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
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
25. Salomon did the like about the temple He deposed Abiathar the high Priest set Zadoc in his roome 1. Reg. 2. 27. 35. And such are y e examples of all the godly kinges of Iuda which being coÌ„mended in the Scripture are not vncertayne deceitful or vnknown in their circumstances but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters then this text w c he citeth Feede my sheepe to forbid them But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no I answer by propriety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is Neuerthelesse admit Peter to be a sheepeheard and the king to be his sheepe what then forsooth it is against the lawe of nature for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard and the other a sheepe But I aske of him is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard if he doubt Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe If he deny it let the Apostles speake for them selues let euery soule be subiect c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes You may then see what a wise argumeÌ„t he hath made that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor as in other respect he is vnder him M. Sander will goe forward for all this putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required he would not yeeld vnto what could the Emperour doe to him He coulde not excommunicate him And if he imprisoned him or put him to death he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing I might put the like case of his holinesse What if a Christian man should come to him c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe hee might imprison him as Annas did the Apostles hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy and Ananias Paule c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde haue come to the Emperour had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie he being found an heretike to haue condemned him therefore In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius and Donatus and not as Nero with Peter and Paule But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures or the auncient times who can deny but that in a cause of faith in a cause I saye of fayth Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours not Emperours of Bishops And who sayth the contrarye but that in causes of faith the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops and not the Bishops of the Emperour Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religion to doe what he will when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde the knowledge whereof especially in difficult matters he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law although he be bownd to see iustice executed But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop I aunswer if his cryme be apparant euen as Salomon deposed Abiather if it be doubtfull by order of iudgement and tryall according of ciuill Iudges if it be a ciuill cryme and Ecclesiasticall if it be heresie that he is accused of if he can not be condemned vpon iust tryall he is to be absolued if this will not satisfie the king he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy and if he proceede further he exerciseth tyranny And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the importunitie of the Donatists which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops deputed by the Emperour they would neuer be satisfied but still appealed to the Emperour accused the Bishops that were appoynted their Iudges before the earthly king M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently that he calleth Constantine an earthly king and yet he is so blinde that he will not see that the same earthly kinge which assigned those Bishops to be Iudges was still acknowledged of all partes to be the supreame gouernour Ep. 48. But omittinge the wordes of men he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of euery degree of men according to their dignitie And first beginneth with the highe Priest next whom is the whole people thirde the Prince and last of all euery priuate man There is no doubt but the highe Priest as he was an image and figure of Christ was chiefe in dignitie Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince as Aaron was to Moses Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon The like is confessed of euery minister of the Gospell and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt might haue bene spared And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince Abiathar in the temple at the altar in the holiest place and sacrificing was greater then Salomon yet was he iustly deposed by SalomoÌ„ for his treason Maister Sander chargeth vs to affiâ—me that the euill life of a Bishop taketh away his authoritie w c he denieth to be so as long as the Church doth tollerate and permitte them in their places whereupon he concludeth that though the Bishop of Rome haue neuer so much abused his office yet he can not leese his primacye In deede the abuse of the man taketh not away the authoritie of the office but if the office be peruerted from the right vse and degenerated into an heathenish tyrannye as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene many hundreth yeares the name of a Bishop onely and that scarsely remayning we iustly affirme that such dignitie as that sea had by consent of men it hath cleane lost by abuse of their authoritie Moreouer he sayth it hath no coullour of truth that we affirme the Pope to gouerne not as a Pastor but to beare a soueraintie as Princes of the
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
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
t the straungens thereof so long as the trueth of the little flock the falshod of the reuolted multitude are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures The conclusion of all his Preface is that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superfluous Yea verely all Scriptures Doctors and Councelles be needlesse where there is such a person alwaies at hand who cannot erre in any thing that he commandeth men to beleeue or doe And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures doctors couÌ„cels Learning Tounges c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth But what saye you M. Sander did there neuer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre Was that See neuer voyde many dayes many monethes and many yeeres togither And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes who sat in Peters Chaire You will say one of them but which you cannot tell Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar The one cursed the other absolued the one commannded the other forbadde Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire and vnitie thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth and with his glorious appearance and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse for euer and euer Amen The first Chapter THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after him VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope and of S. Peter he sayth we deny all primacie and chiefe gouernment in the Church Wherevpon he rayseth three questions to intreate of Whether it be against the worde of God that there should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe authoritie Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church that we affirme there is a spirituall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ which neuer was giuen to Peter nor to any mortall man Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches there is must be a primacie of order which is temporall according to the disposition of the Church And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime but that he had it not alwayes it appeareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers consent was President and Primate and vpon the controuersie beeing throughly debated pronounced the definitiue sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia Syria and Cilicia was written in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren But concerning S. Peter M. Sander moueth newe questions First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter whiche is a stone or Rock Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise wheÌ„ he chose him to be an Apostle Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke the question is whether Peter himselfe be that Rock vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church or Christ himselfe or the fayth and confession of peter M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists passing ouer the second question that is whether Christe himselfe whom Peter confessed by this rock denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter not barely confirmed but in respect of the promise past the present confession and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection of which foure conditions the Protestantes hee sayth doe lack no lesse then three But what doe the Papists lack when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ the only foundation then the which none other can be layde 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone I wil franckly yeelde vnto him that which he coulde neuer win by force that Christ saying to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building for then hee should put him selfe out of place but one of the prâ—ncipall stones of the foundation euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were for so the holy Ghost speaketh Ephe. 2. vers 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted groweth vnto an holy temple vnto the Lord. Nowe let vs consider whether any singular authority was committed to peter when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea because it was sayd to him alone feede my sheepe and no particular flock named it must needes be ment the whole flocke Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock Christ saide onely to Peter come after me Satan for thou art an offence to me c. Therefore Peter onely was an enemie of Christe If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him let him take the other also Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter 5. Heere is no particular slocke named therefore he meaneth the whole vniuersall flocke But he vrgeth farther that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors But if labouring in preaching the gospel be the feeding of Christes flock not Peter but Paule laboured more then he and all the rest of the Apostles 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe that by thrise confession and iniunction to feede he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship from which he deserued to be depriued M. Sand. liketh not for three causes First he sayth hee had not lost his Apostleship because his fault was not externally proued nor confessed in iudgment nor stubbernly defended c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell had neede of externall proues or a Commissaries court to depriue Peter of his office O blockish reason Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme that hee was altogither excluded from his office by his fault but
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
doctrine but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. 17. c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham that the ciuil Magistrate may visit correct reforme and depose any Bishop in their owne realme Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche then the power of a Bishop And what inconuenience is this in thinges perteining to his office seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching ministring c. is confessed to be aboue the King Hereby we make the body aboue the soule saith M. Sander the tēporal reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen Not a whit no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome Onely this we say that M. Sander dissembleth The cause must be iust for which ◠King shoulde depose a Bishop or pastor for thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop the poorest Priest from his benefice This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vpon iust cause Now if the cause be iust it must be either manifest or doubtfull If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther treason adulterie c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe as in all other mens causes may proceede against a Bishop If the cause be doubtfull it is either for life or doctrine The triall of the Bishops life ought to be as all other mens are with due cōsideration of his accusers The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling if he be culpable and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place from his life also if his offence deserue it But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y e Bishops pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde haue them ruled none of vs did euer affirme for that were tyranny not Christian gouernment And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperour doth Athanasius complaine In Episi ad sol vit agent and shew the iudgement aunsweres of the Christian Bishops Paulinus Lucifer Eusebius Dionysius Liberius Hosius vnto him when he would haue enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius for defending the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ. But yet the same Athanasius appealed him selfe to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses as any mortall mā may be deceiued as Dauid was about Mephibosheth gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before threatned to depose him if he were disobediēt he neuer repined but acknowledged his auctority Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat If I shall know sayth the Emperour that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement remoue thy place Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes according to the truth M. Sander fearing we would obiect against him that Constantinus Martianus other godly Emperors vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops replieth that it was only to kepe peace wheras they did not only kepe peace but also prescribe commaūd the Bishops to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell Euangelici enim c. The bookes of the Gospells of the Apostles the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs in the vnderstanding of God Therfore setting all hateful discord aside let vs take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite the explication of the questions They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie like as they called the councells together to make their decrees But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeares of discretion will be able to consider what maner a Bishop he is who layeth the Priestly right vnder the lay mens feete By which saith M. Sander you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellowes be w c geue the most proude intollerable title of supreame head gouernor to lay Princes I answere in geuing this title they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie cōfesse with Augustine that there is no greater then a Priest in his office although Moses after the distinction was no Priest but a ciuil Magistrate in his calling aboue Aaron that was high Priest And although M. Sander say this is the diuinity of England only to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor he sayeth most vntruly for all learned men of all countries doe acknowledge the same in such sorte as we do in England and not as he in Flanders either dreameth or slaundereth vs to do For we confesse with Valentinian the good Emperour that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis c. They which studie by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells knowe to submit them selues to publike offices according to the lawes they speake not against the Emperors power but they keepe the commaundementes of a sincere and great Emperour and the commaundementes of God and are subiect to our lawes but you are found disobedient Finally we neuer ment to geue the Prince by flatteriē auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bishops alone neither would we haue a confusion of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius doth any thing at all touch vs who limit the supremacie of Princes within the compase of Gods worde and Christian religion against which neither Prince nor Priest hath any auctoritie to commaund The seuenth marke of Antichrist is the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse Nay rather it is a setting vp of a new altare sacrifice propitiatorie against the only