth Christ is mediator of the newe lawe c. Agayne vpon 2. Cor. 3. Seeth mans thinking amonge his werkes seemeth moste in his power and yet his thought mote come of God much more eche other werke of man c. Thus should we put of pride and wholly trusten in Iesu Christ for he that may not thinke of him selfe may doe nought of him selfe but all our sufficiencie is of God by the meane of Iesu Christ. Likewise vpon the 8. to the Romanes Sith God susteyneth man and moueth him and helpeth him for to trauell how had it not come of grace and thus reward of this trauell mote needes all come of grace These places and many other shewe that Wicklefe was not ignorant of the righteousnes of fayth It seemeth therefore that Melancthon had seene only the articles which his aduersaries had gathered against him and not his owne writings and discourses The prophecyes which Bristow boasteth to be for their religion be of Ieremye and Esay for the perpetuall continuance of the true Church of Christ but seing it is proued that the popish Church hath not bene from the beginning those prophecyes appertayne not vnto her How the Church is visible is shewed in the 37. motiue whereunto I adde that while the Papistes glory of a visible Church on earth Ierusalem that is aboue and therefore not subiect to the eyes of earthly men but of such whose conuetsation is in heauen is the mother of vs all Finally if Bristow coulde as truly proue as he doth boldly say that no Scripture is against them but all for them he shoulde haue no Protestants to be his aduersaries who more accept of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures then of all other motiues in the world The 46. motiue is the 39. demaund VVhere grewe the Protestants seede before our time The church hath rehearsed wednesday fast long sithence A Bishop is aboue a Priest The Saincts were of our religion Baptisme necessarie for saluation of children Anabaptists VVhy there be so many Atheistes in England Trinitaries Such seedes of our doctrine sayth Bristowe as haue growne before this time did alwayes growe in euell grounde namely in heretikes as denyall of prayer for the deade in Aerius who beside that errour was an Arrian He chargeth vs also with denying the ordinarie fast of the church but that is false For we hold that the fast which is appointed by the church ought to be obserued although we hold that no man is bounde to the blasphemous superstitious and counterfait fast of the Popish synagogue In that time in which Aerius liued there were other times of fasting appointed then such as the Popishe church obserueth But the wedsnesday fast sayth Bristowe the church hath released In what generall councell good Sir are you able to shewe likewise of other times of fast named in Epiphanius if you be not able to shew this where is either your vniuersalitie antiquitie or succession in doctrine and discipline without interruption More thē this sayth he Aerius did hold that a Bishop a Priest be equall which also the Protestāts do mainteyne In preaching the word and ministring the Sacramentes S. Hierom Euagrio is of the same opinion that they are equall likewise in Epistad Titum cap. 1. shewing that a Bishoppe is preferred before a Priest magis ecclesiae consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate rather by custome of the church to auoyde schismes then by truth of the Lordes disposition Furthermore one of the Protestantes seedes is that we must not pray to Saints but this was held of certayne heretikes in S. Bernardes time who were called Apostolici were also Anabaptistes denying the baptisme of infantes The conclusion is that these opinions can not be good because they are founde in some heretikes And the contrary opinion must needes be true
be seene in England yet they that had spirituall eyes and by Gods grâ—ce drewe neare vnto his Church did in the most obscure tymes as the worlde esteemeth them see the cleare bewtie of her light and the glorye of the Lordes hill lifted vp aboue all the hills in the world Esa. 2. The heathen tyrants thought by their cruell persecution that they had vtterly rooted out the name and nation of Christians from the face of the earth Nero gloried that he had purged the world of the superstition of Christ as appeareth in an olde inscription in a picture of stone Neroni â—l Caes. Aug. Pontif. Max. ob prouin latromb hijs qui nouam generi hum superstitionem inculcar purgatam To Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus the greatest Prelate for that he hath purged the prouince of theeues and them that brought in a newe superstition to mankind Likewise another like piller there is of Diocletian and Maximian in these wordes Diocletian Iouius Maximi Herculeus Caes. Augu. Amplificato per Orientem Occident nup. Rom. nomme Christianorum deleto quiremp euertebant Diocletianus Iouius and Maximianus Herculeus Caesaris Augusti hauing amplified the Empire of Rome both in the East and West and vtterly destroyed the name of Christians which did ouerthrow the common wealth Another like there is of Diocletian alone Diocletian Caes. Aug. Galerio in Oriente adoptat superstitione Christi vbique deleta cultu Deorum propagato Diocletianus Caesar Augustus hauing adopted Galerius in the East and in all places vtterly destroyed the superstition of Christ and set forth the worship of the Gods By these inscriptions and glorious titles you see that the heathenish tyrants perswaded them selues that they had vtterly defaced the religion of Christ destroyed his Church out of the worlde what maruell then if Antichrist and his adherents which to the cruelty of the former tyrants haue added most detestable hypocrisy haue thought that they had so wholy subuerted the true religion of Christ and his true Church that the name ether of Church or religion might not seeme to haue remayned in the world but that of the Romish Antichrist But as Nero the Pontif. Maximus of Rome with Diocletiane and the reste were deceyued in their time so their successors in place office and wickednes the Popes of Rome are likewise disapoynted of their cruell purpose But M. Sander glorieth that in all markes and signes of the true Church the popish Church doth excel ours But first of all that which is the onely true marke and triall of the Church namely the word of God he denyeth to be a sufficient marke of the true Church yet had he before confessed the Church to be the piller and stay of truth 1. Tim. 3. but the rule of truth if we beleue our Sauiour Christ is the word of God Iohn 17. 17. therefore the word of God is the onely true tryall and marke of the Church But let vs consider his reasons by which he woulde perswade vs that y e word of God is not the chiefe marke whereby the true Church of God may be knowen First he sayth the marke whereby an other thing is knowne ought it selfe to be most exactly knowne wheras we are not agreed what Gods word is Note this reason of his by which he taketh away all authoritie and vse from the worde of God not onely thereby to discerne the true Church but also to teache vs any other thinge that is needefull for vs to know But why I pray you are we not agreed what is Gods word Forsooth because some cal onely the written letter and the meaning thereof Gods word other thinke many thinges are Gods word which are not expressely written but deliuered by tradition from the Apostles and by the holy Ghost which hath written his lawes in our hartes of this later sort be the Papists but they are easily confuted For this principle must needes stand vnmoueable that Gods spirite is neuer contrary to him selfe Therefore seeing the spirite of God hath pronounced of the Scriptures that they are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. 16. it is certayne that God hath reuealed nothing by tradition for our instructioÌ„ which is not conteyned in his worde written much lesse any thing that is contrary to his doctrine deliuered in the holy Scriptures His second reason is that we are not agreed vpon the written word of God because the Protestants doe not admitte so many bookes of the olde testament as the Catholikes doe I aunswer the Protestants doe admit as many as the Catholike Church euer did or doth at this day His third reasoÌ„ is that the meaning of those bookes which we are agreed vpon is altogether in question betwene vs therfore that can be no marke of the church which it self is not knowne I answer although heretikes which are ouerthrowen in their owne conscience will acknowledge no meaning to be true but their owne yet are there many principles in the Scriptures so playne as they are graunted by both partes or els can not without shame be denyed of our aduersaries out of which playne certeyne and immutable principles all matters in controuersie may be proued and the same church also discerned which is the verie cause why the Papistes dare not abide the triall by the Scriptues but flye to traditions euen as their forefathers the auncient Valentinian heretikes of whome Irenaeus writeth lib. 3. cap. 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem conuertuntur ipsaruÌ„ Scripturam quasi non rectè habeant neque fuit ex auctoritate quia variè sunt dictae quia non possit ab his inueniriveritas qui nesciant traditionem non enim per literas traditam sed per viuam vocem When they are conuinced out of the Scriptures then fall they to accusing of the Scriptures them selues as though they were not right nor of sufficient authoritie because they are spoken doubtfully and that the trueth cannot be found of them which knowe not the tradition for that was not deliuered by letters but by word of mouth Thus much Ireneus of the olde Heretikes and what his iudgement was of the meaning of the Scripture which M. Sand. maketh so ambiguous he declareth lib. 2. cap. 35. Vniuersae scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitat similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt c. The whole Scriptures both of the Prophets and of the Gospells are open and without ambiguitie may be heard of all meÌ„ alike This speaketh Irenaeus not of euery text of Scripture but of the whole doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles which is so playne and easie to be founde in the Scriptures that no man can misse thereof that seeketh not of purpose to be deceyued as he sayth cap. 67. of the same booke But M. Sander is content for disputation sake to admit Gods word for a marke of the true Church and
that vnderstande them not And why are those the better tongues he sayth they were sanctified on Christes crosse for all holy vses and especially to serue God in the tyme of sacrifice But howe were they sanctified I pray you For sooth because Pilate wrote the title in Hebrue Greeke and Latine that it might be vnderstoode of all nations for what cryme he was condemned And is Pilate nowe become a sanctifier of tongues for Gods seruice is the malicious scorne of an heathen tyrant a sanctification of these tongues O brasen foreheads of shameles Papistes But heare more yet of this impudent stuffe This sanctification was the cause that the Apostles in the East and West deliuered these tongues alone as holy learned and honorable not regarding the infinite multitude of prophane and barbarous tongues whereof it came that the East Church was called the Greeke Church the West the Latine Church But the Scripture Acts the second doth teach vs that the holy Ghost hath sanctified all tongues of all nations to the praysing of God and that the Apostles deliuered the magnifical prayses of God in all languages Act. 2. 11. And although the Greeke and Latine tongues were most vsed most commonly vnderstoode in the Romane Empire yet the Church of Christ was enlarged farther then euer the Romane Empire extended in Persia Armenia AEthiopia India c. where there was no knowledge ether of the Greke or Latine tongues And euen in the Romain Empire those nations to whome the Latine Greeke tongues were not vulgare vsed their Church seruice in other tongues Hieronym in epitaphio Paulae ad Eustochium telleth that at the solemne funeralls of Paule euery nation that was present did singe their Psalmes in order in their owne language Hebraeo Graeco Latino Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant In the Hebrue Greeke Latine and Syrian speache the Psalmes were songe in order But seeing Maister Sander alloweth none other sanctification of the tongues but Pilates title on the crosse how is the Hebrue tongue which was one of the three and the most principall as the first tongue of the worlde and for the excellencye therof called the holy tongue how is that I say shut out from Church seruice why was there not an Hebrue seruice established by the Apostles as well as the Greeke and Latine But yet he bringeth another argument to proue that it is lawfull to reade seruice to the people in a tongue w c they vnderstaÌ„d not by the exaÌ„ple of Christ who in time of his sacrifice did recite the beginning of the 21 Psalme My God my God why hast thou forsaken me in y e Hebrue tongue which he knew the people did not vnderstand and did not interprete the same in the vulgar tounge Good Lord into what foollishnes doth satan carry their minds that wilfully striue against the truth For what reason is this Christ in his priuate praier that concerned his owne person spake with a touÌ„g that was not commonly vnderstood therefore the ordinary publike seruice ought to be in a strauÌ„ge toung Christ compassed about with his enemyes none within the hearing of him but the virgine Mary Iohn the Euangelist â—â—â—â— loued him or regarded him spake Hebrue therefore the Prieste in the church must speake Latine or Greeke But when M. Sand. hath played with this argument as long as he can his antecedent is vtterly false for Christe resited not that texte of the Psalme in the Hebrue but in the Syrian toung which was the vulgar tounge vnderstood and spoken of all the people as is manifestly proued by the word Sabacâ—tani reported by both the Euangelists Mat. 27. Mark 15. Which is of the Syrian tounge whereas the Hebrue texte is Hazabtani as I report me to all that can but read two tounges Hebrue and Syrian And whereas the malicious Hel-houÌ„ds said he called for Elias it was not because they vnderstood him not but because they most dispightfully mocked his most vehement praier taking occasion of the like sound of the name of God of Elias as scornefull deriders vse to doe Sixtly lest the Protestants should passe the Papistes in any one iote they haue the vse of the vulgar tongues in Dalmatia Assyria AEthiopia which acknowledge the supremacie of the Byshop of Rome This is a loude lye for neither the church of Dalmatians Moscouites Armenians Assirians AEthiopiaÌ„s nor any other of those East nations that retaine the name of Christe did euer acknowledge the Popes supremacie I knowe they haue fayned Fables of Letters sent from Preto Ioannes and such like which are meere forgeryes vppon the submission of some one poore wanderer that hath come out of those countryes But M. Sand. will shewe the cause why all Nations are not suffered likewise to vse their vulgar tounges in their seruice First he sayeth vulgar tounges cause barbarousnesse for the Preachers of those Countryes vnderstande not the Latine and Greeke tounges by this meanes What an absurde reason this is experience doth shewe For when or where was greater ignorance in the Cleargie then there and at such time as the Latine seruice was vsed How many in all England vnderstoode or coulde read the Greeke toung within these sixtie or eightie yeeres I speake nothing of the Hebrue tounge Contrarywise what age was euer more full of lyberall knowledge in all Sciences and learned tounges then this is euen in England France Germany where seruice is vsed in the vulgar touÌ„ge Theâ—fore the vse of thevulgar touÌ„ge in Church Seruice is not the cause of barbarousnesse The seconde reason is that necessitie inforceth the Apostolike See to tollerate these Nations in their vulgar tounges because they knowe none other but Protestants by schisme are fallen from Latine to Englishe that is from better to worse and therefore not to be tollerated But indeede the necessitie is because they will not receiue your Latine tounge and our schisme is from Antichriste to be ioyned with Christe from whose doctrine the Church of Rome by horrible schisme is departed for what the doctrine of Christe is concerning Publique Prayers in a tounge that is not vnderstoode his Apostle Saincte Paule hath abundauntly taught vs the 1. Corinthes the 14. Chapter Finally we defende that our naturall Engliâ—he tounge is better to ediâ—ie Englishe men then your balde Latine touÌ„ge that you vse in your popish seruice is for any vse of any man learned or vnlearned Seuenthly the Papistes doe not onely consider the written letter but also the plain meaning of euery proposition and as the words doe sound so doe they vnderstand them And heerof he bringeth many exaÌ„ples To this I answere that if they vnderstande all propositions aswel figuratiue as plain proper speaches as the words doe sound they make monstrous interpretations as if they vnderstande this proposition the rock was Christe as the words sound they make a new transubstantiation of the stone into Christ or this This cuppe is the newe Testament
worde of God alloweth or the primitiue church acknowledgeth in the administration of the other they haue either altogether peruerted the institution as in the Lordes supper or shamefully corrupted it with superstition as in baptisme they are not the church of Christ but the church of Antichrist When we alledge the persecution of the Romish Antichrist to be the cause that our church hath not florished in outward peace to be a marke also of the truth of our congregation what maisters sayth D. Sanders Antichrists persecution shall dure but three yeres an halfe and is the Pope Antichrist who hath dured these 900. yeres But good M. Doctor determiner how proue you that Antichrists persecution shall dure but three an halfe of such yeares as the Pope hath dured 900. you quote Dan. 7. Apoc. 13. you might by as good reason say it shal dure but three dayes an halfe Apoc. 11. 9. will you take vpon you so precisely to determine of the mysticall nuÌ„ber which is somtime called 3. yeares an halfe somtime 42. moneths somtime 1260. daies somtime 3. daies an halfe somtime a time times halfe a time al which make halfe a Prophetical weeke signifie a time determined of God but not plainly reuealed to many SecoÌ„dly you aske how it could be the true church against w c Antichrist so loÌ„g preuailed that no man could tel whether any such were in y e earth wheÌ„ hel gates shal not preuaile against y e true church I answere if you can not put a difference betwene impugning preuailing you wil haue much to do to defend your Romish church to be the true church against the Turkes theÌ„ selues who haue possessed a great part of â—â—â—â— grouÌ„d w c you say perteined once to your church But herin appeareth the mark of the true church against w c the gates of hell haue not preuailed that although SataÌ„ was let loose the whore of Babylon dronken with the blood of her meÌ„bers her two witnesses slaine she her selfe driuen into the wildernes her seede persecuted wheresoeuer they were dispersed yet she is restored in the sight of the world her witnesses raised froÌ„ death to life the deuill is vanquished y e purple whore of Babylon is fallen Antechrist shall at length be throwne into the lake with the deuil and his Angels This is the Lordes worke it is maruelous in our eyes If either persecution or not failing in persecutioÌ„ be a marke of the church it is more in the Papists theÌ„ in the ProtestaÌ„ts for persecutioÌ„ he will proue that they be persecuted by vs as the mother by y e child which departeth from her obedience as Agar Ismael froÌ„ Sara But I answer we are departed froÌ„ Agar vnder whom we were in bondage to Sara by whom we are made children of the heaueÌ„ly Ierusalem euen as Agar departed froÌ„ Sara so did the synagoge of Rome froÌ„ the Catholike church of Christ. For not failing in persecutioÌ„ experieÌ„ce teacheth in all countries w c haue receaued the Gospell how small punishmeÌ„ty greatest nuÌ„ber of Papists wil abide for their Popish profession whereas so many thousands Goâ—s Saincts being most cruelly murdred by y e popish church the church of Christ is not diminished but encreased thereby euen as Cyprian saith the blood of the martyrs is the seede of church If antiquitie be a marke it is proued to be on the Papists side by this reason The church is all one the later part of the church for 900. yeares last past is on the Papistes side therefore the former parte also But this reason standing vpon a shamefull begging of that which is questioned is soone turned vpon your owneÌ„ necke The church is in all but one but the beginning of the church maketh not for you therefore that which you say is the later part of the church being contrary to that former is no part of the church so that by this reason you shal neither haue antiquitie or any parte of the church But if you appeale to particular examples sayth M. Sander I say the Christians in the primitiue church did communicate vnder one kinde at Emaus and at Ierusalem And I say M. Sander if he would burst him self with study shall neuer proue it He quoteth Aug. de consen Euang lib. 3. cap. 25. whose opinion was that Christ gaue the sacrameÌ„t at Emaus but of communion in one kind he neuer once dreamed He sayth the Christians did set vp images in the honor of Christ quoting Eus. lib. 7. cap. 14. whereas Eusebius speaketh of heathen men that of heathenish custome did set vp images and not of Christians Dionysius although he be auncient yet he wrote not in the tyme of Eusebius Hieronymus or Gennadius so was knowne for no writer in y e Church for 500. yeares after Christ Wherefore I wil not stand about his errors and ceremonyes which yet for the moste parte are as vnlike the popish ceremonyes as they are to ours Although wee haue no certaintie of the writinges of Ignatius which are extant yet is there nothing in them that fauoreth the Papists religion Hee nameth a a sacrifice which could not be offered without the Byshop that cannot be the Masse whiche euery hed geprieste may say ad Symrn. He would haue the Emperor obey the Byshop sayth M. Sand. ad Phil. But this proueth the Epistle to bee counterfaite for there was no Christian Emperour when Ignatius liued Although in deuine matters the Christian Emperour ought to obey the Bishop or rather Gods word which y e Bishop preacheth Also he speaketh of Virgins that had consecrated them selues to God who speaketh against them which hauing the gifte of continency doe keepe virginity In the same Epistle He affirmeth both Peter and Paule to haue bene maried and will not condemne the mariage of church ministers He commendeth the lent fast ad Antioch Choose M. Sander whether your decretals lye of Thelesphorus that inuented the lent fast or that this is a counterfait Epistle of Ignatius In the Epistle ad Phil. Where he commendeth the 40. daies fast the Wednesday the Friday fast he saith farther Quicunque dominicum aut sabbathum non ieiunauerit praetâ—r vnum sabbathum pasâ—ae ipse est Christi interfector Whosoeuer shall not fast the Lordes day or sabbat beside one sabbat of Easter he is a murtherer of Christ. If this be true antiquity why doth the church of Rome omit fast on Sunday if it be counterfait why is not M. Sander ashamed to alleage it Iustinus witnesseth that water was mingled with the wine Yea but it was to alay the strength of the wine not that it was necessary for the Sacrament though afterward it grew to a superstitious obseruation He saith further the Deacons caried the consecrated mysieries to them that were absent which Caluine reputeth for an abuse If they caried the bread the wine as the Sacrament it was an abuse not to
that he deserued so to be and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the other Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution if he had lost it is superfluous Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were but at this time especially confirmed as his speciall case required His last reason is that admit Peter had not beene restored before this time yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority then any other Apostle had receued at any time and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes he aunsweareth by distinction forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship and yet Peter was chiefe of tâ—e Apostles and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high â—â—yshop wherein they were all inferiours to him and â—â—ee was their Primate and their heade and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be and in the same respecte is a straunge Logition Fynally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock deny the honor to his successors he will proue that the Byshop of Rome and none other hath all that authoritie which Peter sometime had and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature condition of Antichrist then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe The seconde Chapter THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ though not properly a Lordlynesse or heathenish dominion And in what sort this Eâ—clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmeÌ„t ofseculer princes and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared That there â—as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes The high Priest is preferred before the King by Gods law The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes That Moyses was a Priest THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a ministery or seruice by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion but altogether as vnlike to it as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth That no man properly can tâ—e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ. he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist â—ut also an Anabaptist For the coÌ„mon seruice that we oâ—â—e vnto Christ hindereth not but that a Christian man â—ay be Lord King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar to eche in things that belonged to them that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles like to the princes of the nations Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church some kind of primacy also it is cleerer by the scriptures then that it neede any proofe especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth namely where he citeth this text Feed my sheepe to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion iust measure of victuals in coÌ„uenient time which thing neither Peter did nether was he able to doe And much lesse any man in succession to him which is not equal in gifts with him And therefore the example of a stuarde who may prouide for a competent number of one family is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde beside him that is almightie For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse 23 they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos which hee calleth Exortem quandam eminentem potestatem A certaine peerelesse and highe power And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time c. True Euery seuerall Pastor or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority yet in that he argueth that the like should be in the whole church militant which is in euery parish it is out of all compasse of reason For that which is possible in the one is altogeather impossible in the other And the argument is no better then if we should say there is one steward in euery Colledge or greate house therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world And wheras he would proue his matter good by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles calleth Peter the first it is to childish friuolous For in euery nomber one or other must be the first it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship therefore his primacy was of order not of auctority Nether is he alwaies first named for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is of the dignity of the Apostles Iames is named before Cephas or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem by consent of most auncient writers neither doeth it folow that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi A prince of the people therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people as M. S. seemeth to say neither had Peter by those wordes feede my shope any auctority committed vnto him more then to the rest of the Apostles As for the name of Lord or tearme of dominioÌ„ sometime geueÌ„ by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment we striue not about it so there be no such dominion by him excercised
made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one he is not ashamed to charge Maister Iewell for leauing the moste literall sense and mingling three opinions of these foure in one as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ were the onely or moste literall sense But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particulerly with all circumstaunces for my parte considering all circumstaunces I think the most simple and plaine meaning of Christe is that Peter it a Rocke or stone vppon which the Church is buylded but none otherwise then euery one of the Apostles is Ephe 2. and 20. verse and in the Apocalips the 21. chapter and 14. verse Of which M. Sander also confesseth euery one to be a Rock in his kinde But nowe let vs see the fiue circumstaunces by which Maister Saunder will proue Peter for to bee such a Rocke as none of all the reste of the Apostles is but he The firste Christe promised Symon before he confessed that he shoulde be called Peter whiche was the firste cause of beeing the Rocke Iohn I. Admit this to bee a promise not an imposition of a name in respect of the giftes of fortitude constancie where with he woulde endue him this proueth him not to be a singular rocke The second he was named Peter before he coÌ„fessed which was the performaunce of the promise Mark 3. I dout not but that he had coÌ„fessed Christ before he was made an Apostle although he had not made that solemne confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstaunce is a friuolous argument And his brother Andrewe which first brought him to Christ confessed Iesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ. The thirde when he had confessed the Godheade of Christ which was the fruâ—ct of the gift of the promise Christ pronounced him to be such a rocke whereupon he would build his church which was the reward of his confession But all the Apostles made the same confession therefore the same reward was geuen to all that they should euerie one be a rocke or stone on which the church should be builded The fourth Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle which was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter was in respect of his greater weakenes when he was left to him selfe The last to shew what strength Peter should geue to his brethren after his conuersion Christ bad him feede his lambes wherby he was made such a rock wherby he should stay vp his church by teaching ruling y e faithful as whose voyce the sheepe should be bound to heare in payne of damnation First I answere that the strength or confirmation which he should geue to his brethren was not all one with his feeding of the lambes but was vsed to the strengthening of his weake brethren the rest of the Apostles whom after his maruelous conuersion he did mightely confirme though in his fall he was shewed to be the weakest of all Then I say the feeding of the sheepe of Christ was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles in which he had no prerogatiue of auctoritie geuen but an earnest charge to shewe his greater loue by greater diligence in his office So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock then euery one of the Apostles is The fourth Chapter DIuerse reasons are alleaged to proue chiefely by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture that these wordes thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will builde my church haue this literall meaning vpon thee ô Peter being first made a rocke to thend thou shouldest stoutely confesse the faith and so confessing it I will build my church the promise to be caelled Peter was the first cause VVhy the church was built vpon him the Protestants can not tel which is the first literall sense of these wordes vpon this rocke will I build my church FIrst it is to be remembred that M. SaÌ„der in the chapter before reiecting the interpretatioÌ„ of three of the greatest Doctors of the church Origen Augustine and Chrysostom not only is bound in equity to geue vs the same liberty which he taketh him selfe but also to confesse that these three principal doctors following other senses then his were ignoraunt of that which he all other Papists make to be the chiefe article of Christian faith namely of the supremacie of Peter when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rocke wherupon Christ would build his church and therfore would neuer haue subscribed to his booke which he instituteth the rock of the church But nowe to the argument of this chapter Chrysostomis cited to proue that where Christ sayth to Peter thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cepha which is by intepretation Peter a newe name is promised to Simon in Ioan. Hom. 18. Honorifice c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him For the certeine foretelling of things to come is the worke only of the immortal God It is to be noted that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all thinges which shoulde come to passe afterwarde to him For he did not call him Peter neither did he say vpon this rocke will I builde my church But he sayd thou shalt be called Cephas For that was both of more power and also of more auctoritie There is nothing in this sentence but that we may willingly admit Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelue foundations of the church as he was afterward And that Chrysostom iudged no singular thing to be graunted by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter appeareth by his wordes in Euang. Ioann Praef. Where he applieth the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus columna omniuÌ„ quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum qui caeli claues habet For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ being a piller of all the churches which are in the worlde which hath the keyes of heauen Neither doth Cyrillus whom he citeth make any thing for his purpose In Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon c. And he telleth afore hande that his name shalbe Peter and not nowe Simon by the very word signifying that he would build his church on him as on a rocke and most sure stone These are the wordes of Cyrillus but that he meaneth not his person but his faith he sheweth manifestly in his booke de Trinit lib. 4. speaking vpon the text of Math. 16. the grounde of M. Sanders booke Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud quam inconcussam firmissimam discipuli fidem vocauit in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata fundata esset vt non laberetur I thinke he called a rocke by denomination nothing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast
AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te I wil build my church vpon thee Behold sayth M. Sander the church promised to be built vpon a mortall man If he say true Christ sayth in vaine that flesh and blood made him not Peter But the same Hieronyme interpreteth that power there geuen to Peter to perteyne to euerie Bishop and Priest as much as to Peter And contra Ioninian lib. 1. he writeth At dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolâ—s fiat cuncti â—laues regni caelâ—rum accipiant ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo sâ—lidetur tamen propterea inter duâ—decim vnus eligitur vt capite coÌ„stituto seisinatis tollatur occasio But thou sayest the church is founded vpon Peter although in an other place the same is done vpon al â—â—â—â— Apostles they al receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the strength of the church is grounded equally vpon theÌ„ yet for this cause one is chosen among the twelue that the heade being appoynted occasion of diuision might be taken away You see now that Peter is no more a rock or fundation then the rest neither hath any more auctoritie of the keyes then the rest alâ—hough by his iudgement he was chosen to be the chiefe or first in order to auoyde strife not in dignitie or auctority Chrysostom is cited ex Var. in Math. Hom 27. Princeps c. Peter Prince of the Apostles vpon whome Christ sounded the church a verie immoueable rocke and a strong confession M. Sander woulde haue vs note that Peter is called confession that when he sayth the church is builded vpon faith confession we might vnderstand no mans saith and confession but Peters As though all the Apostles had not the same faith made not the same coÌ„fession But notwithstaÌ„ding that Chrysostom doth ofteÌ„ acknowledge Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles yet he willeth vs to coÌ„sider that his principallity was not of auctority but of order Iam illâ—d considera quà m Petrus agit omma excommuni disâ—ipulorum sententiâ— nihil auctoritate sua nihil cum imperio Now also coÌ„sider this how euen Peter doth all things by the coÌ„mon decree of the disciples nothing by his owne auctority nothing by commaundement Ex. Act. Ho. 3. Also in 2. ad Gal. he doth not only asfirme that Paule was equall in honor with Peter but also that all the rest were of equall dignitie Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod herum vnusquis q parem sortitus sit dignitateÌ„ And now Paule sheweth him selfe equall in honor with the rest neither doth he coÌ„pare him selfe with the rest but euen with the highest himselfe declaring that euery one of theÌ„ hath obteined equal dignity Now followeth Epiphanius in Anchor Ipse dominus c. The Lord himselfe did constitute him chiefe of the Apostles a sure rocke vpon which the church of God is built and the gates of hell shall not preuayle agaâ—nst it now the gates of hell are heresies and auctors of heresies for by all meanes faith in him was established which receaued the keye of heauen That Peter was chiefe of y e Apostles in order we striue not that he was a sure rocke we graunt but that he alone was the rocke of the church we deny The same Epiphanius acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be fellow minister with euery Bishop and no better and therefore setting forth the epistle of Marcellus to Iulius Bishop of Rome he giueth this superscriptioÌ„ Beatissimo coÌ„ministro Iulio Marcellus in Domino gaudium To his most blessed fellow minister Iulius Marcellus wisheth ioy in the Lord. The place of Cyrillus which followeth I haue sette downe and aunswered iu the chapter before After him Theodoretus alleageth Psellus In Petro c. In Peter the prince of the Apostles our Lord in the Gospells hath promised that he will build his Church Damascâ—n and Euthymius later writers are alledged to the like effect all which proue nothing but that Peter is a rocke which we confesse as euery one of the Apostles is TheÌ„ followeth Augustine in his retractations which leaueth it to the choyce of the reader whether he will vnderstand Peter figuring the person of the Church to be the rocke spoken of by Christ or Christ whoÌ„ he coÌ„fessed But that Peter as Bishop of Rome should be the rocke he sayth nothing Againe leauing it to the readers choyse he sheweth he had no such perswasion of the rocke of the Church as M. Sander teacheth After him Prosper Aquitanicus Leo with Gregory two Bishops of Rome say nothing but that Peter was a rocke which we graunt without controuersie Last of all the councell of Chalcedon is cited Act. 3. Petrus Apostolus est petra crepido Ecclesiae Peter the Apostle is a rocke and a shoare of the Churche which M. Sander translateth the toppe of the Church In deede the legats of the Bishop of Rome vttered such words which may be well vnderstoode as all the rest of the fathers that Peter was one of the twelue foundations of the Churche But that the councell acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to haue such authoritie as is pretended appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalcedon councell where notwithstanding the B. of Romes Legats reclaymed Leo him selfe refused to consent yet by the whole councell it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should haue equall authoritie with the Archbishop of Rome in the East onely the title of prioritie or senioritie reserued to the Bishop of Rome To conclude M Iewell sayd truly for all M. Sanders vaine childishinsulting impudent rayling y t no mor tall maÌ„ but Christ only is the rocke foundation of the Church albeit that Peter all the Apostles in respect of their office doctrine were fouÌ„dation stones wheron the Church was builded Iesus Christ being the corner stone and onely one generall foundation The sixt chapter THe diuerse reasoÌ„s which the fathers bring to declare why S. Peter was this rocke do euidently shew that he was most literally this rocke whereupon Christ would build his Church How Peter beareth the person of the Church THat he was a stone or rocke wheron the Church is builded hath bene often graunted but that he onely was such a stone is stil denyed First Basil aduersus Euno lib. 2. is cited with his reason Petrus c. Peter receyued the building of the Church vpon him selfe for the excellencye of his faith I aunswer so did the other Apostles for the excellencye of their fayth for continuance whereof Christ prayed as well as for Peters faith Iohn 17. The 2. Hilarie de trinit lib. 6. sayth Supereminentem c. Peter by confession of his blessed faith deserued an exceding glory And so did the rest of the Apostles by their confession of their
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
out of the counterfait Egesippus of Simon Magus flying in the ayer the Emperour Nero his great delight in his sorcerye The credit of Egesippus he desendeth by blaming his translatour for adding names of cities which had none such when Egesippus liued But that Simon Magus shewed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero as this counterfait Egesippus reporteth it is plaine by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. natur Histor. who shewing how desirous Nero was and what meanes he had to haue triall thereof yet neuer could come by any It was a practise of old time to fayne such fables for loue of the Apostles as Tertullian witnesseth de baptis of a Priest of Asia that was conuicted confessed that he fained for the loue of Paule a writing vnto Tecla in which many absurd things were contayned Againe so many Apocriphall gospells epistles itineraryes and passions as are counterfaited vnder the name of Apostles and auncient fathers who knoweth not to be fables and false inuentions Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death he preuenteth the objection because he continued not his storye so farre which doubt sayth he he woulde not haue omitted if he had gone so farre foâ—ward in his story But seeing he brought Paule to Rome both in his iorney and in his history why maketh he no mention of Peters being there which if their story were true must haue sit there twenty yeares before To omit therefore the foure causes why Peter should dye at Rome whereof three are taken out of a counterfait August de sa ctis hom 27. the 4. out of Leo Gregory Bishops of Rome he commeth to decyde the controuersie betwene the Greekes Latines who was first successor of Peter Linus or Clemens taking parte with them that affirme Clemens although Irenaeus the most auncient writer of any that is extant name Linus who was not a Grecian farre of but a Frenchmam at Lyons neare hand to Italy whose authority although he reiect in naming Linus to be ordayned Bishop by both the Apostles yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Churche of Rome Maximam antiquissimam c. The greatest and the most auncient knowen to all men founded and setled by two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule And agayne Adhanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church by reason of the mightier principalitie euery Church that is the faithful that are euery where must needes agree But he proceedeth and sheweth the cause why In qua semper ab hys qui sunt vndique conserâ—ata est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio In which alwayes that tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies kept of them that are round about M. Sander calleth it willful ignorance in M. Iewel that sayth the mightier principalitie spoken of in Irenaeus is ment of the ciuill dominion and Romane Empire whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation that it was the greatest and the most auncient the greatest he sayth because it was fownded by Peter the greatest Apostle but so sayth not Irenaeus for he sayth it was founded by two most glorious Apostles and not by Peter alone It was then greatest because the greatest number of Christians were in Rome as the greatest citie But howe is it the most auncient but in respect of Peters senioritie for otherwise Ierusalem and Antioche were auncienter in tyme. I aunswer two wayes first it is sophisticall to vrge the superlatiue degree grammatically as when we saye potentissimo principi to the most mightye prince doctissimo viro to the best learned man c. We doe not meane that no Prince is equall or superiour in power nor that no maÌ„ is equall or superiour in learning to him whome we so commende but to shewe the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great Secondly I aunswer that Irenaeus speaketh coniunctly it is sophisticall to vnderstande seuerally He saith there is no Church of such greatnes so auncient and so well knowen as the Church of Rome From this blinde collection out of Irenaeus he commeth downe groping to Cyprian who speaking of certayne factious heretikes that sayled from Carthage to Rome to complayne of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Afrike to Pope Cornelius Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent ad Petri c. They dare cary letters from schâ—smaticall and prophane men vnto the chayer of Peter and the principall Churche from whence the priestly vnitie beganne Nether consider that they are Romanes whose fayth is pray sed by the report of the Apostle vnto whom falshod can haue none accesse In this saying we must note the priuiledges of S. Peters supremacie to be at Rome 1. This is S. Peters chayer that is his ordinary power of teaching c. Nay rather the Bishops seate which he and Paule did set vp there as Irenaeus sheweth li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the Apostles Nay rather because it is the greatest Church being gathered in the greatest citie of the world as IrenÄ™us also calleth it 3. The priestly vnitie beganne not in Rome but in Peter therefore there is the whole authoritie of Peter The argument is nought the beginning of vnitie proueth not authoritie 4. this worde vnitie doth import that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe sheepeheard so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power This argument is of small importance for nether had Peter alone such power nor any of his successors 5. where he sayth infidelitie can haue no accesse to the Romanes what other thinge is it then to saye in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed Luc. 22. Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles and of all his Disciples to the ende of the worlde Ioan. 17. Beside this Maister Sander translateth perfidia which signifieth falshood or false dealing infidelitie secondly that which Cyprian sayth of all the faythfull Romanes he draweth to his Pope thirdly where Cyprian sheweth howe longe they shall continue without falshoode namely so long as they retayne the fayth praysed by the Apostle he maketh it perpetuall to the sea of Rome whereas the Romanes them selues write to Cyprian of those prayses of the Apostle quarum laudum gloriae degenerem fuisse maximum crimen est Of which prayses and glorye to be growne out of kinde it is the greatest cryme Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Churche of Rome coulde not erre he woulde neuer haue mayntayned an opinion against them as he did in rebaptisinge them that were baptised by heretikes The 6. We must adde heareto that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem the mother roote of the Catholike church lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there we find that Cyprian his fellowes exhorted all such troublesome
gather againe the Lords sheepe into his folde The 9. note is That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptised by hereâ—kes yet hee denyed not his prerogatiue but kept still the vnitie of the militant Church in acknowledging the visible head thereof He quoteth his ep Contra Stephan wherin is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogatiue but contrary wise euery childe may see that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinon froÌ„ the B. of Rome wrote against him he helde no such prerogatiue of that sea as the Papists now maintaine that the bishop of Rome cannot erre In deede Cyprian professeth that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion yet he would not deparâ—e from the vnitie of the Church but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head wherof M. S. speaketh much but Cyprian neuer a word neither in that place nor in any of all his workes The next authoritie is Hippolitus whose words Prud rehearseth Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite c. Hâ—s aunsvvere vvas O flee the sâ—smes of cursed Nouates lâ—re And to the Catholike fâ—lke and stocke your selues againe restore Let onely one faith rule and raâ—gne kept in the Church of olde VVhich faith both Paule doth sâ—l retaine Peters chair doth holdâ— No dout this was a good exhortation so longe as the temple of Peter aâ—d Paule at Rome did holde the olde catholike faith from which seeing the Pope is now fled we may not honor the emptie chaire of Peter to think there is his faith where his doctrine is not After Hippolitus followeth Sozomenus who reporteth that Athanasius and certaine other Byshops of the Greeke Church came to Rome to Iulius the byshopp there to complaine that they were vniustly deposed by the Arians Wherevpon the Byshop of Rome finding them vpon examination to agree with the Nicene couÌ„cel did reâ—eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all for the worthynes of his owne See and did restore to euery of them their owne Churches c. Heere M. Sander hath his 9 obseruations he delighteth much in that number But it shall not neede to stand vpon them it is coÌ„fessed that in Sozomenus time the writer of this story who iudgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lyued the sea of Rome was growne into great estimation and counted the first See or principall in dignitie of all Byshops Seas in the worlde Yea it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he sayeth That long before his time the Byshops Sea of Rome aswel as of Alexandria was growne beyonde the bands of Prâ—esthood into a forraine Lordship dominion Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the recordes of the very time in which Iulius lyued we shall not finde that the dignitie of his Sea was such as that he hadde such authoritie as Sozomenus aseribeth to him and much lesse such as M. Sander imagineth of him In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus which beside that he called him his fellow minister acknowledgeth no such dignitie of his Sea lib. 3. to 1. And Sozomenus himselfe testifyeth that the Bishops of the East derided contemned his commandementes lib. 3. Cap. 8. cap. 11. they were as bolde to depose him with the byshops of the West as he was to check them that they called not him to their councel Wherein as I confesse they did euell yet thereby they shewed euidently that the Christian worlde in those dayes did not acknowledge the vsurpation of the bishop of Rome as M. Sander saith they did Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him if it had beene a Catholike doctrine receiued in the Church that the Byshopp of Rome is head of the Church Byshop of all Byshops Iudge of all causes and one which cannot erre As for Athanasius Paulus c. and other Byshops beeing tossed to and fro by their enemyes no maruaile if they were glad to finde any comfort at the Byshop of Romes hands hauing first sought to the Emperors for refuge of whome sometime they were holpeÌ„ sometime they wer hindred as informatioÌ„ was giuen either for them or against theÌ„ But Arnobius he sayeth giueth a maruailous witnes for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto c Peter wandering in the desert of this worlde vntill he came to Rome preached the baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floods are blessed from Peter vnto this day He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst so that he which shall goe forth of the Church of Peter shal perish for thirst It is a maruelous witte of M. Sander that can find such maruelous prerogatiue of Peter in this place which Arnobius would haue in the example of Peter to be vnderstoode of all men Quid est ascendunt Disce in Petro vt quod in ipso inueneris in omnibus cernas Ascendit Petrus c. What meaneth this they goe vp as highe as heauen Learne in Peter to thend that y t which thou shalt find in Peter thou mayst see in all men Peter went vp as high as heauen when he sayd Although I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee c. and so applying the vnderstanding of the Psalme to Peter and in him to all ChristiaÌ„s he coÌ„meth to that maruelous testimony of the church of Rome which M. Sander reporteth shewing how after his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floodes are blessed from Peter to this day Where M. Sander vseth a false translation saying the floodes are blessed of Peter and expoundeth the floodes to be the churches whereas Arnobius speaketh of all waters which in Christ are sanctified to the vse of baptisme from the Apostles time vntill this day But it is a Catholike argument that whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Peter goeth out of the Church of Christe therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the heade thereof Euen lyke this whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Paule or of any of the Apostles wheresoeuer they planted it doth perish therefore Corinth and Paule or any other Citie the Apostle that preached there may be taken for the head and Pastor and mother Church of all other yet is this with M. Sander a meruailous testimony Optatus succeeded Arnobius Cont. Pamen de nat lib. 2. Negare nonpotes c. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishops chaire was giuen in the citie of Rome in which Peter the head of al the apostles hath sit wherofhe was also called Cephas in which chair vnitie might be kept of al men so that he should be a scismatike w c should place any other chaire against the singular chaire Vnto Peter succeeded Linus vnto Linus succeded Clemens so nameth all the Byshops vntil Siricius which liued in
the Prince is one of the Priest an other this spiritual the other external therefore no contrariety betwene them For put the case that Philippus had seene the Bishop prophane the sacrament in ministring to infidels or otherwise vncertainly behauing him selfe in his office might he not iustly haue punished him as supreame gouernour ouer the Bishoppe euen in those matters I say not to doe them but to see that they be well done and to punishe the offendors Neither is the meaning of the othe any other And according to this meaning M. Nowell M. Horne and M. Iewel dare warrant the King to be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes although it please M. Sander to say the contrarie of them Whose trayterous quarelling vpon the wordes of the othe ought not to trouble any mans coÌ„science when the meaning is publikelie testified both by the Prince and by the whole consent of the church The next exaÌ„ple is of Constantinus the great which in the Synode of Nice when the Bishops had offered vnto him bills of complaint one against an other without disclosing the contentes of them he sayd as Ruffinus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes c. God hath made you Priestes and hath giuen you power to iudge of vs also and therfore we are rigtly iudged of you but ye can not be iudged of mÌ„e For which cause expect ye the iudgement of God alone among ye Here M. Sander noteth first that he calleth them Priestes whereby he woulde proue they had power to offer externall sacrifice which is a simple reason for then all Christian men women within the Scripture are called Priestes haue the same power Secondly he coÌ„fesseth they haue power to iudge the Emperour for none can be greater then a Priest In their challenge and spirituall gouernment the Emperour meaneth and not as the Popish church practised to dispose the Emperour Thirdly that Priestes can not be iudged of meÌ„ If this be so one Priest can not be iudged of an other and where is then the Popes supremacie but he aunswereth if one Priest iudge an other it is Gods iudgement and not the iudgement of men because God hath set one Priest aboue another O blockish aunswere as though God hath not set one Prince aboue all his subiectes You see howe Popish Priestes aduaunce them selues to the honor of God and withdraw their obedience from Gods Lieutenaunts on earth An vndoubted note of Antichristians You will aske me then what sence these wordes haue you can not be iudged of men I aunswere either they are ment as Sainct Paule speaketh of the vprightnes of his conscience in doing of his office which is not subiect to the iudgement of men or else Ruffinus as he was a bolde reporter frameth the Emperours wordes accordâ—ng to that estimation which he woulde haue men to haue of the clergie For it is certeyne by recordes of Constantinus time that he did iudge Bishoppes and tooke vpon him as supreame gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes Maister Sander confesseth he iudged certeyne Priests or ecclesiasticall causes but he did it as Augustine sayeth Epist. 162. as one that would afterward aske pardon of the holy Bishops at the importunitie of the Donatists And as Optatus recordeth he sayd Deschis lib. 1. Petitis à me c. Ye aske of me iudgement in the world whereas I my selfe looke for Christes iudgement And Augustine reproueth the Donatistes that they would haue an earthly King to be iudge of their cause In deede the importunitie of the Donatistes was wicked who would so referre the matter to the Emperour y t without knowledge of ecclesiasticall persons who were only meete iudges in respect of knowledge in that case they would haue y e cause decided But the Emperour acknowledging his auctoririe appointed iudges ecclesiastical persons first the Bishop of Rome Melchiades whom he commauÌ„ded with other Bishops to heare the cause of Caecilianus as Eusebius who â—ued in his time writeth li. 10. ca. 5. And wheÌ„ the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Rome his coÌ„panions iudgement he appointed other delegates as Augustine also witnesseth Ep. 162. But to leaue this cause of the Donatistes Eusebius in his life libr. 1. sayeth of him Quoniam nonnulli variis locis inter se discrepabant quasi communis quidem Episcopus à Deo constitutus ministrorum Dei synodos conuocauit neâ— dedignatus est adesse considere in illorum medio Because some of them in diuerse places were at variance among them selues he as a certeine generall Bishop appointed of God called together the synodes of the ministers of God and disdayned not to be present and to sit in the middest of them And in lib. 3. He sheweth howe he gathered the vniuersall synode of Nice as it were leading foorth the armie of God to battell To this Emperour did Athanasius the great Bishoppe of Alexandria appeale from the synode of Tyre where he was iniuriously handled as both Socrates testifieth lib. 1. and the verie Epistle of Constantine him selfe vnto that synode commaunding all the Bishoppes to come vnto his presence and there to shewe before him quem syncerum esse Dei ministrum neque vos sanè negabitis whome you can not deny to be a syncere minister of God how sincerely they had iudged in that councell Finally in the end of the epistle he protesteth that he wil execute his supremacie in causes ecclesiastical Omni virtute conabor agâ—re quatenâ—s quae in lege Dei sunt ea praecipuè sine aliquâ— titubatione seruentur quibus vtique neque vituperatio neque malâ— superstitio poteris implicari dispersis vtique ac palam contritis penitus exterminatis sacratissimae legis inimicis qui sub schemate sancti nominis blasphemas varias ad diuersos inijciant I will endeuour with all my might to bringe to passe that those thinges that are in the lawe of God those chiefly without any staggering may be obserued which by no reproofe or euill superstition can be intangled when all the enemyes of the moste holye lawâ— which vnder a shape of an holy name doe cast out diuerse blasphemies vnto sondry persons are dispersed openly troden downe and vtterly rooted out Let this suffice to shewe what supremacie Constantinus did exercise in causes Ecclesiasticall Nowe Maister Sander draweth vs to see what honour he gaue to the see of Rome First he taketh it for most certayne that Constantine was baptised by Syluester which is an impudent lye and forged fable as is manifest by Eusebius who liued in his tyme and after him who knewe him familiarly and affirmeth that he was baptised in his iorney towardes Iordane where he had purposed to haue bene baptised if God had spared him life But this manifest testimonye of Eusebius Maister Sander refuseth becauâ—e he was suspected for affection to the Arrian heresiâ— Beside that he was vniustly suspected what reason is it to discredit his story who wrote at such
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
This thing sayth D. Humfrey he did not with his wil but yet he did it not without a cause that he might strike you through with the testimonie of your fathers as it were with your owne sworde For it had beene manlie for a Christian man to say Thus sayth the Lorde It had bene sufficient to haue layed agaynst you Your doctrine is contrarie to the Scripture For it is the question of men possessed with deuills to say What haue we to doe with thee Iesus thou sonne of Dauid But it is an interrogation of the Saynctes What haue we to doe with our fathers with fleshe and bloode You heare by these wordes what a daungerous opinion he holdeth of the fathers and of the Saynctes in the calender namelie that the fathers are no farther to be followed then they followed the holie Scriptures and that the Sainctes either liuing or deade whether they be in the calender or no deny their fathers as fleshe and bloode if they be in any respect an hinderance for them to obey the will of their father in heauen These are the perillous opinioÌ„s that Bristow brableth against falsifying his words by ommission depâ—auing his meaning by false surmising But Bristow hath yet an other reason to proue the fathers to be in all poinctes of their side If in all poinctes sayth he they be not with the Protestants then vndoubtedly in all poynctes they be with vs. And what is the reason of this monstruous conclusion There was neuer but one true religion As though none can be of true religion but such as erreth in nothing But who would spend incke and paper to confute such vaine reasonings The 15. motiue conteineth the 15. 16. and 20. demaundes Martyrs S. Stephen of our religion Pilgrimage Churches confirmed by vision Mâ—racles for reliques and for necessitie of childrens baptisâ—ne Confirming of children the custome and practise of Gods church Foxes martyrs Miracâ—es for our martyrs Al martyrs that euer suffred fot the testimony of true religion since Abel were numbred of one true church euen of the same that we are But Bristow would binde vs to the Saincts in the calender termed by L. Humfrey SaÌ„ctâ—li which terme yea a worse might serue a number of theÌ„ Notwithstanding so many of those caleÌ„ddred canonized Sainctes as be Saincts in heauen and not firebrands in hell were of that church which is builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ being the head corner stone And therefore it is a foolish request that we should name any one of theÌ„ which was of our faith But it is a pleasant pastime to heare howe Bristow proueth S. Stephen to be of his religion It is manifest sayth he that he is of the religion of the rest of the martyrs meaning Papistes because it is proued that he as well as they had heard helped theÌ„ which prayed to them which worshipped their reliques went a pilgrimage to their churches he specially reuealing by vision the place where his reliques were hidden with the reliques of S. Gamaliel S. Nicodemus vnto one Lucian a Priest of â—erusalem which wrote in Greeke the history of his inuention To this inuention I answere that it is an inuention of the deuill either by meanes of him that counterfaited the vision or by sending a stronge illusion so â— say generally of all such miracles and visions as are alleaged to proue any doctrine contrarie to the holy Scriptures As for the vanitie of this epistell of Lucian it be wrayeth it selfe in that he maketh Gamaliel the Pharizee so great a Sainct who for any thing that we can read in the holy Scripture was neuer a Christian. S. Paule in the 22. of the Actes appealeth to the knowledge of the Iewes that he was brought vp in Iudaisme vnder Gamaliel which if after he had bene conuerted to Christianity it shoulde haue bene greatly suspected that S. Paule had bene noselled vp by him and not conuerted by a vision from heauen as his intent was to shew From this counterfait stuffe of Lucians epistell he sendeth vs to the new founde sermons of Augustine to whom he would get credit by Augustines owne report De ciuit 22. ca. 8. but in vaine for Augustine speaketh not of any such sermons but only when report of a miracle was brought vnto him that he went vnto the church spake a few things of the matter And touching all such miracles as he reporteth of Stephen his conclusion is this God was glorified by them and the faith for which Stephen died was magnified But of worshipping of reliques pilgrimage c. there is no mention and yet that chapter of miracles as Ludouicus Viues doth confesse is notably corrupted as appeared to him by ancient copies The conclusion was Quid erat in cordibus exultantium nisi fides Christi pro qua Stephani sanguis fusus est What was in the hartes of them that reioysed but the faith of Christ for which the blood of Stephen was shed The miracle which Bristow reporteth out of the 38. Serm. in diuus 96. in noua editione to proue the necessitie of baptisme for infants the practise of the church for confirmation of children praying to S. Stephen is an impudeÌ„t fiction as appeareth manifestly by this that he calleth a sucking babe Catechumenu one that was instructed in Christian religion which could not possibly be before he was of yeares of capacity Secondly the infants ofChristian parents in Augustins time were baptised as sone as they were borne taried not vntil they were Catechumeni that is enstructed Thirdly the woman in this fable praying to S. Stephen perswadeth him to know the purpose of her hart which the word of God affirmeth to be known only to God As impudent as the deuiser of that fable was is Bristow who citeth out of Augustine De â—nitat eccles cap. 16. a few words rent a sunder from the rest coÌ„cerning miracles which the whole discourse sheweth to be plainly against him as you may read in this aunswere in the 8. motiue of visions After this followeth a comparison of Foxes martyrs with the Popish martyrs Videlicet the good Earle of Northumberlande Storie Feltons Nortons VVodhouse Plomtree and so many hundrethes of the Northerne men all rebells and traytors yet saith he approued by miracles vndoubted but what miracles he sheweth not To these he addeth Fisher More the Charterhouse monkes c. whose cause being sufficiently discussed by M. Foxe I referre to the iudgemeÌ„t of indifferent readers But this I can not omit that the traiterous Papist flauÌ„dereth our state not only for publike execution of open rebelles and errant traytors but also with priuie murthering by poysoning whipping and famishing From all suspition of which wicked practises God be praised the states that are professors of the Goâ—pell haue alwayes bene as free as the Papists both by storie liuing testimonie may be proued giltie of theÌ„ And where hee
so obiect that the gouernment of the clergy as it differeth in matter which is spirituall so also it differeth in forme maner from the regiment temporall w c is with outward pompe of glory with the material sword this with all humility with the sword of the spirit Contrariwise M. Sander answereth this obiectioÌ„ so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptistes sheweth him selfe litle to differ from their opinion First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion as is vsed among the Princes of the earth not altogether such as ought to be amoÌ„g them But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion it appeareth by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benefactors which their subiectes did giue them for their bountifulnes towards them in preseruing them from enemies in peace and wealth Secondly he sayth that although the King be neuer so good yet it is not the Kingly but the Priestly power which God chose froÌ„ the beginning to rule his people withal And although Kings serue Gods eternal purpose they are commaunded to be obeyed yet the making of Kinges ouer Gods owne people at the first came not of God by way of his mercifull election but by way of his angrie permission What Anabaptist could speake more heretically or seditiously against the lawfull auctority of Kings Princes But let vs see his reason Nemrod he sayth was the first King we reade of which either by force vsurped or was aduanced by euell men I aunswere if Nemrod was the first that vsurped auctoritie as a tyrant yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly auctority lawfully nether was he ruler ouer Gods people But what wil hâ—ouy of Melchisedech King of Salem was not he elected of God at the first both to be a King a figure of the King of Kings who should not haue had that dignity if it had not bene of it selfe both lawfull and godly Secondly he sayth God was angrie with his people for asking a King when they had a Priest to rule them I aunswere he was not angrie for their asking of a King but for refusing of a Prince ordeyned by him which was Samuel a Leuite in deede of the familie of Cohath but no Priest of the familie of Aaron For in his dayes were high Priestes Eli Achitob Achimelech But after the dayes of Eli which was both high Priest and Iudge Samuel was ordeyned Prince or Iudge of the people hauing auctoritie aboue Achitob or Achimelech the high Priestes in his time which were sufficient to decide the controuersie of the supremacie if M. Sander would geue place to the Scriptures But who can discharge him of Anabaptistrie where he deny eth the making of a King to be Gods institution affirming it to be the fact and consent of men allowed in deede by God when the Apostle expresly sayeth it is Gods ordinaunce Rom. 13 And where he sayth that Abel Noe Abraham were directly from God chosen to be Priestes as Aaron he sayeth most vntruly for they had in their familie the principalitie of ciuill gouernment as directly as they had the Priesthoode But neither of both in suche sorte as Aaron had the Priesthoode in whom the one was distincted from the other And of AbrahaÌ„ it is testified that he was a Prince ordeyned of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth foorth the excelleÌ„cy of Priests by their auctority in making Christs body with their holy mouth as Hierom speaketh But that proueth not the supremacy of one Priest aboue al men nor of one Priest aboue an other As for the ordeining of Peter to be generall shepherd and high Bishoppe of the whole flocke by commaunding him to feede his shepe when he can conclude it out of that Scripture in any lawfull forme of argument we will yeelde vnto it But this is intollerable impudencie that pretending to shew howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king he asketh to what Christian king did Christ euer saye As my father sent me I send thee as though Christ had euer sayde so to Peter in singular and not to all his Apostles in generall As my father sent me so I send you Ioan 20. Concerning the rocke that he woulde builde his Church vpon and the feeding of Christes sheepe and lambes we shall haue more proper place to examine afterward what supremacie they giue to the Pope or to Peter ether His farther rauing against the dignitie of kinges who list to see let him turne to the 57. page of his booke cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he sayth that the pompe of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith and maketh worldly pompe as vnmeete for a king as for a Bishop But the Scripture he sayth neuer calleth any king head of the Churche nether doe we call any Kinge heade of the Church but onely Christ but in euery particular Church the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chiefe Magistrate not onely in gouerning the common wealth but also in making godly lawes for the furtherance of religion hauing all sortes of men as well Ecclesiasticall as ciuill subiect vnto him to be gouerned by him and punished also not onely for ciuill offences but also for heresie and neglect of their duties in matters pertayning to the religion of God For although many ciuill Magistrats at the first were enemies of the Gospel yet was it prophecyed that kings should be nursing fathers and Queenes nursing mothers vnto the Church Es. 49. Againe it is an impudent and grosse lye when he sayth that God was angry because the gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest was reiected a kingly gouernment called for For they reiected not y e gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest but of Samuel y e Iudge who was no high Priest although he was a Prophet nether was there euer any high Priest Iudge but only Eli. But if all supremacie be forbiddâ—n ouer the whole Church militant sayth M. Sander it is forbidden likewise that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church And this he proueth by a iolly rule of Logicke For the partes according to their degree are of the same nature whereof the whole is O subtile reason by which I wil likewise coÌ„clude there may not be one scholemaister for all the children of the worlde therefore there may not be one schoolemaster for one towne in all the world There can not be one Phisicion for all the world therefore there may not be a Phisicion for euery citie yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world therefore there may not be a Priest in euery parishe Againe he reasoneth thus If a king be supreame head ouer his owne Christian Realme it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianitie or beside it For by his christianitie it is not possible that he should haue greater power then the