your selues to shadowe your heresies cannot proue you to be Christians or your church to be Catholike especially seeing you lacke the truth which Augustine in the same place confesseth to be more worth then either successioÌ„ antiquity the name of Catholike or any other thing else The eyghteenth marke is the succession of Priestes and Bishops euen from the seate of Peter vnto Pius the fifth in whose time this booke of M. Sander was written which marke is approued by Augustine by Irenaeus by Tertullian by Optatus by Hieronym as he sayth being one of the most euident of all other but therein he belyeth all these fathers whom he citeth who neuer alleaged the bare successioÌ„ of place persons but ioyned with the coÌ„tinuance of doctrine receaued from the Apostles against new late sprong vp heresies Augustine shall speake for the rest who after he hath alleaged vnto the Donatistes the successions of Bishops from Peter in the vnity of the Catholike church among which was neuer a Donatist the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome in absoluing of Cecilianus and many such like reasons whereunto he thinketh the Donatistes shoulde yeelde yet in the ende he addeth these words Quamquà m nos non tam de istis documentis presumamus quam de Scripturis sanctis Although we doe not so much presume of this documents as of the holy Scriptures These eighteene markes M. Sander will haue to be more richly seene in them then in the Protestantes but what markes they are and how they are to be found in their church I haue briefely shewed But nowe he commeth to a general challenge to proue that we haue nothing which they lacke and we lacke many thinges which they haue First they haue a iustifying faith as well as we but not iustifying alone but with charity which is the life of faith But charitye is a fruict of a liuinge and vnfayned fayth not the life thereof 1. Tim. 1. 5. the effect not the cause and we holde with Saynct Paule that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe Rom. 3. for charitie is no instrument to apprehend the mercie of God but faith onely therefore faith onely doth iustifie We are iustified gratis steely by his grace Rom. 3. 24. therfore nothing can come in accompt of iustification before God but onely faith which seeing y e Papistes haue not they haue not a iustifying faith We haue two Sacraments and they haue seuen but seeing they haue fiue more then Christ instituted and haue peruerted the one and polluted the other they haue but one Sacrament at the most and that horribly prophaned I meane baptisme VVe haue an inward priesthood he sayth to offer vp Christ in our hartes and they offer him both in hartes and handes But our spirituall priesthood is not to offer vp Christ but spirituall sacrifices acceptable by Christ 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15. and they are horrible blasphemers that take vpon them to offer vp Christ whome none could offer but him selfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. 14. He sayth that the Papistes beleeue as well as we that Christ by one sacrifice payed our raunsom for euer when they shewe it to the eye in the eblation of their Masse then the which nothing can be more contrary to the onely sacrifice of Christ once offred and neuer to be repeated because he founde eternall redemption thereby Heb. 10. 14. 9. 12. 25. c. He addeth that they beleue Christ to be the head of the Church and shewe it by a reall figure of one heade in earth meaning the Pope whome now he maketh a figuratiue heade as though Christ were not present with his Churche or that his Churche were a monster with two heades As laye men receyue the communion in both kindes with vs so they dâ—e with them in Austria by the Popes dispensation as though Christes commaundement and institution were not sufficient without the Popes dispensation Wherein also he affirmeth a monstrous absurditie that the Sacrament was not instituted in two kindes to be so receyued but by an vnbloody sacrifice to shewe the nature of his bloody sacrifice in which his soule and blood was separated from his body and flesh and yet he sayth the body and flesh of Christ is not well conteyned in the cuppe as his blood in the paten with the body and forme of breade and no separation of the one from the other and no more contayned or distributed by both then by one alone Which saying is to be receyued with whoopes and hisses of all men that haue their fiue witts They haue mariage he sayth in greater price then we because they teach it to be a sacrament but we find it not instituted by Christ to be a sacrament of the new testament therfore we receyue it as an holy ordinance contayning also a great mystery but yet no sacrament But if it be an holy sacrament why doe you thinke it vnmeete for ministers of the Church and why doth your Pope Syricius or rather some counterfeating Canonist in his name call holy matrimony a liuing in the flesh such as can not please God But although mariage be honorable in all men you saye it is not so in them that haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen who haue no more possibilitie to marye then a gelded man to â—eget children You were best then to tel the Apostle that his saying was too generall for he shoulde haue excepted them that so gelded themselues But S. Paule sayth notwithstanding your impossibilitie if a virgine doe marye she doth not sinne 1. Cor. 8. 28. You will reply he speaketh of them that haue not vowed how proue you that Christ speaketh of them that haue vowed longer then God would giue them grace to liue chast which he affirmeth to be a peculiar gift not in the power of euery man Mat. 19. 12. But what if your popish geldings by neying at euery mans wife and by tombling in all beddes where they are not kept out by force proue them selues to be stone horses are they still in the number of those that hauing gelded them selues for the kingdom of heauen may not possibly marye and yet nether we will nor can possibly liue chast But omitting these thinges which they haue as well as we now he commeth to those thinges which we lacke and yet many of them are very necessary as insufflations that is blowing vpon exorcismes that is coniuring holy oyle in baptisme chrisme in Bishopping externall priesthood sacrifice altars censing lights and so forth a large rablement of popish errors and superstitious ceremonies And that we saye falsly in saying these are naught he proueth by S. Paules saying to the Galathians praeterquam quod accepistis beside that you haue receyued for once sayth he we haue receyued those thinges of our auncestors as if S. Paule had not spoken of the Gospell but of beggerly ceremonies which because they are an other Gospell and way
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
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
to the former doctrine of Peters primacie namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade because they were not in dauÌ„ger of error the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring hath continued in Peters successors more then in the successors of all the Apostles Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle that he might confirme his brethren I haue often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter was proper to Peters person therefore can not be drawne to his successors And what madnes is it to defend that the Pope can not erre when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant. But M. Sander concludeth to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship but by the appoyntment and will of Christ Peter was heade to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest is one as a kingdom one by hauing one king in it Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ ouer all his Church to make it one in the holy Scriptures when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely then was not Peter his superiour in any respect That Paule reprehended Peter M. Sander sayth he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship If that be so why may not euery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike If you graunt they may then haue you so many Canones against you as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession But this fault you say with Tertullian was of conuersation not of preaching that Peter might not seeme to haue erred in doctrine Neuertheles it can not be excused but Peter also erred in doctrine Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe or of Christian libertie but of bearing too much with the Iewes in preiudice of the Gentils whom he compelled to Iudaisme in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine which dissimulation he entred not into for any worldely respect but because he was dâ—ceyued in opinion thinking that in that case he ought so to haue done before he being reprehended by Paule sawe the inconuenience and then myldely yelded to the correction But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles seeing Christ had sayde he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser In deedâ— he shewed herein such greatnes as Christ commendeth but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren Cyprian ad Quintum sayth he did not iudge this reprouing of Peter to be an argument against his supremacie but a witnes of his humilitie but he giueth vs this much to vnderstande that if he had chalenged primacie he had taken vpon him arrogantly his wordes are these Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For nether did Peter whome our Lorde chose the first and vpon whome he builded his Church when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward chalenge any thinge insolently or take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the primacie and that he ought rather to haue bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers nether did he despise Paule for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche but he did admitte the counsell of truth The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye De bap cont Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis c. VVe haue learned in the holy Scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence when he vsed to dâ—e otherwise then the truth required about circumâ—sion was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order not of dignitie and authoritie But Gregory much later then Augustiue graunteth to Peter not onely a primacie bâ—t also a maioritie in Ezech. Hâ—m 18. Quatenus c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship should be chiefe also in humilitie And agayne Eâ—ce à minore c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser and he disdayneth not to be reproued Nether doth he call to minde that he first was called to the Apostleship These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise then that he was first called to the Apostleship which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther Zwinglius Caluine c. and their bitter dissentions shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles It is not to be doubted that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues if they come not nearer to them then the Pope and his pompous Clergye let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vpon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized he aunswereth that proueth no more their equalitie then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop to go about busines of the chapter it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the CanoÌ„s But by his fauor where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines to be inferior to the whole chapiter as Peter Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles though the Bishop or Deane in other respects be superior to the Canons and Peter and Iohn were equall to euery one of the Apostles Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vpon a false supposition that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles if they had fallen as Iudas did therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right but by concession election or vsurpation The 12. chapter THat S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the other Apostles is most manifestly seenâ— by his chiefe Bishoply power Howe Christ loued Peter aboue others M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter superior to the Apostles not in their Apostleship but in his Byshoply degree doth yet againe distinguish the order and office of a Byshop from the authoritie and iurisdiction of the
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
all Churches when the history is plaine he did M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledgged before which acknowledged a certaine primacie of the see of Rome And certaine it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas tyme affected a great primacie which of many was acknowledged but yet neuer absolutely neuer without coÌ„trouersie vntil Phocas for a great summe of money receyued of Boniface the thirde strake the stroke and made the decree for which in all popish writers he is highly praised although in the Greeke church his decree was not long obserued Touching the examples of Emperours and Princes of later times although I could shewe they haue often resisted the Pope yet I know many may be alledged that haue submitted them selues to his Antichristian tyranny which I will not staÌ„d to examine because they can be no preiudice to the truth approued by examples of the eldest age As for the history of Lucius king of Britayne that sent to Eleutherius for preachers if it were true it maketh nothinge for the supremacy of the romish Bishop I will therefore conclude this chapter with a saying of Socrates in proe lib. 5. to shew what authoritie he iudged them perours to haue in Ecclesiasticall matters Etipsos quidem Imperatores hac historia continua complectimur prâ—pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt res Ecclesiasticae pendent maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia congregatae sunt congregantur And in this continuall history we comprehend the Emperours them selues because that vpon them since they began to be Christians the matters of the Church depend and the greatest synods haue bene gathered are gathered by their authoritie The punishment he threatâ—eth to them that forsake the Church of Rome shal one day fall vpon them that take part with â— Church of Rome as in part it doth already The 17. chapter THeir doctâ—ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be Aâ—â—ichrist him selfe is confuted by the auctoritie of Gods worde and by the consent of auncient fathers VVhy Antichrist is permitted to come AFter he hath shewed his opinion what maner a one Antechrist shalbe alleaged â—â—â—â— cause of his coÌ„ming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men haue not receaued the loue of the truth that they might be saued God shal sende theÌ„ the working of error y t they may beleue lying c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants for that they can find no place to setle Antichrist in but in the see of Rome so beautified dignified by Christ and all the primitiue Church But seeing Antichrist is appoynted to sit in the temple of God which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer it is no meruayle if Satan haue thrust him into that see which of olde tyme was accompted the toppe and castell of all religion But let vs see his reasons taken out of Gods word by which it is proued that the Pope can not be Antichrist him selfe The first is because in S. Paule he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man of sinne which signifieth one singular man and not a number of men in succession and this is affirmed to be the Greeke article in this worde man by Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how frendly Cyrillus was deceaued you shall see by some examples euen out of the new Testament In S. Mathew cap. 12. 35. you haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart and an euill man out of the euil treasure of his heart bringeth c. where no one singular man is ment In S. Mark cap. 2. verse 27. The Sabboth was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man not man for the Sabboth In S. Luke cap. 4. verse 4. Not with breade onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man shall liue but by euery woorde of God S. Paule 2. Tim. 3. ver 17. That the man of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be perfect and prepared to euery good woorke These places and an hundreth more which might bee brought doe proue howe vaine the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke article Nether is Hierom or any of the auncient writers to be heard without authoritie of the Scripture which supposed that Antichrist should be one man Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man as Christ was Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. sayth we must not thinke that Antichrist should be a Deuill but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell This proueth not that he should be a singular man no more then the fourth beast which signifieth the RomaÌ„e Empire out of which he should rise should be one singular Emperour No more doth it proue that because Antiochus was a figure of him he must be but one man And as litle that Ambrose in 2. The. 2 sayth Satan shall appeare in homine in a man which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince and last Antichrist meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last may agree to a whole succession of men in one state as well as the wordes king and beaste to a whole succession of Emperours in Daniel To conclude there is not one whome he nameth that denyeth Antichrist to be a whole succession of meÌ„ in one state of deuilish gouernment And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Romane kingdom lib. 5. The second argument is that Antichrist is called the aduersary therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ denying Iesus Christ to be God and man or to be our Mediatour I aunswer the Pope doth so denying the office of Christ although with the deuills he confesse in wordes Iesus to be the holy one of God and to be Christ the sonne of God Marke 1. 24. Luke 4. 41. his diuinitie the Pope denieth by denying his onely power in sauing his wisedom in his word to be onely sufficient his goodnes in the vertue of his death to take away both payne and guylt of sinne which he arrogateth to him selfe by his blasphemous pardons Christes humanitie he denyeth by his transsubstantiation his mediation in which he is principally Christ he denyeth by so many meanes of saluation as he maketh beside Christ videlicet mans merits ceremonies inuented by man pardons a newe sacrifice of the Masse c. The third argumeÌ„t is that Antichrist shall not come before the Romane Empire be cleane taken away For that which Saint Paule sayth ye knowe what withholdeth c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Romane Empire yet following the olde writers that so vnderstood it I say the Romane Empire was remoued before Antichrist the Pope was throughly enstalled For beside that the see of the Empire was remoued from Rome the gouernment it selfe was in a manner cleane remoued the title of the Romane Emperour onely remayning at last an
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