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
This thing sayth D. Humfrey he did not with his wil but yet he did it not without a cause that he might strike you through with the testimonie of your fathers as it were with your owne sworde For it had beene manlie for a Christian man to say Thus sayth the Lorde It had bene sufficient to haue layed agaynst you Your doctrine is contrarie to the Scripture For it is the question of men possessed with deuills to say What haue we to doe with thee Iesus thou sonne of Dauid But it is an interrogation of the Saynctes What haue we to doe with our fathers with fleshe and bloode You heare by these wordes what a daungerous opinion he holdeth of the fathers and of the Saynctes in the calender namelie that the fathers are no farther to be followed then they followed the holie Scriptures and that the Sainctes either liuing or deade whether they be in the calender or no deny their fathers as fleshe and bloode if they be in any respect an hinderance for them to obey the will of their father in heauen These are the perillous opinioÌ„s that Bristow brableth against falsifying his words by ommission depâ—auing his meaning by false surmising But Bristow hath yet an other reason to proue the fathers to be in all poinctes of their side If in all poinctes sayth he they be not with the Protestants then vndoubtedly in all poynctes they be with vs. And what is the reason of this monstruous conclusion There was neuer but one true religion As though none can be of true religion but such as erreth in nothing But who would spend incke and paper to confute such vaine reasonings The 15. motiue conteineth the 15. 16. and 20. demaundes Martyrs S. Stephen of our religion Pilgrimage Churches confirmed by vision Mâ—racles for reliques and for necessitie of childrens baptisâ—ne Confirming of children the custome and practise of Gods church Foxes martyrs Miracâ—es for our martyrs Al martyrs that euer suffred fot the testimony of true religion since Abel were numbred of one true church euen of the same that we are But Bristow would binde vs to the Saincts in the calender termed by L. Humfrey SaÌ„ctâ—li which terme yea a worse might serue a number of theÌ„ Notwithstanding so many of those caleÌ„ddred canonized Sainctes as be Saincts in heauen and not firebrands in hell were of that church which is builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ being the head corner stone And therefore it is a foolish request that we should name any one of theÌ„ which was of our faith But it is a pleasant pastime to heare howe Bristow proueth S. Stephen to be of his religion It is manifest sayth he that he is of the religion of the rest of the martyrs meaning Papistes because it is proued that he as well as they had heard helped theÌ„ which prayed to them which worshipped their reliques went a pilgrimage to their churches he specially reuealing by vision the place where his reliques were hidden with the reliques of S. Gamaliel S. Nicodemus vnto one Lucian a Priest of â—erusalem which wrote in Greeke the history of his inuention To this inuention I answere that it is an inuention of the deuill either by meanes of him that counterfaited the vision or by sending a stronge illusion so â— say generally of all such miracles and visions as are alleaged to proue any doctrine contrarie to the holy Scriptures As for the vanitie of this epistell of Lucian it be wrayeth it selfe in that he maketh Gamaliel the Pharizee so great a Sainct who for any thing that we can read in the holy Scripture was neuer a Christian. S. Paule in the 22. of the Actes appealeth to the knowledge of the Iewes that he was brought vp in Iudaisme vnder Gamaliel which if after he had bene conuerted to Christianity it shoulde haue bene greatly suspected that S. Paule had bene noselled vp by him and not conuerted by a vision from heauen as his intent was to shew From this counterfait stuffe of Lucians epistell he sendeth vs to the new founde sermons of Augustine to whom he would get credit by Augustines owne report De ciuit 22. ca. 8. but in vaine for Augustine speaketh not of any such sermons but only when report of a miracle was brought vnto him that he went vnto the church spake a few things of the matter And touching all such miracles as he reporteth of Stephen his conclusion is this God was glorified by them and the faith for which Stephen died was magnified But of worshipping of reliques pilgrimage c. there is no mention and yet that chapter of miracles as Ludouicus Viues doth confesse is notably corrupted as appeared to him by ancient copies The conclusion was Quid erat in cordibus exultantium nisi fides Christi pro qua Stephani sanguis fusus est What was in the hartes of them that reioysed but the faith of Christ for which the blood of Stephen was shed The miracle which Bristow reporteth out of the 38. Serm. in diuus 96. in noua editione to proue the necessitie of baptisme for infants the practise of the church for confirmation of children praying to S. Stephen is an impudeÌ„t fiction as appeareth manifestly by this that he calleth a sucking babe Catechumenu one that was instructed in Christian religion which could not possibly be before he was of yeares of capacity Secondly the infants ofChristian parents in Augustins time were baptised as sone as they were borne taried not vntil they were Catechumeni that is enstructed Thirdly the woman in this fable praying to S. Stephen perswadeth him to know the purpose of her hart which the word of God affirmeth to be known only to God As impudent as the deuiser of that fable was is Bristow who citeth out of Augustine De â—nitat eccles cap. 16. a few words rent a sunder from the rest coÌ„cerning miracles which the whole discourse sheweth to be plainly against him as you may read in this aunswere in the 8. motiue of visions After this followeth a comparison of Foxes martyrs with the Popish martyrs Videlicet the good Earle of Northumberlande Storie Feltons Nortons VVodhouse Plomtree and so many hundrethes of the Northerne men all rebells and traytors yet saith he approued by miracles vndoubted but what miracles he sheweth not To these he addeth Fisher More the Charterhouse monkes c. whose cause being sufficiently discussed by M. Foxe I referre to the iudgemeÌ„t of indifferent readers But this I can not omit that the traiterous Papist flauÌ„dereth our state not only for publike execution of open rebelles and errant traytors but also with priuie murthering by poysoning whipping and famishing From all suspition of which wicked practises God be praised the states that are professors of the Goâ—pell haue alwayes bene as free as the Papists both by storie liuing testimonie may be proued giltie of theÌ„ And where hee
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
Bristowe shoulde vrge the seate of Peter to be called of Augustine the rocke Augustine in his retractations confesseth that he oftentimes hath expounded the rocke to be Christ and so will not abide by that former exposition Retract lib. 1. cap. 21. Neither did Augustine euer meane that the see of Peter at Rome was a rocke in such sorte that none that euer should sit there coulde erre for he him selfe with the rest of the fathers of the councell of Carthage withstood y e Bishop of Rome claiming iurisdictioÌ„ in Africa by coullour of a couÌ„terfet decree of the councell of Nice Conc. Carth. 6. cap. 4. Concil â—â—phr Ep. ad Celest. what shoulde I heere repeate Pope Honorius condemned for an heretike not only in the generall councell of Constantinople the 6. but also in the Idolatrous couÌ„cell of Nice the 2. and Iohn the 23. condemned for an Atheist in the councell of Gonstance If the gates of hell preuayled not manifestly against that seate yea and so many other Bishoppes thereof whom they them selues confesse to be damned in hell for their wicked life we neede not greatly be affrayed of the gates of hell Yea sayth Bristow It hath bene impugned ten thousand times more then any other but all in vayne frustra circumlatrantibus haereticis sayth S. Augustine In vayne is the barking of heretikes all about it De vtil cred cap. 17. But the place of Augustine which he citeth is of the Church of Christ and not of Peters seate round about the which the heretikes haue barked in vaine For euen in that seate but yet out of the Church Liberius had barked Arrianisme Marcellus gentilisme and after his time Honorius barked with the Monothelits as his epistle which remayned after his death declared Vigilius also by his epistle was proued to barke Euty chianisme Liberat. cap. 22. Iohn the 23. barked with the Sadduces against the resurrection of the dead cont Constanti sect 11. The see of Rome therefore is no more the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile then the see of Canterbury or London But sayth Bristowe who can saye that there shall be alwayes a Byshoppe of Canterburye or London Verely no more can any man saye that there shall alwayes bee a Byshop of Rome And whosoeuer sayth that there hath beene alwayes since Peter a Byshop of Rome shall lye moste impudently For the See hath often lyâ—n voyde not onely for a shortâ— time while a newe Byshop might be chosen but many yeers togither Againe the See hath beene translated from Rome to Auinion and the Popes Court kepte there for threescore yeeres togither by which it is manifest both that the Citie of Rome haâ—h not beene the perpetuall See of Peters successours and that Peters successors haue erred in remouing their Courte from that Citie which Peter chose to be heade of the worlde and Constantine gaue as they say to be the head of the church which might haue forborne so great a gift like as Peter also might haue spared his trauell in remouing his see from Antioch to Rome if they coulde haue foreseene that the Popes court might haue bene kept as well in Fraunce as in Italie at Auinion as at Rome But Luther is charged to be a false Prophet for that he sayth in his booke against King Henry That he was sure that he had his doctrines from heaueÌ„ That his doctrine should stand and the Pope should fall That God should see whether first be wery and faile the Pope or Luther The note of a false Prophet in Deu. 18 is to geue a signe which doth not follow so hath Luther doone sayth Bristow For Zwinglius hath ouercome Luther Caluine Zwinglius and the Puritans the Protestants in England To this I aunswere that Luther doth not take vpon him to foreshew things to come by any speciall reuelatioÌ„ but only affirmeth that his doctrine in as much as it is agreable to the word of God is from heauen shall continewe whereas the Popes doctrine being the doctrine of the deuill shall come to naught And in this victorie if he please so to tearme it hath not the Pope loste by preuayling of Zwinglius and Caluine And was that opinion of Luther which they haue impugned I meane of the carnall presence Luthers or the Popes But whereas y e slanderous hypocrite would make men think that Caluine hath opposed himselfe against the doctrine of Zwinglius the coÌ„sent of the churches of Heluetia w t them of Sabaudia being publikely set forth to the worlde doth openly testifie the contrarie Also the contention of those whom he calleth Puritanes in Englande is not so great nor about so great matters that any such diuision is to be feared which might cause desolation of the kingdome Adde hereunto that Bristow sayd in the 40. motiue that the Protestantes of England be in a manner all in heart Puritanes whereby he confesseth against him selfe that there can be no deadly contention betwene them that in heart are all one The 48. motiue How to make playne demonstration that the heretikes haue no euidence that we haue all VVho be wresters of the Scriptures The inconstancy of the Protestants The vnderstanding of the Scriptures is in the church This wise demonstration is a playne declaration that he which made it knoweth not what a demonstration meaneth but such as it is let vs see what is in it First he would haue it proponed by a Catholike to his frend that is in heretike to be considered seing al these motiues beginning with holy Scripture approued traditions c. be for them agai st vs what is the cause that we cry so shamelesly deceitfully the Gospel the word of the Lorde the touchstone of Gods booke And least we shoulde say that he beginneth with a false supposed shameful begging of the principle he will proue that all these euidences are for them and so must the heretike that you wil deale withall be made in the beginning to coÌ„fesse Yea Sir but howe will you driue him to this confession Forsooth sayth Bristow they all confesse it many wayes indirectly First in that they vse not the same euidences them selues in their declarations Secondly in that they admit no euidence but only Scripture To the first I answere they vse as much of this euidence as is good agreable to the holy Scripture To the second I say that if only Scripture be on our side it is more then all the rest against the Scripture and againe if only Scripture be on ourside then al the motiues be not on their side for Scripture is one of them the 8. in the motiues the first in the demaundes But the Papist must make his frend say as much directly or els say expressely to euery one of them whether he will be tried by them As a frende to the presones though an enemie to the errours of such Papistes as are curarable I haue sayd expressely and
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.
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
persons as went ouer sea caried false tales Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matriceÌ„ radiâ—em agnoscerent tenerent that they woulde acknowledg holde the mother and roote of the Catholike Church by which wordes they disswaded them from ioygninge with schismatikes who being condemned in one Church would gad vp and downe for absolution in an other The 7. did not S. Cyp. confesse Cornelius to haue receiued the appellation of Rasilides lawfully out of Spaineâ— li. 1 Ep. 4 There is no word of any such confession or appellation in that epistle But rather if you suppose an appellation a restitution by the Byshop of Rome Cyprian 36. bishops with him determine the same restitution to be voide of none effect Neque rescindere ordinationem iâ—re perfectam potest quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta conscientiam propria confessione nudatam Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit vt ambiret reponi se miustè in episcopatum de quo fucrat iustè depositus Haec eò pertinent vt Basilidis non tam abolita sint quam cumulata delicta vt ad superiora peccata eius etiam fallaciae circumuentionis crimen accesseris Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptuÌ„ quam hic execraÌ„dus qui fraudulenter obrepsit Obrepere auteÌ„ hominibus Basilides potuit Deo noÌ„ potest cuÌ„ scriptâ— sit Deus non irridetur Neither can it make frustrate the ordination lawfully made y Basilides after his crimes were detected his coÌ„scieÌ„ce opened by his owne confession going to Rome hath deceiued our fellow bishop Stephan being farre of ignoraÌ„t of â— matter of â— truth â— he might aÌ„bitiously seeke to be vniustlye restored into his bishoprick froÌ„ wÌ„ he was iustly deposed These things tend to this ende that the offences of Basilides are not so much abolished as increased so that to his former sinnes the cryme of deceifulnesse and circumuention is added For neither is he so much to be blamed who was negligently deceiued as he is to bee abhorred which did craftely deceiue him But if Basilides could deceiue men he coulde not deceiue God seeing it is written God is not mocked Heere is no lawefull appellation spoken of but the Bishope of Romes sentence pronounced voyde and he blamed for his negligence and rashnesse to medle with matters whereof he coulde haue no knowledge by meanes of distance of place But if M. San. reply that he is not reproued for taking such appellations he must heare what Cyprian sayth of such appellations which began to be vsed in his daies vnto Cornelius B. of Rome immediatly after the woordes cyted by him lib. 1 epi. 3. of those schismatikes that were so bolde as to sayle to Rome and carry letters as aboue Quae autem causa veniendi pseudoepiscopum contra episcopos factum nunciandi Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt in suo scelere perseuerant aut si displicet recedunt sciunt quo reuertantur Nam cum statutuÌ„ sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter iustuÌ„ vt vniusâ—uiusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat vnusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet vtique eos quibus presumus non circumcâ—rsare nec episcoporum concordiam coherentem sua subdola fallaci â—emeritate collidere Sed agere illic causam suam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint nisi paucit desperatis perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum qui iam de illis iudicauerunt eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctaÌ„ iudicij sui nuper grauitate damnaruÌ„t But what cause had they to come and to report that a false Byshop was made against the Byshops For either that which they haue done pleaseth them they continew in their wickednesse or if it displease theÌ„ and they goe back from it they knowe whether they shoulde returne For wheras it is decreed of vs all is also meete and right that euery mans cause should be hard there where the crime was committed and a portion of the flocke is committo euery Pastor which euery one ought to rule and gouerne as he that shall yeelde an account of his doings to the Lord verily it behoueth them ouer whome wee haue rule not to runne about neither by their craftie deceitful rashnes to crase the concord of Byshops agreing togither but there to plead their matter wher they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crime except the authoryty of the Byshops ordeined in Africa seemeth to a few desperate and wicked fellowes to bee lesse which haue already iudged of them and condemned their consciences bounde with the waight of their iudgement in many cordes of their offences This place of Cyprian declareth not onely that the Byshopps of Africa had decreede against such appellations but also that they thought theyr authoritie nothing inferior to the Byshops of Italy nor to the byshop of Rome him self The 8. note out of Cyprian is That he required Stephanus the Pope to depose Marcianus the Byshop of Arles in Fraunce which to dee in an other prouince is a signe that the Pope of Rome is aboue other Bishops If it were true that M. Sander sheweth it might proue the Bishop of Rome to be a Primate or Metropolitane it coulde not proue him to be a Byshop ouer all the world But it is vtterly false that he saith Cyprian required the Pope Stephan to depose him for he was deposed by the iudgement of all the Byshops of the Weste Churche Ab vâ—iuersis sacerdotibus iudicatus condemned of all the Priestes onely hee exhorteth Stephan of Rome which was negligeÌ„t in this behalfe to ioyne with the reste of the Byshoppes of Fraunce in ordering of another Byshopp in his steade who long since hath beene excommunicated and deposed from his place for taking parte with Nouatiane the Heretike And lest you should think the whole mâ—tter to be referred to the Byshop of Rome these are is words in the same Epistle li 3. Ep. 13. Id circo enim frater charissime copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresâ—m facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentauerit subueniant caeteri quasi pastores vtiles misericordes oues dominicas in gregem colâ—igant For therfore most welbeloued brother the bodie or fellowshippe of priestes is plentifull beeing coupled togither by the Glewe of mutuall concorde and the bande of Amitie so that if any of our company shall assay to make an heresie or to rente or waste the flocke of Christ the reste should giue ayde and as profitable and mercifull shepheards
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
the Prince is one of the Priest an other this spiritual the other external therefore no contrariety betwene them For put the case that Philippus had seene the Bishop prophane the sacrament in ministring to infidels or otherwise vncertainly behauing him selfe in his office might he not iustly haue punished him as supreame gouernour ouer the Bishoppe euen in those matters I say not to doe them but to see that they be well done and to punishe the offendors Neither is the meaning of the othe any other And according to this meaning M. Nowell M. Horne and M. Iewel dare warrant the King to be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes although it please M. Sander to say the contrarie of them Whose trayterous quarelling vpon the wordes of the othe ought not to trouble any mans coÌ„science when the meaning is publikelie testified both by the Prince and by the whole consent of the church The next exaÌ„ple is of Constantinus the great which in the Synode of Nice when the Bishops had offered vnto him bills of complaint one against an other without disclosing the contentes of them he sayd as Ruffinus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes c. God hath made you Priestes and hath giuen you power to iudge of vs also and therfore we are rigtly iudged of you but ye can not be iudged of mÌ„e For which cause expect ye the iudgement of God alone among ye Here M. Sander noteth first that he calleth them Priestes whereby he woulde proue they had power to offer externall sacrifice which is a simple reason for then all Christian men women within the Scripture are called Priestes haue the same power Secondly he coÌ„fesseth they haue power to iudge the Emperour for none can be greater then a Priest In their challenge and spirituall gouernment the Emperour meaneth and not as the Popish church practised to dispose the Emperour Thirdly that Priestes can not be iudged of meÌ„ If this be so one Priest can not be iudged of an other and where is then the Popes supremacie but he aunswereth if one Priest iudge an other it is Gods iudgement and not the iudgement of men because God hath set one Priest aboue another O blockish aunswere as though God hath not set one Prince aboue all his subiectes You see howe Popish Priestes aduaunce them selues to the honor of God and withdraw their obedience from Gods Lieutenaunts on earth An vndoubted note of Antichristians You will aske me then what sence these wordes haue you can not be iudged of men I aunswere either they are ment as Sainct Paule speaketh of the vprightnes of his conscience in doing of his office which is not subiect to the iudgement of men or else Ruffinus as he was a bolde reporter frameth the Emperours wordes accordâ—ng to that estimation which he woulde haue men to haue of the clergie For it is certeyne by recordes of Constantinus time that he did iudge Bishoppes and tooke vpon him as supreame gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes Maister Sander confesseth he iudged certeyne Priests or ecclesiasticall causes but he did it as Augustine sayeth Epist. 162. as one that would afterward aske pardon of the holy Bishops at the importunitie of the Donatists And as Optatus recordeth he sayd Deschis lib. 1. Petitis à me c. Ye aske of me iudgement in the world whereas I my selfe looke for Christes iudgement And Augustine reproueth the Donatistes that they would haue an earthly King to be iudge of their cause In deede the importunitie of the Donatistes was wicked who would so referre the matter to the Emperour y t without knowledge of ecclesiasticall persons who were only meete iudges in respect of knowledge in that case they would haue y e cause decided But the Emperour acknowledging his auctoririe appointed iudges ecclesiastical persons first the Bishop of Rome Melchiades whom he commauÌ„ded with other Bishops to heare the cause of Caecilianus as Eusebius who â—ued in his time writeth li. 10. ca. 5. And wheÌ„ the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Rome his coÌ„panions iudgement he appointed other delegates as Augustine also witnesseth Ep. 162. But to leaue this cause of the Donatistes Eusebius in his life libr. 1. sayeth of him Quoniam nonnulli variis locis inter se discrepabant quasi communis quidem Episcopus à Deo constitutus ministrorum Dei synodos conuocauit neâ— dedignatus est adesse considere in illorum medio Because some of them in diuerse places were at variance among them selues he as a certeine generall Bishop appointed of God called together the synodes of the ministers of God and disdayned not to be present and to sit in the middest of them And in lib. 3. He sheweth howe he gathered the vniuersall synode of Nice as it were leading foorth the armie of God to battell To this Emperour did Athanasius the great Bishoppe of Alexandria appeale from the synode of Tyre where he was iniuriously handled as both Socrates testifieth lib. 1. and the verie Epistle of Constantine him selfe vnto that synode commaunding all the Bishoppes to come vnto his presence and there to shewe before him quem syncerum esse Dei ministrum neque vos sanè negabitis whome you can not deny to be a syncere minister of God how sincerely they had iudged in that councell Finally in the end of the epistle he protesteth that he wil execute his supremacie in causes ecclesiastical Omni virtute conabor agâ—re quatenâ—s quae in lege Dei sunt ea praecipuè sine aliquâ— titubatione seruentur quibus vtique neque vituperatio neque malâ— superstitio poteris implicari dispersis vtique ac palam contritis penitus exterminatis sacratissimae legis inimicis qui sub schemate sancti nominis blasphemas varias ad diuersos inijciant I will endeuour with all my might to bringe to passe that those thinges that are in the lawe of God those chiefly without any staggering may be obserued which by no reproofe or euill superstition can be intangled when all the enemyes of the moste holye lawâ— which vnder a shape of an holy name doe cast out diuerse blasphemies vnto sondry persons are dispersed openly troden downe and vtterly rooted out Let this suffice to shewe what supremacie Constantinus did exercise in causes Ecclesiasticall Nowe Maister Sander draweth vs to see what honour he gaue to the see of Rome First he taketh it for most certayne that Constantine was baptised by Syluester which is an impudent lye and forged fable as is manifest by Eusebius who liued in his tyme and after him who knewe him familiarly and affirmeth that he was baptised in his iorney towardes Iordane where he had purposed to haue bene baptised if God had spared him life But this manifest testimonye of Eusebius Maister Sander refuseth becauâ—e he was suspected for affection to the Arrian heresiâ— Beside that he was vniustly suspected what reason is it to discredit his story who wrote at such