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
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
himselfe giueth an expresse law against a false prophet which sheweth signes or miracles Deut. 13. Did not Iannes and Iambres whâ—ch resisted moses worke miracles doth not our Sauiour Christ prophecy that many false christes and false prophets should arise and worke such great signes and miracles as if it were possible the very elect should be deceiued Matth. 24. Doth not S. Paule prophecy that the comming of Antichrist shalbe according to the working of Satan in all power and lying signes and miracles and therefore no maruel if Bristow bragge that he can fill whole volumes with them But miracles are not the triall but the confirmation of doctrine which must be tried onely by the Scriptures of God without the authoritie whereof no miracles ought to moue vs to giue credit and much lesse any miracles may moue vs to beleue any doctrine which is against it But yet let vs consider of such miracles as Bristow rehearseth First for the sacrifice of the Masse and for purgatory August de ciuit Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. writeth that in a Ferme house of one Hesperius was great hurt and trouble by euill spirits which at the prayers of a certaine Priest or elder of Augustines Chutch was staied ceased There is no word of deuills expelled with a Masse or with the sacrifice of y e Masse That which in Bristowes eare soundeth that way is Perre â—it vnus c. One went thether he offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ praying with all his power that the same vexation might ceasse But Augustine by offring the sacrifice of Christes body meaneth nothing but ministring of the communion as that holy action was then figuratiuely called but yet nether the Masse nor the sacrifice thereof was at that time inuented as I haue often plentifully shewed els where and namely against Heskins lib. â— cap. 22. That he nameth the sacrifice of the body of Christ it is not sufficient to proue him of Bristowes religion greater cause haue we to chalenge him to be of our religion when he calleth the sacrament the signe of the body of Christ and sayth that Christ will not giue vs that body which was borne of the virgine and crucified c. contra Adimant In Ioann tract â—0 cap. 12. From Augustine he passeth to a tale reported in Bedes historie of a captiue whose chaines were loosed at such time as his brother which was a Monke and Priest sayd masse for him by which reporte Bede sayth many were moued to pray giue almes or offer the sacrifice of the holy oblation for the deliuerie of their frendes which were departed out of this world a sorie motiue without the autoritie of Gods word which albeit it was credited of Bede as diuerse other fables were yet may we doubt of the truth of it and although it were true that such a feate was wrought yet it can not establish a doctrine contrarie to the holy Scriptures And notwithstanding that Bede liuing in a corrupttime holdeth many errors of Papistrie yet I haue shewed against Stapletons sortresse that he holdeth not all not many of the chiefest After this miracle of Bede he beginneth the storie of our countrye woman which hauinge plaied the harlot in London and running ouer into Flanders to seeke the knaue that got her with childe was made lame with childbearing so that one legge was shorter then an other by more then halfe a foote sayth Bristow But after often shrift and other holy exercises of Poperie in time of a masse she was restored to health by the sacrament of miracle I doubt not but the masters of Bridewell neere which place she dwelled sometime which haue done as great cures as that coulde haue healed her of her lamenes without the sacrament of miracle In rehearsall of this doggetricke miracle he interlaceth an other as monstruous a lye as this That the pixe being stollen by a Iew the cakes sticked in despight among the Iewes did bleede aboundantly that a druncken woman a Iew borne and christned being admonished by an Angell in a vision restored that pixe with three hostes in it to her gostly father from whom they were translated to S. Gudulaes church in Bruxells where they are kept vntill this day from the yere of our Lord 1369. which is moe then 200. yeares agoe The like fable they haue at the Monasterie of Billets in Paris where they haue a cruse full of the miraculous blood which issued out of the masse cake so sticked by the Iewes which are euen as great miracles as the blood of Haâ—les was in England For if the Papists durst for their credit coÌ„mit those miraculous hostes and blood vnto indifferent vewe and custodie where no fraude might be vsed I durst aduenture my life which is almost all that I haue to leese that within lesse then two yeares they shall either be founde to consist of a counterfait matter that is perdurable or els they shall putrefie and rotteâ— which they woulde beare vs in hande haue continued more then two hundreth yeares In the demaund and in the next motiue mâ—Ì„tioÌ„ is made of miracles wrought in Indâ—a and by Pius quintus the Pope at Rome which either are lyes or iuggling casts of counterfeating coseners But if they or their Pope haue any such power as they bragge of why come they not in the face of their aduersaâ—â—es challenge them as Helias did the Priests of Baal and in open sight of their enemies shewe their mightie miracles and not prate of wonders done in the Indes of which they may lye where there is none to controlle them or wrought among them selues where we can â—udge nothing of them but counterfeating and cosening with which practises they haue bene taken tâ—ied too often to gaine any credit with any that haue any wisedom in them The 6. motiue Miracles personall a marke of true Doctors S. Barnarde of our religion with what miracles he confirmed images churches the reall presence transubste â—atiâ—n sacrifice of the masse praying for the dead praying to Sainâ—tes and manâ— other articles Miracles for by holy bread for the signe of the crosse The signe of the crosse worketh miracles Excommunication of Pius v to be feared who by his prayers signing of the crosse did cast deuills out of fiue women Bristowes principle against which there can be no instance is this VVhatsoeuer persons at any time since Christes ascention haue had the grace of miracles they were the ministers of Christ I say not alwayes iust and holy but alwayes preachers of his truth and consequently whosoeuer set themselues against such persons they were against Christ against the truth In the last chapter before I haue brought instance both out of the Law and the Gospell of salse Prophets and false Christes which should worke great miracles and yet preach against God Christ. Wherefore this conclusion is vtterly false Bristow replieth they are lying signes such as were wrought by
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
specially chargeth that learned and reuerend Father M. Elmer now Byshop of London with this deuilishe practise notinge these woordes in the margent Let Elmer remember his Tragedie of the Scottishfriere at Lincolne As I knowe not what coulour he hath for so great and haynous a slauÌ„der so I nothing doubt but that the same is vtterly false and vntrue as a thousand more slaunders and lyes Wherein the Papists as Children of the Father of lyes haue so great delight To conclude seeing not the paine but the cause maketh a martyr whosoeuer haue suffred for treason and rebellion may well be accounted Martirs of the Popisn Church but the church of Christe condemneth such for enemies of Christes kingdome and inheritours of eternal destructiâ— except they repent and obtaine mercie for their horrible wickednes And seeing patient suffring is by Bristows owne confession a gift of God vnto all true Martirs such as were manifestly voide of patience can be no true Martirs as were most of these rebels traitors Story by name Who for all his glorious tale in the time of his most deserued execution by quartering was so impatieÌ„t that he did not only rore and cry like a helhounde but also strake the executioner doing his office and resisted as long as strength did serue him beeing kept downe by three or foure men vntil he was deade O patient martir of the popish church In the 15. 16. demaund he asketh vs whether we haue not read in Chrysostome Augustine others that they vsed this argument to proue the diuinitie of Christ that he hath aduanced his seruants to such honor that they are prayed vnto their graues honored of kings Emperors that miracles are wrought by the reliqus of their Saints I answere we read soÌ„e such thing although not altogither as Bristow reporteth nor to y t end But what if amoÌ„g a great nuÌ„ber of forcible aguments they vsed also some such persuasions shuld their reasoning be a preiudice to the truth of God reueled out of the Scriptures whervnto if those holy man had had as great regarde as they wishe other men to haue in their writing and not suffred them selues to be carried away with common plausible errors they should easely haue espyed that they gayned not so much in resoning so against the Painims as they gaue occasion of superstition among the Christians And to aunswere the xx demaunde we are content to bee tryed by that doctrine for which the auncient Martyrs Irenaeus Cyprian Laurens c. suffred persecution and Martyrdom which was for no pointe of Popery but true christianitie yet wil we not be tryed by all poyntes of doctrine which they did holde for that it is certaine some of them had their errors which the Papists them selues doe not holde as Irenaeus is charged by Eusebius l. b. 3. cap 39 to be a follower of the Chiliastes Cyprian did openly in a councel maintaine rebaptising of them which were baptised by Heretikes Againe wee resuse not the tryall of that docttine for which the Christians were persecuted by the Arrians in Africa notwithstanding the terme of Missa vsed by Victor that writeth that Story by which tearme in that time not the popish Masse which then was not made either in matter or forme but the celebration of the Communion and memory of the sacrifice of Christ commonly called in deede but vnproperly a sacrifice yet will we not be tryed by all that they holde for diuerse errors of prayer for the deade and to the dead were then receiued neithet will the Papistes be tryed by that Religion they helde in all pointes For then were Byshops married Lib. 2. 3. Then the Praiers were in the vulgar tounge and all the people sunge Himnes togither lib. 2. There is no reason therefore that the Papists shoulde call vs to such a tryall as they dare not abide them selues The 16. motiue is the 30. Demaunde Their owne Doctors The disâ—orde of Protestants Luther â—ondemneth our Pretestantes Carolstadians Zwinglians and Caluinists Luther corrupteth the Scripture to helpe his heresie of the breade to be Christes body The head of the church to be a Layman is against the Magdeburgenses and Caluine The prophecie fulfilled in the accorde of the Protestants and Puritants Parliament religion The inconstancy of Protestants VVhat an impudent attempt is chaunge of religion True Christianitie by Luther is vnder the Popedome The discorde of our owne Doctors Bristowe would haue to be a Motiue against vs. As though it were not as great a motiue against them whose Doctors dissent as much as ours To omit all other controuersies when will they bee agreed whether the Pope bee aboue the Councell or the Councell aboue the Pope In which discention they haue not onely Doctor against Doctor but also Councell against Councell and Pope against Pope and Cardinall against Cardinall as Constance and Basill against Ferraria Florence Nicolaus Felix with thâ—ir Cardinals against Eugenius and and his Cardinals But now let vs see what discorde he findeth in our Doctors Luther condemneth the Protestants Carâ—â—stadians Zwâ—nglians Caluinistes in the cause of the Sacrameâ—t The more was his immoderate heate and bitter zeale to be blamed and their Christian modestie to be commended which notwitstanding his ouermuch vehemency in maintayning his error yet accepted hâ—m alwayes as a brother The corruption of the Scripture wherwith he chargeth Luther is a slaunder of his owne for Luther altred no wordes of Scripture but declared his vnderstanding of them when he said Take bread and eate â—his is my body And this is the only discorde that he can proue betweene the professors of the truth For it is a meere sophistry of the ambiguitie of the worde head of the Church that maketh that shewe of contrarietie betweene the Magdeburgenses Caluine and vs who in sence and meaning therof doe perfectly agree as I haue often shewed And Bristowe cannot altogether deny where he derideth the Parliament Religion and inconstancie of Protestants for chaunging the title of head into gouernour and then expounding the gouernment by iniunction Whereas in neither of bothe titles was any other meaning of the godly sorte in the time of King Henry Kinge Edwarde or her Maiestie then is contayned in that exposition In deede Stephen Gardiner as Caluine reporteth at Ratisbone abused the title of supreme head not more wickedly theÌ„ absurdly to defend all Papistrie which theÌ„ was not abolished by king Henry And against that grosse errour of Gardiner writeth Caluine and not against our vnderstanding of that tytle But the Apologie prophecieth that shortely the Lutherans and Zwinglians should bee accorded which is fulfilled in the accorde of the Protestantes and Puritanes who in the demaunde he sayth doe abhorre the tytle of supremacie If I knewe whome he did meane by Puritanes I might aunsweare him the better but seeing hee maketh Protestantes and Puritanes members of a diuision If hee recken the Puritanes for such as bee
truth Caluins errors about the trinitie The ignoraunce of Protestants Such was Iew elr ignoraunce also that Christe is a prieste according to his Godhead Vniuersities of Heretiks Catholikes Degrees taken in Vniuersities of Heretiks are ad nihillated The ignorance of Protestants the cause partely why there be so many Atheistes in England The Churches learning wisdome and continuance S. Augustines Motiue This Motiue conteineth nothing but an immederate arrogant bragge of their studying and teaching of trueth with the great learning of their Doctors and Vniuersities and a proude disdamefull vpbraiding of our Doctors and vniuersities of much ignorance and lacke of learning Which comparison if it had beene vttered by a man of excellent learning had beene the lesse odious but beeing made by such a blinde Baiarde and blockheadded asse as is this Bristowe it is moste intollerable Caluiue saith he through ignoraunce erred about the Trinitie saying That Gods Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God of him selfe whereby it followeth ineuitably that there be two Gods For this slaunderous and foolish cauill he citeth Institut lib. 1. cap. 13. Num. 23. c. where is no such word nor matter but a confutation of Heretikes that denyed the very essens of the deitie of Christ he cyteth also Geneb de trinit lib. 1. pa. 43. Where if the woorde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be vsed as I know not whether it be yet vndoutedly no such thing is ment thereby as Bristow bableth For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maye signifie him that is very God himselfe although begotten of God the father eueÌ„ as Gregory Nazianzene in his Booke of the holy Ghost or De theologia lib. 5. calleth the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lorde himselfe whereof it followeth not that there be two or three Lords or that the holy ghost proceedeth not from the father and the sonne Likewise he calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light it selfe and Life that is very light and very life and yet he denyeth not that he is light proceeding from light Wherefore this is an vnlearned cauil against Caluine who more souÌ„dly substantially learnedly hath written of the blessed trinitie then all the Dunces Aquines Alberts the whole rablement of Scholemen of whome Bristow so vainely doth brag were euer able to attaine vnto who with their sophistrie and barbarousnes haue rather darkened then sette foorth the cleere light of those most excellent and diuine misteries The like impudent cauil he bringeth against M. Iewel whome no man I think without laughter can read to be charged with ignoraÌ„ce by bluÌ„dering Bristow for affirmiug Christ to be a prieste according to his deitie whoÌ„e the Apostle expresly saith by his eternall spirit to haue offred himself Heb. 9. ve 11. As for the comparisons betweene the Vniuersities of Papistes and ours how vaine it is all that be learned of indifferent iudgement can testifie And concerning degrees and ciuil titles of dignitie taken in our vniuersities beeing nothing else but testâ—monies of their learning which receiue them we think them better beeing confirmed by the Princes authoritie from whom all cidignities euen by ciuil law are deriued then such as are either giuen or confirmed by the Popes leaden Bulles The Atheists other vnreligious mindes in England are not nourished by the ignorance of the Protestants but detested by their godly and learned iudgement But if where there be most Atheists there is greatest ignorance then euen in Italy at Rome vnder the Popes nose where be most Atheists of any regioÌ„ almost in the world is greatest ignorance Where open blasphemies are as common yea oftentimes in the Popes mouth as the praises of God are among true christians What trauâ—ller in Italy is ignorant of this whether he be protestant Papist or Newter Last of all if the Chuches wisdome learning continuance was S. Augustines motiue the folly barbarousnes late shining of the popish Church is a motiue to make vs think that it is not the church of Christ. For Bristowes brags are not sufficient to carry away all credit of learning to popish doctors Vniuersities whose orders and readings he doth the rather commend to be so excellent that men w c knew him of late with periury to haue taken degrees in Philosophie should not meruaile that he is so sudenly transformed into so great a doctor of diuinitie eueÌ„ by once hearing the cause of Diuinitie which he supposeth none of our doctors knoweth what it meaneth such a goodly matter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby a manne maketh moste account of that he hath learned last But albeit the question be not of learning but of trueth yet if it would please the Papists to try the learning of our doctors Vniuersities vnder indifferent iudges I doubt not but they should be found equall vnto theirs that I say not in many things they should be found superiour The 32. motiue is the 22. demaund Aunuall celebrating of Christes mysteries The churches seruice is to be imbraced Christ is to be beleued for the scriptures of the olde testameÌ„t as they be vnderstood in the church Ember daies or Enper dayes whichy our blinde Apostles doe boldely say to haue ben the Popes leman The Martirs were of our religion Saints dayes laide downe by protestants as our Ladyes daies S. Laurence day the assumption of our Lady The Churches and seruiâ—e of heretikes to be râ—frained in paine of damnation Against communiâ—ating with them An admonition to priestes that say the now seruice Heretikes are idolaters and heresies are idols The yeare of Iubely 1575. Pilgrimage The sermons of Heretikes not to be heard their bookes not to be read Christ to be beleeued for the vertue of the signe of his Crosse which workesh miracles Visions for our religion The Annuall celebration of Christes misteries by dumb ceremonies and readings not vnderstood of the ignorant people although there were no heresie in the popish seruice nor no sufficient motiues to imbrace the popish synagogue as the church of Christ if the Scriptures and the figures of the lawe better applyed then they be in all the lumpe of the popish solemnities they would procure small credit to our Sauiour Christ but rather the scorning and derision of Turkes Iewes and Pagans As for the blind commeÌ„taries of the Iewes out of which he magineth we haue all our vnderstanding of the old testament how litle we trust in prophecyes of Christ may be seene in the written commentaries of Caluine Musculus such other The names of a great number of the solemne feastes as Bristow sayth doth argue in deede the Papists ether to haue inuented theÌ„ or to haue abused them as Candelmas Corpus Christi day c but that the same were inuented by that auncient Church w c celebrated the natiuity resurrection ascention of Christ cat is vtterly vntrue For your owne Durand testifieth that many of them were of late Popes institutioÌ„ w c
continence so renounced the world that they possessed nothing in proper As testifieth Epiphanius and Augustine And Philaster affirmeth that they absteyned also from cating of flesh So that all thinges considered Aerius mainteyned the doctrine of the Papistes as much as of the Protestantes That our preachers in pulpits praise God for the founders of colledges and schooles of learning by name what maketh this for allowance of their religion God is to be praised for such benefits as he hath bestowed vpon his church or any members thereof euen by Turks and Heathen men Wherfore this is a very slow motiue vnto Popery For whether the founders were good or euill men and what intent soeuer they had their benefits are now vsed to the glory of God therefore God for them and their benefits is greatly to be praised The 37. motiue hath neuer a demaund that I can aptly referre vnto it The only knowne vndoubted mother of Christs children for a thousand yeares together The church is euerlasting and visible The Popish church hath not only bene y e only known church and vndoubted mother of Christes children for these thousand yeares First because it is not of so many yeares continuaunce the mysterie of iniquitie hauing not bene in highest degree of wickednesse before the councell of Constance where notwithstanding the institution of Christ and the practise of the primitiue church the communion of the Lordes bloud was taken from the people Secondly the Popish church was neuer acknowledged by all the true children of Christes church for their mother which was a steppemother and a persecuter of them Thirdly the Popish church was neuer y e only reputed church or mother of Christs children of all them that professe Christianitie for the churches of the East as great and as large as she was in the West woulde neuer so accompt the Popish steppedame of Rome but did separate them selues from her communion Fourthly the Catholike church of Christes members dispersed ouer all the world vnder the tyranny both of the Turke the Pope haue in all times protested that y e Romish Apostolical synagoge is the whore of Babylon and see of Antichrist The places of Mich. 4. and Esa 61. which he citeth to proue that the church must be alwayes visible you shall finde aunswered with many other in mine ouerthrow of Stapletons fortres lib. 1. cap. 13. And wheras Bristow confesseth that a mist may hide an hil that is neuer so high from some wicked sighted men that are without it but neuer from them that are within it no meruaâ—le if the spirituall church of Christ being lifted vp aboue the top of all hills not in worldly glory but euen vnto heauenly dignitie hath long remained hid from them that haue no spirituall eyes at all But Bristow thinketh it strauÌ„ge that a mist should continue a thousand yeres together Then I aske him what hath hindered the greatest parte of all the worlde seduced by Mahometistrie and Gentilitie that for these thousand yeres they haue not seene the height of the Popish church If he say not a mist about their church but a blindnesse in the others eyes to be the cause the same I aunswere for the Catholike dispersed church of Christ which the Papistes pretend that this thousand yeares they could not see Although as I haue often sayd Papistry is not halfe so olde in the greatest heresies and absurdities which now she maynteyneth The 38. motiue is the 24. demaund also the 48. and the 17. Celebration operation of Christes death The sacrifice of Bristow the masse Priestâ—oode VVhere Christ worketh Only faytâ— Exorcising of deuills In the Popish churchis no celebration but a derogation of the merite of Christs death by the blasphemous sacrifice of the masse But Bristow in the 24. demaunde asketh vs whether we be content to trie religion by the Priesthood that hath bene froÌ„ the beginning of Christs church I answere that we must first consent of the name of Priest and Priesthoode whereof also in the same demaunde he cauilleth that we haue chaunged the name therefore haue chaunged the order The name I say of Priesthood Priest must be coÌ„sidered either according to the Etymologie deriuation or els according to the present vse thereof And according to the deriuation we coÌ„fesse y t this word Priest coÌ„ming of the greeke word Presbyteros signifieth the same oâ—der which is instituted by God like as the word Bishop câ—mming of Episcopus for which if any man vse the name of Elder superintendent he varieth nothing in the worlde from the signification of Presbyter and Episcopus and much lesse setteth vp a new order as Bristow most vainly doth cauill For in that sence we abhorre not the name of Priest Bishop But when according to the present vse this word Priest is takeÌ„ for him which in greke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine Sacerdos that is one appointed to offer a special sacrifice for which our English tongue hath none other worde but Priest as Bristow doth well confesse In this sence we deny that we haue any speciall Priesthoode or Priestes among vs but the only Priesthoode and high Priest our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ and the generall Priesthoode that is common to all the Saynctes of God Apoc. 16. But in the former sence we haue the same office of Bishoppe Elder or Priest which being ordeyned by the holy Ghost hath continewed in the church vntill this time But this will Bristowe disproue by two reasons First that auncient Bishoppes and Priestes were made by Bishoppès and Priestes and not by Kinges and Queenes secondly they were made to offer sacrifice and euen for the deade Concerning the first it is true that the auncient Priestes were so ordeyned but it is a most impudent slaunder that we are made Bishoppes or Priests by Kinges or Queenes For the worlde knoweth we are ordeyned by the Bishoppes and Elders of the church and not by the Prince But that the auncient Bishoppes and Elders of the church since Christ were ordeyned to offer sacrifice for the quicke and the dead it is vtterly false For albeit the auncient writers vnproperly vsed the names of Priest and sacrifice yet did they neuer meane to set vp a newe Priesthoode or sacrifice to ouerthrowe the only true Priesthode and sacrifice of Christes death as in many places of their writinges most manifestly doth appeare but only they did continew a memory of the sacrifice of Christes death in the celebration of the Lordes supper Chris. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. and a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgeuing August De ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap 6. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quod in ea oblatione quam offâ—rt ipsa offeratur This sayth Augustine speaking of the sacrifice of thankesgeuing is the
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.
same And in order and office he confesseth that all Byshopps of the worlde are equall as Hierome sayeth ad Euagrium and Cyprian De vnitate ecclesâ—e but not in authoritie But seeing he rehearseth the testimonie of Hierome imperfectly I will set it downe at large that you may see whether it will beare his distinction He writeth against a custome of the Church of Rome by which the Deacons were preferred abooue the Priestes whome hee proueth by the Scripture to be equall with Byshoppes excepte onely in ordaining Quid enim facit exempta ordinatione Episcopus c. For what doth a Bishop excepting ordination which a Priest or Elder doth not Neither is it to be thought that there is one church of the city of Rome and an other of the whole worlde Both Fraunce and Britayn Africa and Persia and the East and India all barbarous nations worship one Christ obserue one rule of truth If auctoritie be sought the world is greater then a citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tunis he is of the same worthines of the same Priesthoode Power of riches basenes of pouerty make not the Bishop higher or inferior But they are all successors of the Apostles And lest you should thinke he speaketh onely of equalitie in order office not in authority He doth in an other place shew that the authoritie of euery Priest is equall with euery Bishop by Gods disposition that the excelling of one Bishop aboue other Priests came only by custom In Titum cap. 1. Sieut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subiectos it a Episcopi nouerint se magis consuctudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maieres Therefore as Priestes do know that by custom of the Church they are subiect to him that is set ouer them so let Bishops know that they are greater then Priests rather by custom then by truth of the Lordes appoyntment If the authoritie then iurisdiction of Bishops dependeth vpon custoÌ„ not vpon gods appointment Peter was not by our lords appointmeÌ„t preferred in bishoplik authority before the rest of y e Apostles nor the Bishop of Rome before other Bishops Priestes but only by custom as Hierom saith S. Cyprians wordes also inferre the same Episcopatus vnus est cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Bishops office is one whereof euery man doth partake the Bishops office wholy Now if authoritie iurisdiction doe pertayne to the Bishops office euery Bishop hath it wholy as to follow M. Sanders example whatsoeuer is incident to the nature or kind of a man is equally in euery man But now the greatest matter resteth to proue how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles and that he taketh on him to proue by this reason Peter loued Christ more then all the rest of the Apostles therefore he gaue him greater authoritie in feeding his sheepe then to the rest But I deny the argument For Peter loued Christ more then the rest because Christ had forgiuen him greater sinâ—es then to the rest Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof he required greater diligence in doing his office but gaue him not a greater charge or authoritie Now where M. Sander reasoneth that Peter loued Christ most because Christ first loued him most and Christ loued him most because he would make him gouernour of his Church it is a shamefull petition or begging of that which is in question For the nearest cause of Peters greater loue was the greater mercy which he founde which mercy proceeding from the loue of God as the first infinite cause can haue no higher superior or former cause But Peter in respect of greater loue shewed to him in that greater sinne was forgiuen him was bound to shewe greater loue toward Christ which he required to be shewed in feeding his sheepe yet this proueth not that greater authoritie was giuen him or that he did feede more then all men For S. Paule sayth truly of him selfe I haue labored more then they all 1. Cor. 15. 10. wherby it appeareth that Peter as a man was not equall with Christ in the effect of excellent loue which was in him in comparable And whereas M. Sander talketh so much of his commission of feeding I say these words feede my sheepe c. be not wordes of a newe commission but words of exhortation that he shew exceeding diligence in the commission equally deliuered to all the Apostles As my father hath sent me so I send you Ioan. 20 21. But the auncient fathers expound it so that it might seeme to be a singular commission to Peter It can not be denyed but diuers of the auncient fathers otherwise godly and learned were deceyued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue which appeareth not in the Scriptures but was chalenged by the Bishops of Rome which seemed to haue a shew of some benefit of vnitye to the Church so long as the Empire coÌ„tinued at Rome the Bishops of that â—â—ie retayned the substance of Catholike religion yet did they neuer imagine that such blasphemous tyrannicall authoritie yea such false hereticall doctrine as afterward was mayntayned vnder the preteÌ„ce of that prerogatiue shoulde or ought to haue bene defended thereby But let vs see what M. Sander can saye out of the aunâ—ient writers August in Hom. de past cap. 13. writeth Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe There were many Apostles and it is sayde to one feede my sheepe God forbid there should now lacke good pastors but all good pastors are in one they are one This maketh nothing for Peters authority ouer the rest but only the author supposeth the vnitie of all Pastors to be allegorically signified in that Christ speaketh that to one which is common to all good sheepeheardes namely to feede his sheepe And againe de sanct hom 24 In vno Petro c. The vnitie of all pastors was figured in one Peter So might it wel be without giuing Peter authoritie ouer all Pastors Chrysostom is the next lib. 2. de sacerdotio who sayth that Christ did aske whether Peter loued him not to teache vs y t Peter loued him but to enforme vs quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura howe great care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock Here he would haue vs marke that Chrysostom calleth it a rule gouernment of the flock which Christ intendeth Yea sir we see it very wel but you would make vs blind if we could not see that Chrysostom speaketh not of a general rule graunted to Peter only but of the gouernment of euery Churche by euery Pastor And therefore you daunce naked in a net when you alledge the words following absolutely as though they pertayned to Peter
onely Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to euery Priest shewing how careful he ought to be in his office in respect of his high calling the excellent dignitie thereof sayth Etiam ne nune nobisium contendes fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse quiper eam vniuersis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus quuÌ„praesertim ea agas quecuÌ„ Petrus ageret illuÌ„ Christus auctoritate predituÌ„ esse voluit ac reliquos item Apostolos longeÌ„ praecellere Wilt thou then stil contend with vs that this fraude hath not happened well luckely to thee which by it art to be made ouerseer of all the goods of God almightye especially when thou doest those thinges which when Peter did Christ would haue him to be endued with authoritie also farre to excel the other Apostles Here M. Sander wil haue vs note 3. things 1 Peters authoritie 2. passing the Apostles 3. farre passing We marke them all that they are directly ouerthrowing M. Sanders rocke of the popish Churche For they declare that Peter in doing those things was endued with authoritie farre passed the other Apostles euen as euery Priest to whoÌ„ Chrysostom speaketh when he doth the same thinges is endued with the same authoritie farre passeth all other men So that here is none other authority nor excelleÌ„ce of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in executing their charge and was common to all the Apostles when they did the same things that Peter did For Chrysostom proueth to Basil that he did him no hurt when by pollicie he caused him to be called to the ministery against his will seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithfull wise seruaunt and equall in authoritie with Peter if of loue towardes Christ he would diligently feede his flocke So that Leo had no iust cause to saye that in respect of any greater authoritie Peter had a speciall care of feeding the sheepe committed to him but rather in respect that he had greater cause to loue Christ which had so mercifully forgiuen him so shamefull a fall But Arnobius is a lesse partiall witnes then Leo a Bishop of Rome he vpon the Psal. 138. writeth thus Nullus Apostolorum nomen c. None of the Apostles receiued the name of a Pastor For our Lord Iesus Christ alone saide I am the good pastor againe my sheepe follow me Therefore this holy name the power of this name after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting And he that was thryse denyed gaue to his denyer that power which he had alone Arnobius saith he noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a pastor giuen to him by Christ beside S. Peter alone But I demaund of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word euer For he sayth y t Peter had this name after y e resurrection w c none of y e Apostles had before He writeth against the Nouatians w c denied helpe to such as repented after baptisme prouing by exaÌ„ple of Peter that they are to be receyued seeing Christ gaue him greater dignitie after his repentance then he had before his fal But that Peter had greater authoritie theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles he neuer thought or sayde M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tayle In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appeare for thus he writeth Dicis certâ— baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur qui est Episcoporum Episcopus maiâ—r gradus additur ploranti quam sublatus est deneganti Quod vt doceam illud est endo quod nullus ApostoloruÌ„ nomen Pasioris accepit c. In deede thou sayst that such as repent being baptised ought not to be helped Beholde the Apostle repenting is helped which is a Bishop of Bishops and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying Which that I may teach this I shew that none of the Apostles receyued the name of a sheepeheard c. Againe in the ende following the wordes before cited by M. Sander he sayth vt non sâ—lum recuperasse quod amiserat probaretur verum etiam multo amplius poenitendo quam negandâ— perdiderat acquisisse He gaue his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had That he might be proued not onely to haue recouered that which he lost but also to haue gotten much more by repenting then he lost by denying This speaketh Arnobius of the general authoritie which Peter had ouer all the Church as euery Apostle had likewise was a Bishop and ouerseer of Bishops as well as Peter and a Pastor of the vniuersal Church which thing Arnobius neuer did deny These therfore be M. Sanders arguments none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christes resurrection ergo they neuer had it Peter was called to greater dignitie after his fall then he had before ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles Again Peter was a Bishop or an ouerseer of Bishops ergo he was Bishop ouer the Apostles Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first ayd that Peter was euery where ether alone or first And theÌ„ vpon these words Peter doost thou loue me sayth Dominus interrogat c. Our Lord asked net to learne but to teach whoÌ„ he beeing to be lâ—fted vpp into heauen did leaue to vs as the Vicare of his loue For so thou hast â—â— Simon thou sonne of Iohn doest thou lâ—ue me Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee Iesus sayth to him feede my lambes Peter being priuy of a good conscience doth testifie his owne affection not taken for the time but already well knowen to God For who else were able to professe this thing of him selfe Aâ—d because he alone amongst all professeth he is preferred before all M. Sander omitteth the conclusion Maior enim omnibus charitas For the greatest of all is Chariâ—ie So Peter is heereby declared to haue the greateste loue but not to haue the greatest authoritie M. Sander vrgeth that he is the Vicar of Christes loue and pastorall office The one indeede Ambrose sayth the other Sander sayeth but is not able to proue no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose that Peter had committed to him to feede not onely the Lambes with milke as at the first nor yet the little sheepe as at the seconde time but the sheepe to the end that he beeing more perfect might gouerne the more perfecte For euery one of the Apostles hadde the same charge to feede the sheepe of Christe and not the Lambes or little sheepe onely Neither doth the woorde of gouernment helpe him For euery Apostle had the like gouernment ouer the whole flock w c Peter hath and there is an ordinary gouernment in euery particular church 1. Co. 12. w c
Arbitramur c. VVe think these men that haue so pernitious and froward opinions will giue plaâ—e more easily to the authority of your holines beeing taken out of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our lord Iesus Christ which â—ouchâ—â—feth to rule you when you consult to heare you wheÌ„ you pray by these words they shew that they hope y e here tikes being reproued by the B. of Rome out of the woâ—d of God wil the rather giue place w t out imagining that the B. of Romes authoritie is so stablished by the scriptures that whatsoeuer he decre coÌ„trary to thescriptures the same should be imbraced But a farther confirmatioÌ„ of the epistle of Innoce he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith Pope Innocent did write an answere to the Bishops in althings as it became the prelate of the Apostolike sea But these words neither proue that epistle to be written by Innocent nor if it were do allowe his pretended auth ority because that was no matter whereof they required his answere But to put it out of dout Both these Councels haue decreed against the vsurpation of the Romish sea As the councel Mileuitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa vnder paine of excommunication The laste authoritie cited out of Augustine is Epistle 162. speaking of the Churche of Rome In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus In which alwayes the principalitie of the Apostolike chaire hath flourished A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine aduanced the Church in wealth dignitie esteemed the church of Rome as the principall Sea in dignitie but not in absolute authoritie such as in processe of time the Byshops of Rome claymed and vsurped For euen the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yeelde to the Bishop of Rome clayming by a counterfaire Canon of the Councell of Nice to haue authortie to receaue appeales out of Africa Epi. con Aphr. ad Bonifac whiche they couâ—pte an intollerable pride and presumption and in Epist. cont Aphri ad Coelestiâ—â—m fumosum typum seculi A smokey pride of the worlde which the Pope claymed and an absurde authoritie that one maÌ„ should be better able to examine such causes then so many Byshops of the prouince where the controuersie began and by the olde Cannons shoulde be ended To Augustine he ioyneth Prosper Bishop of RhegiuÌ„ in Italie which affirmeth in lib de ingrat that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius which Rome being made head vnto the worlde of pastorall honor holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it doth not possesse by warre And againe Rome through the primacie of the Apostolike Priesthoode is made greater by the castell of religion then by the throne of power First how vntruly he boasteth that the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the heresie of Pelagius you may ease y see by that the councel of Africa did before condemne it had somwhat a doe to perswade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it Whereby you see that Prosper was ouer partiall to the see of Rome to whome yet he ascribeth a principallity or primacy of honor not of power or auctority The testimonies of Leo Gregory Bâ—shops of Rome as alwaies so now I deeme to be vnmeete to be heard in their owne cause though otherwise they were not the worst men yet great furtherers of the auctoritie of Antichrist which soone after their dayes tooke possessioÌ„ of the chaire which they had helped to prepare for him The last testimonie out of Beda which liued vnder the tyranny of Antichrist I will not stande vpon M. Sander may haue great store of such late writers to affirme the Popes supremacie The 16. Chapter THat the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke theÌ„ selues to be the supreame heads of the church in spirituall causes but gaue that honor to Bishops Priests most specially to the sea of Rome for S. Peters sake as well before as after the time of Phocas A Priest is aboue the Emperour in Ecclesiastical causes The othe of the royal supremacy is intollerable Constantine was baptised at Rome Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches COncerning the supremacy of our soueraigne which this traiterous Papist doth so maliciously disdaine although it be expounded sufficiently by her Maiestie in her iniunction not to be suche as he most slaunderously doth deforme it yet I will here as I haue done diuerse times before in aunswere to these Papistes professe that we ascribe no supremacie to our Prince but such as the worde of God alloweth in the godly Kinges of the old Testament and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperours and Princes vnder the new Testament First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power in any Ecclesiasticall causes suche as the Pope challengeth but subiect vnto the rules of Gods worde Secondly we ascribe no supremacie of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince but affirme that she is to learne of the Bishops and teachers of the church both in matters of faith and of the gouernment of the church Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings that the Prince should presume to preach to minister the Sacramentes to excommunicate c. which perteine not to her office But the supremacie we admit in Ecclesiasticall causes is auctoritie ouer all persons to coÌ„maund and by lawes to prouide that all matters Ecclesiasticall may be ordered and executed according to the word of God And such is the true meaning of the othe that he calleth blasphemous and intollerable And as for examples of honor geuen to the Bishoppes by Christian Princes which he bringeth forth they deny not this supremacy nor make any thing against it The first is of the Emperour Philippus counted of some for the first Christian Emperor although it be not like to be true yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so This Prince without due repentance offered him selfe to receaue the holy misteries being refused by the Bishop of the place tooke it pacieÌ„tly submitted him selfe to the discipline order of y e church I answer this example toucheth not the auctority he had in ecclesiasticall causes For in receauing of the Sacramentes the Prince differeth not from a priuate person But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument called a dilemma If the Priest in these causes be superior to y t Emperor other causes be greater or lesser then these If they be greater the Emperour which is not supreame gouernor ouer the lesser causes can not be in the greater if they be lesser then the Priest w c gouerneth the Emperor in greater causes must nedes gouern him in lesser causes These hornes are easily auoyded not by distinctioÌ„ of the causes but of the gouernments The gouernment of
so obiect that the gouernment of the clergy as it differeth in matter which is spirituall so also it differeth in forme maner from the regiment temporall w c is with outward pompe of glory with the material sword this with all humility with the sword of the spirit Contrariwise M. Sander answereth this obiectioÌ„ so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptistes sheweth him selfe litle to differ from their opinion First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion as is vsed among the Princes of the earth not altogether such as ought to be amoÌ„g them But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion it appeareth by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benefactors which their subiectes did giue them for their bountifulnes towards them in preseruing them from enemies in peace and wealth Secondly he sayth that although the King be neuer so good yet it is not the Kingly but the Priestly power which God chose froÌ„ the beginning to rule his people withal And although Kings serue Gods eternal purpose they are commaunded to be obeyed yet the making of Kinges ouer Gods owne people at the first came not of God by way of his mercifull election but by way of his angrie permission What Anabaptist could speake more heretically or seditiously against the lawfull auctority of Kings Princes But let vs see his reason Nemrod he sayth was the first King we reade of which either by force vsurped or was aduanced by euell men I aunswere if Nemrod was the first that vsurped auctoritie as a tyrant yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly auctority lawfully nether was he ruler ouer Gods people But what wil hâ—ouy of Melchisedech King of Salem was not he elected of God at the first both to be a King a figure of the King of Kings who should not haue had that dignity if it had not bene of it selfe both lawfull and godly Secondly he sayth God was angrie with his people for asking a King when they had a Priest to rule them I aunswere he was not angrie for their asking of a King but for refusing of a Prince ordeyned by him which was Samuel a Leuite in deede of the familie of Cohath but no Priest of the familie of Aaron For in his dayes were high Priestes Eli Achitob Achimelech But after the dayes of Eli which was both high Priest and Iudge Samuel was ordeyned Prince or Iudge of the people hauing auctoritie aboue Achitob or Achimelech the high Priestes in his time which were sufficient to decide the controuersie of the supremacie if M. Sander would geue place to the Scriptures But who can discharge him of Anabaptistrie where he deny eth the making of a King to be Gods institution affirming it to be the fact and consent of men allowed in deede by God when the Apostle expresly sayeth it is Gods ordinaunce Rom. 13 And where he sayth that Abel Noe Abraham were directly from God chosen to be Priestes as Aaron he sayeth most vntruly for they had in their familie the principalitie of ciuill gouernment as directly as they had the Priesthoode But neither of both in suche sorte as Aaron had the Priesthoode in whom the one was distincted from the other And of AbrahaÌ„ it is testified that he was a Prince ordeyned of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth foorth the excelleÌ„cy of Priests by their auctority in making Christs body with their holy mouth as Hierom speaketh But that proueth not the supremacy of one Priest aboue al men nor of one Priest aboue an other As for the ordeining of Peter to be generall shepherd and high Bishoppe of the whole flocke by commaunding him to feede his shepe when he can conclude it out of that Scripture in any lawfull forme of argument we will yeelde vnto it But this is intollerable impudencie that pretending to shew howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king he asketh to what Christian king did Christ euer saye As my father sent me I send thee as though Christ had euer sayde so to Peter in singular and not to all his Apostles in generall As my father sent me so I send you Ioan 20. Concerning the rocke that he woulde builde his Church vpon and the feeding of Christes sheepe and lambes we shall haue more proper place to examine afterward what supremacie they giue to the Pope or to Peter ether His farther rauing against the dignitie of kinges who list to see let him turne to the 57. page of his booke cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he sayth that the pompe of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith and maketh worldly pompe as vnmeete for a king as for a Bishop But the Scripture he sayth neuer calleth any king head of the Churche nether doe we call any Kinge heade of the Church but onely Christ but in euery particular Church the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chiefe Magistrate not onely in gouerning the common wealth but also in making godly lawes for the furtherance of religion hauing all sortes of men as well Ecclesiasticall as ciuill subiect vnto him to be gouerned by him and punished also not onely for ciuill offences but also for heresie and neglect of their duties in matters pertayning to the religion of God For although many ciuill Magistrats at the first were enemies of the Gospel yet was it prophecyed that kings should be nursing fathers and Queenes nursing mothers vnto the Church Es. 49. Againe it is an impudent and grosse lye when he sayth that God was angry because the gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest was reiected a kingly gouernment called for For they reiected not y e gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest but of Samuel y e Iudge who was no high Priest although he was a Prophet nether was there euer any high Priest Iudge but only Eli. But if all supremacie be forbiddâ—n ouer the whole Church militant sayth M. Sander it is forbidden likewise that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church And this he proueth by a iolly rule of Logicke For the partes according to their degree are of the same nature whereof the whole is O subtile reason by which I wil likewise coÌ„clude there may not be one scholemaister for all the children of the worlde therefore there may not be one schoolemaster for one towne in all the world There can not be one Phisicion for all the world therefore there may not be a Phisicion for euery citie yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world therefore there may not be a Priest in euery parishe Againe he reasoneth thus If a king be supreame head ouer his owne Christian Realme it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianitie or beside it For by his christianitie it is not possible that he should haue greater power then the