if theire interpretation be none other then the sound of the word doth giue they make the newe Testament to be nothing but a drinking vessel But to discusse his examples the first is this text Matth. 26. This is my body why saith he is this which Christe poynteth to denied to be his body I answere it is affirmed to be his body in that sence that he spake and otherwise then he ment it is denyed to be his body Againe Iames saith Cap. 2. A man is iustified of workes not of faith onely VVhy then are workes denyde to iustifie or onely faith taught to iustifie I aunswere woorkes are not denyed to iustifie before men and onely faith is taught to iustifie before God Rom. 3. The doers of the lawe shalbe iustified Rom. 2. VVhy then teach you the lawe not to be able to be doone Because the Apostle saith that of the workes of the law none shalbe iustified before God Rom. 3. 20. for if the workes of the lawe could be done by any man perfectly as the law requireth he shold be iustified by thē as the text affirmeth By the obedience of one that is Christe many shall bee made righteous Rom. 5. VVhy then are wee denyed to bee really righteous and sayde to bee righteous by imputation onely Because the obedience of Christe is not really our obedience but by imputatiō of God through faith The loue of God is spread in our heartes by the holy ghost which is geuen vs. Rom. 5. This is more then a bare imputing of righteousnesse to vs yea Sir but this is not our iustification but an effect thereof for he saide immediatly before that beeing iustified by faith wee haue peace with God VVhose sinnes ye forgiue they shalbe forgiuē them Ioh. 20 VVhy then are Bishops and Priests denyed to forgiue sinnes We graunt that true Byshops and elders haue authoritie to forgiue sinnes in Gods name but not absolutely He that is great among you let him be made as the yonger Luke 22. VVhy then deny you that one was greater among the Apostles and is stil among the Bishops their successors One was not greater among the Apostles in authoritie for their greatnes was to be the greatest seruaunt to take the most paines to be most humble Mat. 18 Thou art Peter or a rock and vpon this Rock I wil builde my Church Mat. 16 VVhy is the militant Church denyed to be built vponS Peter and his suceessors in that chayre and office The Church is affirmed to be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and so vpon Peter as one of thē in which office he hath no successors Keepe the traditions which yee haue learned either by word or by an Epistle 1. Thessa. 2. VVhy then are traditions so dispised that the name cannot be suffred in the English Bible It may and is suffred in that sense which the holye Ghost vseth it but not to bring in prayer for the deade or any thing contrary to the scripture vnder the name of traditions Apostolike For the Apostle speaketh only of the doctrine which he deliuered to them either by preaching or by Epistle which is none other then is cōtayned in the holy Seriptures For of other traditions pretended to be of the Apostles he biddeth them take heede in the same Chapter vers 2. He that ioyneth his Virgine in mariage doth well and hee that doth not ioyne her doth better VVhy make you mariage as good as virginitie For such as haue the gift of continence we graunt virginitie is better in such respectes as the Apostle teacheth Vow eye and render your vowes vnto God Psal. 75. If thou wilt be perfect go and sel all thinges which thou haste giue them to the poore follow me Mat. 19. There are Eunuches which haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of Heauen Obey your Rulers and be subiect vnto them VVhy thē are the vowes of pouertie of chastitie and obedience counted vnlawful or men cōstrained not to performe thē The first text perteineth to the old Testamēt The second is a singular tryall to that one place The third we graunt in them to whome it is giuen the fourth we neuer made question about it but al these are euil fauouredly patched togither to proue the vowe of Monkery lawfull which is superstitious for want of Gods commaundement blasphemous for the opinion of merite impossible for the frailtie of many mens nature As for compulsion there is none vsed for no man is compelled to be rich vnchaste or disobedient Doe ye the worthy fruites of penaunce Luc. 3. VVhy thē is satisfaction and penaunce desptsed with you This text is Doe ye the fruits worthy of repentance We honour the fruites worthy of true repentance and exhorte all men to bring them forth but popish satisfaction hath nothing like to them For we beleeue that God doth freely forgiue the penitent for Christes sake The husband wife beeing two in one flesh is a greate sacrament or mistery in Christ in the church Ephe. 5. VVhy is then the mariage of faithful persons denied to be a sacrament If you vnderstand a sacrament generally for euery mystery we may graunt you it is a sacrament but if you vnderstand a sacrament specially for an outwarde signe of Gods fauour grace or a seale of our iustification it is none For if it were it should be necessary for all men to receiue it againe it hath the institutiō of God before the fall of man therefore can be no sacrament of y e new Testament to testifie our restitution Your cōmon translation turneth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a holy secret oftentime Sacramentum yet I know you woulde be ashamed to confesse so many sacramentes of the popish church as there be misteries which hee calleth sacramēts as Ephe. 3. the preaching of the gospell to the Gentiles he calleth Sacramentum 1. Tim. 3. So he calleth the incarnation of Christ sacramentum pietatis And are you not ashamed to delude ignorant men with the ambiguous name of a Sacrament VVork your saluatiō with feare trembling Phi. 2. VVhy then are you so presumptuous as euen by faith to assure your selues of you saluation because it followeth immediatly that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to performe according to his good wil for it is no presumtion to assure our selues that the promises of God are true And he may welfeare which is assured to be saued for faith doth not exclude but plant in vs the feare of God though not a seruile feare As for y e deepe secretes of Gods predestination we take not vpon vs to knowe them otherwise then they be reuealed by his worde Finally where you aske whether faith be not an ordinary gift in the Church I answere you w t the Apostle that all men which are in the outward face of the Church and participate
your selues to shadowe your heresies cannot proue you to be Christians or your church to be Catholike especially seeing you lacke the truth which Augustine in the same place confesseth to be more worth then either successioÌ„ antiquity the name of Catholike or any other thing else The eyghteenth marke is the succession of Priestes and Bishops euen from the seate of Peter vnto Pius the fifth in whose time this booke of M. Sander was written which marke is approued by Augustine by Irenaeus by Tertullian by Optatus by Hieronym as he sayth being one of the most euident of all other but therein he belyeth all these fathers whom he citeth who neuer alleaged the bare successioÌ„ of place persons but ioyned with the coÌ„tinuance of doctrine receaued from the Apostles against new late sprong vp heresies Augustine shall speake for the rest who after he hath alleaged vnto the Donatistes the successions of Bishops from Peter in the vnity of the Catholike church among which was neuer a Donatist the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome in absoluing of Cecilianus and many such like reasons whereunto he thinketh the Donatistes shoulde yeelde yet in the ende he addeth these words Quamquà m nos non tam de istis documentis presumamus quam de Scripturis sanctis Although we doe not so much presume of this documents as of the holy Scriptures These eighteene markes M. Sander will haue to be more richly seene in them then in the Protestantes but what markes they are and how they are to be found in their church I haue briefely shewed But nowe he commeth to a general challenge to proue that we haue nothing which they lacke and we lacke many thinges which they haue First they haue a iustifying faith as well as we but not iustifying alone but with charity which is the life of faith But charitye is a fruict of a liuinge and vnfayned fayth not the life thereof 1. Tim. 1. 5. the effect not the cause and we holde with Saynct Paule that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe Rom. 3. for charitie is no instrument to apprehend the mercie of God but faith onely therefore faith onely doth iustifie We are iustified gratis steely by his grace Rom. 3. 24. therfore nothing can come in accompt of iustification before God but onely faith which seeing y e Papistes haue not they haue not a iustifying faith We haue two Sacraments and they haue seuen but seeing they haue fiue more then Christ instituted and haue peruerted the one and polluted the other they haue but one Sacrament at the most and that horribly prophaned I meane baptisme VVe haue an inward priesthood he sayth to offer vp Christ in our hartes and they offer him both in hartes and handes But our spirituall priesthood is not to offer vp Christ but spirituall sacrifices acceptable by Christ 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15. and they are horrible blasphemers that take vpon them to offer vp Christ whome none could offer but him selfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. 14. He sayth that the Papistes beleeue as well as we that Christ by one sacrifice payed our raunsom for euer when they shewe it to the eye in the eblation of their Masse then the which nothing can be more contrary to the onely sacrifice of Christ once offred and neuer to be repeated because he founde eternall redemption thereby Heb. 10. 14. 9. 12. 25. c. He addeth that they beleue Christ to be the head of the Church and shewe it by a reall figure of one heade in earth meaning the Pope whome now he maketh a figuratiue heade as though Christ were not present with his Churche or that his Churche were a monster with two heades As laye men receyue the communion in both kindes with vs so they dâ—e with them in Austria by the Popes dispensation as though Christes commaundement and institution were not sufficient without the Popes dispensation Wherein also he affirmeth a monstrous absurditie that the Sacrament was not instituted in two kindes to be so receyued but by an vnbloody sacrifice to shewe the nature of his bloody sacrifice in which his soule and blood was separated from his body and flesh and yet he sayth the body and flesh of Christ is not well conteyned in the cuppe as his blood in the paten with the body and forme of breade and no separation of the one from the other and no more contayned or distributed by both then by one alone Which saying is to be receyued with whoopes and hisses of all men that haue their fiue witts They haue mariage he sayth in greater price then we because they teach it to be a sacrament but we find it not instituted by Christ to be a sacrament of the new testament therfore we receyue it as an holy ordinance contayning also a great mystery but yet no sacrament But if it be an holy sacrament why doe you thinke it vnmeete for ministers of the Church and why doth your Pope Syricius or rather some counterfeating Canonist in his name call holy matrimony a liuing in the flesh such as can not please God But although mariage be honorable in all men you saye it is not so in them that haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen who haue no more possibilitie to marye then a gelded man to â—eget children You were best then to tel the Apostle that his saying was too generall for he shoulde haue excepted them that so gelded themselues But S. Paule sayth notwithstanding your impossibilitie if a virgine doe marye she doth not sinne 1. Cor. 8. 28. You will reply he speaketh of them that haue not vowed how proue you that Christ speaketh of them that haue vowed longer then God would giue them grace to liue chast which he affirmeth to be a peculiar gift not in the power of euery man Mat. 19. 12. But what if your popish geldings by neying at euery mans wife and by tombling in all beddes where they are not kept out by force proue them selues to be stone horses are they still in the number of those that hauing gelded them selues for the kingdom of heauen may not possibly marye and yet nether we will nor can possibly liue chast But omitting these thinges which they haue as well as we now he commeth to those thinges which we lacke and yet many of them are very necessary as insufflations that is blowing vpon exorcismes that is coniuring holy oyle in baptisme chrisme in Bishopping externall priesthood sacrifice altars censing lights and so forth a large rablement of popish errors and superstitious ceremonies And that we saye falsly in saying these are naught he proueth by S. Paules saying to the Galathians praeterquam quod accepistis beside that you haue receyued for once sayth he we haue receyued those thinges of our auncestors as if S. Paule had not spoken of the Gospell but of beggerly ceremonies which because they are an other Gospell and way
AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te I wil build my church vpon thee Behold sayth M. Sander the church promised to be built vpon a mortall man If he say true Christ sayth in vaine that flesh and blood made him not Peter But the same Hieronyme interpreteth that power there geuen to Peter to perteyne to euerie Bishop and Priest as much as to Peter And contra Ioninian lib. 1. he writeth At dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolâ—s fiat cuncti â—laues regni caelâ—rum accipiant ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo sâ—lidetur tamen propterea inter duâ—decim vnus eligitur vt capite coÌ„stituto seisinatis tollatur occasio But thou sayest the church is founded vpon Peter although in an other place the same is done vpon al â—â—â—â— Apostles they al receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the strength of the church is grounded equally vpon theÌ„ yet for this cause one is chosen among the twelue that the heade being appoynted occasion of diuision might be taken away You see now that Peter is no more a rock or fundation then the rest neither hath any more auctoritie of the keyes then the rest alâ—hough by his iudgement he was chosen to be the chiefe or first in order to auoyde strife not in dignitie or auctority Chrysostom is cited ex Var. in Math. Hom 27. Princeps c. Peter Prince of the Apostles vpon whome Christ sounded the church a verie immoueable rocke and a strong confession M. Sander woulde haue vs note that Peter is called confession that when he sayth the church is builded vpon faith confession we might vnderstand no mans saith and confession but Peters As though all the Apostles had not the same faith made not the same coÌ„fession But notwithstaÌ„ding that Chrysostom doth ofteÌ„ acknowledge Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles yet he willeth vs to coÌ„sider that his principallity was not of auctority but of order Iam illâ—d considera quà m Petrus agit omma excommuni disâ—ipulorum sententiâ— nihil auctoritate sua nihil cum imperio Now also coÌ„sider this how euen Peter doth all things by the coÌ„mon decree of the disciples nothing by his owne auctority nothing by commaundement Ex. Act. Ho. 3. Also in 2. ad Gal. he doth not only asfirme that Paule was equall in honor with Peter but also that all the rest were of equall dignitie Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod herum vnusquis q parem sortitus sit dignitateÌ„ And now Paule sheweth him selfe equall in honor with the rest neither doth he coÌ„pare him selfe with the rest but euen with the highest himselfe declaring that euery one of theÌ„ hath obteined equal dignity Now followeth Epiphanius in Anchor Ipse dominus c. The Lord himselfe did constitute him chiefe of the Apostles a sure rocke vpon which the church of God is built and the gates of hell shall not preuayle agaâ—nst it now the gates of hell are heresies and auctors of heresies for by all meanes faith in him was established which receaued the keye of heauen That Peter was chiefe of y e Apostles in order we striue not that he was a sure rocke we graunt but that he alone was the rocke of the church we deny The same Epiphanius acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be fellow minister with euery Bishop and no better and therefore setting forth the epistle of Marcellus to Iulius Bishop of Rome he giueth this superscriptioÌ„ Beatissimo coÌ„ministro Iulio Marcellus in Domino gaudium To his most blessed fellow minister Iulius Marcellus wisheth ioy in the Lord. The place of Cyrillus which followeth I haue sette downe and aunswered iu the chapter before After him Theodoretus alleageth Psellus In Petro c. In Peter the prince of the Apostles our Lord in the Gospells hath promised that he will build his Church Damascâ—n and Euthymius later writers are alledged to the like effect all which proue nothing but that Peter is a rocke which we confesse as euery one of the Apostles is TheÌ„ followeth Augustine in his retractations which leaueth it to the choyce of the reader whether he will vnderstand Peter figuring the person of the Church to be the rocke spoken of by Christ or Christ whoÌ„ he coÌ„fessed But that Peter as Bishop of Rome should be the rocke he sayth nothing Againe leauing it to the readers choyse he sheweth he had no such perswasion of the rocke of the Church as M. Sander teacheth After him Prosper Aquitanicus Leo with Gregory two Bishops of Rome say nothing but that Peter was a rocke which we graunt without controuersie Last of all the councell of Chalcedon is cited Act. 3. Petrus Apostolus est petra crepido Ecclesiae Peter the Apostle is a rocke and a shoare of the Churche which M. Sander translateth the toppe of the Church In deede the legats of the Bishop of Rome vttered such words which may be well vnderstoode as all the rest of the fathers that Peter was one of the twelue foundations of the Churche But that the councell acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to haue such authoritie as is pretended appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalcedon councell where notwithstanding the B. of Romes Legats reclaymed Leo him selfe refused to consent yet by the whole councell it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should haue equall authoritie with the Archbishop of Rome in the East onely the title of prioritie or senioritie reserued to the Bishop of Rome To conclude M Iewell sayd truly for all M. Sanders vaine childishinsulting impudent rayling y t no mor tall maÌ„ but Christ only is the rocke foundation of the Church albeit that Peter all the Apostles in respect of their office doctrine were fouÌ„dation stones wheron the Church was builded Iesus Christ being the corner stone and onely one generall foundation The sixt chapter THe diuerse reasoÌ„s which the fathers bring to declare why S. Peter was this rocke do euidently shew that he was most literally this rocke whereupon Christ would build his Church How Peter beareth the person of the Church THat he was a stone or rocke wheron the Church is builded hath bene often graunted but that he onely was such a stone is stil denyed First Basil aduersus Euno lib. 2. is cited with his reason Petrus c. Peter receyued the building of the Church vpon him selfe for the excellencye of his faith I aunswer so did the other Apostles for the excellencye of their fayth for continuance whereof Christ prayed as well as for Peters faith Iohn 17. The 2. Hilarie de trinit lib. 6. sayth Supereminentem c. Peter by confession of his blessed faith deserued an exceding glory And so did the rest of the Apostles by their confession of their
of the holy Ghoste and by no ordinary authoritie 17 After the sending of the holy Ghost Peter aboue all the rest firste taught the fayth Chrysostome and Cyrill sayth he did it by the consent of all the rest who all stoode vp togither with him although one spake to auoyde confusion when the Apologie was made to answere the slaunderous scoffers But before that they taught euery one a like 18 The multitude conuerted said to Peter and to the other Apostles but to Peter by name VVhat shall we doe If this proue any thing it proueth the equallitie of the Apostles that hauing heard one man preach they demand not of him alone but of all the rest with him what they shall doe 19 Peter made aunswere for all that they should repent be baptised It was good reason seeing he made the apologie for all 20 Peter did the first miracle after the comming of the holy Ghost and by healing the lames feete shewed mystically that he was the rocke to establishe the feete of other I aunswere Iohn healed him as muche as Peter by Peters owne confession Act. 3. 12. and the lame mans acknowledging the benefit to be receiued equally from both in holding Peter and Iohn 21 Peter cōfessed Christ first not only before priuate mē but at the seate of iudgement Act. 4. It is false that Peter cōfessed Christ first before priuate men and at the seate of iudgement he confesseth equally with Ihon. 22 Peter alone gaue sentence with fullnesse of power vpon Ananias and Saphyra Not by ordinarie power but by speciall reuelation and direction of the holie Ghost whatsoeuer Gregorie a partiall iudge in this case doth gather 23 Peter was so famous aboue the rest that his shadow was sought to heale the diseased This was a singular and personall gift which the Pope hath not therefore it perteineth nothing to him 24 Peter did excommunicate enioyne penance to Symon Magus the first heretike Peter denounced Gods iudgement against him but not by way of excōmunication yet the argumēt is naught as all the rest are though the antecedents were graunted 25 Peter was the first that raised a deade body to life namely Tabitha after Christs ascētiō This is neither proued to be true neither if it were should Peter thereby haue greater auctoritie then his fellow Apostles which likewise raised the dead and peraduenture before Peter although S. Luke make no mention of them 26 Peter had first by vision that the Gentiles were called to beleue in Christ. This is false for Paule had that in vision before him Act. 9. 26. 17. 27 God chose that the Gentiles shoulde first of all heare the worde of the Gospell by Peters mouth and shoulde belecue Actes 15. This is false for Peter sayeth not first of all but of olde tyme. And the Eunuche of AEthiopia was baptised by Philippe before Cornclius of Peter 28 Prayer was made for Peter by the churche which was not so earnestly made for any other Apostle that we read of Their earnest prayer for Peter is set forth to shewe that God at their prayer deliuered Peter not that Peter was thereby shewed to be greater in auctoritie 29 Paule and Barnabas came to Ierusalem to the Apostles to fitch a solution from Peter Act. 15. as Theodoret noteth But S. Luke noteth that they came to all the Apostes and Elders at Ierusalem and not to Peter onely nor for his solution but for the solution of the councell 30 In the councell Act. 15. Peter did not onely speake first but also gaue the determinate sentence Both the partes of this proposition are false for Sainct Luke testifieth there was greate disputation before Saincte Peter spake also Sayncte Iames as President of the councell gaue the definitiue sentence accordinge to whose wordes the synodicall Epistle was written in the name of all the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem 31 Sainct Paule came to Ierusalem to see Peter as Chrysostome sayeth because he was primus first or chiefe But Sainct Paule him selfe affirmeth in the same place and diuerse other that he was equall with Peter and the highest Apostles Galathians 2. 8. 2. Corinthians 12. 11. 32 Peter was either alone or first chiefest in the greatest affaires of the church The greatest affaire of the church was the preaching vnto the Gentils in which Peter was neither alone nor first nor chiefest But Paule chiefest Gal. 2. 33 Peter was sent to Rome to occupie with his chaire the mother church of the Romane prouince and chiefe citie of the worlde and there vanquished Symon Magus the head of heretikes c. All this is vncerteyne being not founde in the Scriptures but those stories which reporte it conuinced by Scriptures to be false in diuerse circumstaunces 34 Peters chaire and succession hath bene acknowledged of all auncient fathers c. Although the see of Rome appoynted for the scate of Antechrist hath of olde bene verie ambitious yet it is a fable that hath bene acknowledged by all auncient fathers to haue the auctoritie which the Bishoppes thereof haue claymed For Irenaeus rebuked Victor for vsurping All the Bishops of Africa in councel withstoode Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius and Caebastinus alleaging for their auctoritie a counterfaite decree of the councell of Nic◠as we haue shewed before in the first treatise the like may be sayed of the councells of Chalcedon of Constantinople the 5. c. which withstoode the Bishoppe of Romes auctoritie in such cases as he pretended prerogatiue To cōclude neither any one nor altogether of these 34. reasons proue Peter to be greater in auctority then the rest of the Apostles and much lesse the Bishoppe of Rome to be greater then Bishops of other seates The tenth Chapter THat the Apostles beside the prerogatiue of their Apostleshippe had also the auctoritie to be particular Bishoppes which thing their name also did signifie in the olde time ALthough the Apostles had all such auctoritie as euerie particular Bishop hath yet had they not two offices but one Apostleship No more then a King although he haue all auctoritie that euerie Constable hath is thereby both a King and a Constable but a King onely Neither doth their staying or as he calleth it residence in some particular citie proue that the Apostles either were or might be Bishops that is geue ouer their generally charge and take vpon them a particular or still reteyning their generall charge to exercise the office of a Bishoppe any longer then vntill the churche was perfectly gathered where they remayned For although the holy Ghost distinguished their vniuersall charge into seuerall partes to auoyde confusion as in making Peter chiefe Apostle of the circumcision and Paule of the Gentiles yet were they not thereby made Bishoppes And although the consent of writers is that Iames was Bishoppe of Ierusalem yet following the course of the Scriptures we must hold that Iamesby decree of the holy Ghost was appoynted to stay there not as a
Bishoppe but as an Apostle for the conuersion of the Iewes which not onely out of all Iurie but out of all partes of the world came thither ordinarily to worshippe Of S. Peters sitting at Antioch as Bishoppe we finde nothing in the Scriptures and lesse of his remouing to Rome But we finde that when Peter came to Antioche Paule withstoode him to his face and reproued him openly which he might not well haue done if Peter had bene supreame heade of the church in his owne see as M. Sander doth fantasie Where he alleageth the text Episcopatum eius accipiat alter and let an other take his Bishoprike to proue that Iudas and so the Apostles were Bishoppes it is too childish fonde an argument seeing the Greeke word which S. Luke vseth the Hebrue word which the Prophet vseth signifieth generally a charge or office and not suche a particular office of a Bishoppe as nowe we speake of He citeth farther Theodorete in 3. cap. 1. ad Tim. to proue y t the name of an Apostle in the primitiue church did signifie such a Bishoppe But howe greatly Theodoret was deceaued appeareth by this that he citeth for proofe Philip. 2. Epaphroditus to be the Apostle of the Philippensians because S. Paule sayth of him Epaphroditus your Apostle and my helper whereas he meaneth that he was their messenger vsing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the generall signification for a messenger and not for the name of suche an officer as an Apostle or Bishoppe He nameth also Titus and Timotheus which in the Scripture are neuer called Apostles likewise the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem which were in deede the true Apostles of Christs immediat sending and not Bishoppes ordeyned by men And whereas Hierome sayeth that all Bishoppes be successors of the Apostles he meaneth manifestly in auctoritie within their seuerall charges and not that the Apostles were Bishops Likewise where Augustine sayth that the Bishoppes were made in steede of the Apostles it rather proueth that the Apostles were no Bishoppes for then if the Apostles were Bishoppes he should say Bishoppes were made in steede of Bishoppes The last reason is that if the office of Bishoppes had not bene distinct in the Apostles froÌ„ their Apostleship that office woulde haue ceased with the Apostleshippe for the whole being taken away no parte can remayne except it had an other grounde to stande in beside the Apostleshippe as the Bishoppely power had In deede if the Apostleshippe had ceased before Bishoppes had bene ordeyned Bishoplike power woulde haue ceased with it but seeing the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and Elders in euery congregation to continue to the worlds ende the Bishoppes office hath not ceased though the office of the Apostles is expired Wherefore seeing neither by Scripture reason nor Doctors this distinction of offices in the Apostles can be proued when Peter is called heade Prince chiefe first Capteyne of the Apostles by Cyrill or any auncient writer we must vnderstande as Ambrose teacheth a primacie of confession or fayth not of honor or degree de incar dom cap. 4. The 11. chapter HOw farre S. Peter did ether excell or was equall with the Apostles in their Apostolike office VVhere in diuerse obiections are aunswered which seeme to make against S. Peters supremacie BVt that necessity enforceth him M. Sander thinketh it sinne of curiositie to inquire of that equality or inequalitie of the Apostles where as it should suffice vs to follow the present state of the vniuersall Church practised in our time As though the vniuersall Church of any time did euer acknowledge the Pope to be supreame heade although a great part of the world hath of long time so taken him He thinketh it out of contronersie that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles as S. Mathew sayth primus the first Simon which is called Peter And he is not coÌ„tent that he was first in the order of numbring but he will haue him first in dignitie because he is alwayes named first But that is nether true nor a good reason if it were true because he is named first therefore he is of greatest dignitie But Gal. 2. 9 Iames and Cephas Iohn are sayde to haue bene pillers of the Churche and yet Paule equall with them Although if we graunted greatest dignity to Peter yet thereupon did not follow greatest authority For these three Apostles last named were of greatest dignity among the Apostles yet not of greater authoritie then the rest And although the auncient fathers of the worde primus haue deriued the name of primatus or primacy yet haue they also expressed wherin this primacie doth consist namely not in authoritie but in order nether doth those names Prince chiefe heade toppe guide mouth greatest of the Apostles vsed by some of them signifie his authoritie ouer them but his dignitie amongest them But if you aske him wherin Peter was chiefe He answereth â—â—â—â— question is curious For in y e nature order of the apostleship euery Apostle was equall with all his fellowes so is euery Bishop Priest King Duke Knight with euery one of his degree If this be as he sayth then was Peter chiefe nether as Apostle nor Bishoppe But there may be another thinge sayth he coincident to some degree of men not necessary for the being but for their well being One therefore was set ouer the Apostles for vnities sake and to auoyd schismes as Cyprian Hierom write in places before cited This must nedes be a primacy of order and not of authoritie for amonge men of equall authoritie as he confesseth the Apostles were one may be chosen as the President or Primate to auoyd confusion the austeritie remayning equall to euery one but one can not be preferred in authoritie to remayne still equall with his fellowes in auctoritie But wheras Optatus lib. 2. de schism Don. Leo ad Aâ—astas Ep. 82. are cited to proue that the same primacie which Peter some time but yet not alwaies had among the Apostles should be reteyned in succession of his chayre to mayntayne vnitie amonge all men it hath no ground in the holy Scriptures and yet those good men were farre from imagining suche an absolute power of Peters successor as M. Sander defendeth in the Pope although some times he doe handle it so nicely as it might seeme to be a thing of nothing wherein the Pope is aboue his fellow Bishops where I sayd that Peter had not alwayes the primacie of order among the Apostles it is proued both by the 15. of the Actes where Iames was President of the councell Gal. 2. not onely where Iames is named before Peter but also where Peter abstayned and separated him selfe after certayne came from Iames fearing them of the circumcifion left he should haue bene euill thought of as he was before for keeping company with Cornelius and in diuerse other places of the Actes of the Apostles But M. Sander will adde another truth
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
proueth not the gouernors to be rulers one ouer another wherefore this collection is not only vaine but also ridiculus that Peter should haue authoritie to gouerne Patriarches Archbishops and Bishops aswell as Parishe priests because he must feed y e sheep of Christ I wil not here stand to discus how properly y e distinctioÌ„ of lambs litle sheep sheep is obserued by Ambrose but taking it according as he distinguisheth it yet heere is nothing giuen to Peter but primacie of loue or as else where he sayth of order but of authoritie singular heâ—re is nothing at al. And that his conclusioÌ„ declareth sufficiently Et idio quasi perfecto in omnibus quem caro iamreueâ— are non posset a gloria passionis corona decernitur And therfore a crown is decreed to him as to one perfect in all things whome the fleshe could not call back from the glory of suffering This conclusion M. S. as his manner is hath left out by which it is apparant that Ambrose inferreth no singularitie of authoritie in Peter as more perfet theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles but as perfect in such degre as the rest of the Apostles which were likewise prepared to martyrdoÌ„ were equal w t him therin The testimony of Bernard a late wâ—iter though he were no flatterer yet I receiue not as of one which was deceiued with the common error of his time But in signe that Peter was generall Shepheard saith M. San. it is not read that he was ordained bishop of any other then of Christ yet did he with two other Apostles ordaine S. Iames byshop of Ierusalem as Eus. lib. 2. cap. â— writeth There is no dout but Iames was acknowlâ—dged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghoste to remaine at Ierusalem though not as a pâ—rticuler bishop but as an Apostle of the whole Church But as we read not that Peter was made Bishop by any man so we read not that he was made Byshop by Christ. Yet Arâ—obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est episcoporum episcopus Behold the Apostle beeing penitent is succoured which is a Bishop of Bishops He asketh if any thing could be spoken more plainly yes verely you had need of plainer speaches then this to proue that hee was byshop of the Apostles For admit that he was an ouerseer of particular bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—ie yet it followeth not that he was â—n ouerseer or Byshop of the Apostles In which sense Clemens also if the Epistle were not counterfaite might iustly call Iames a Byshop of Byshops not as M. Sand. aunsweareth that he was an Archbishop of inferior Byshops but an Apostle ouerseer of particuler Bishops That Cyprian ad Quintum sayth Neque quisquam c Neither doeth any of vs make him selse a Byshoppe of Byshops He aunsweareth that although no man may make himselfe yet Christe may make a man Bishop of Byshopes but where findeth he that Christe maketh the Pope a Byshop of Byshoppes Howe Peter might bee called a Byshop of Byshoppes I haue shewed before But the Councell of Carth. 3. Cap. 26. forbiddeth that the Byshop of Rome or any other Primate shoulde be called the Prince of Priests or highest Priest or by any such lyke name but only the Byshop of the first seate Yet Optatus feared nor to write thus lib. 7. de schism of S. Peter Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit c. He deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles and he alone receiued the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen to be communicated vnto the reste Maâ—ster Sander confessing and truely that the Apostles tooke the Keyes belonging to their Apostolike office immediatly of Christe saith they receiued the Keyes of their Byshoplike office of Peter But what lock was there that they could not open and shut by their Aopstolike Key When Christe sayth Whatsoeuer you binde or loose whose sinnes soeuer you forgiue or retayne which was the power of their Apostolike Keyes If the Apostolike Keyes were so sufficient what neede they any Byshoplike Keyes Into these absurdities both he Optatus doe followe whiles the one will vrge a prerogatiue of Peter the other will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles whereof the Scripture giueth vs no instruction As for Leo and Gregorye Byshoppes of Rome although they were not come to the full pryde of Antichrist yet the mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that seate neere fiue or sixe hundreth yeeres before them and then greatly increased they were so deceiued with the longe continuaunce of error that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the reste of his fellowe Apostles then the holy Scriptures of God against which no continuaunce of error cann prescribe doth either allow or beare with all Wherefore although he haue some shewe out of the olde writers yet hath he nothing directly to prooue that Peter did excell the other Apostles in Byshoplike authoritie and out of the worde of God no one â—ote or tytle that Peter as a Byshop excelled the other Apostles not as Apostles but as Byshops The 13 Chapter THat the pastorall and chiefe Byshops authoritie of Saint Peter was an ordinary authoritie and there fore it must goe for euer vnto his successors where as the Apostolike authoritie beeing extraordinary hath no successors in it The Church neuer lacked a visible rocke THat y e office of Apostles which had general charge to preach ouer the whole world is ceased with the Apostles liues it is in deede graunted of vs but that theyre Apostolike authoritie was extraordinary or that all their authoritie is so determined that it hath no successors in it wee doe vtterly deny For the same authoritie of preaching of ministring the Sacraments of binding and loosing which the Apostles had is perpetuall in the Church in the Byshops and elders which are all successors of the Apostles And if the Apostolike authoritie hath no successors in it what meaneth the Pope almoste in euery Bul and decretall Epistle to brag so much of the Apostolike authoritie to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie By which it is euident that M. Sand. new distinction of Apostolike and Byshoplike authoritie in the Apostles is not acknowledged by the Popes them selues but inueÌ„ted lately by such as he is to haue a starting hole to seeme to auoid such arguments and authorites as proue all the Apostles equall in authoritie But let vs vs see what reasons he hath to proue that S. Peters Pastorall authoritie was ordinary and muste goe to his successors more then the Pastoral authoritie of euery Apostle First S. Peter being but one man was not able to preach to all men at once nor to gouerne nations newely conuerted the refore hee had twelue companions adioyned to him But the worlde beeing conuerted it is easy for the Pope without such fellowes to
gouerne all the faythful by helpe of many inferiour officers As thoughe the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time If S. Peter then was not able to rule w c had such greate giftes muchlesse the Pope which is nothing comparable with him in gifts is often a wicked man an here tike is able to gouerne all the Church for he hath not so great an helpe of the conuersion of the worlde as he hath a want of Peters gracious giftes meete for such a gouernment Secondly he would haue vs mark the peculiar names of a Rock of a pastor of a confirmer of his brethren which are giueÌ„ by Christ to S. Peter alone which argue that Peters supremacy must necessarily continue for euer But who will graunt to M. S. that Christe gaue these peculier names to Peter alone indeed that which is meÌ„t by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church Peter was a Rock not his person but his doctrine that remaineth stil in the Church he was a shephearde and confirmer of his brethren and there bee nowe many shepheards and confirmers of their brethren Thirdly he sayth the Church neuer wanted a visible rock on the earth beside the eternall Rock Christ who in this life might bee so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christe the great Rocke that he though not for his owne sake yet for the Churches sake might be able to stay vppe all other small stones which ioyned vnto him vntill Christ came in the fleshe who likewise appoynted Saincte Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock as Adam Enos Henoch Noe Abraham Isaac Iacob Moyses Aaron and his successors who sate in the chaire of Moyses vntill the comming of Christ. Against this I say that the church militant on earth hath her foundation in heauen and not on earth therfore the churche hath not a visible rocke in earth Againe it is not true that some one hath alwayes bene this visible rocke on earth For who was greater Abraham or Melchisedech out of all controuersie Melchisedech then was not Abraham the onely rocke After the death of Iacob and the twelue Patriarkes who was the visible rocke vntill Moyses was called And yet had God a church among the Iewes all that time Thirdly who is so impudent to say that all the successors of Aaron were so strongly fastened in the faith that they were able to stay all the small stones that leaned vpon them Was not Vrias the high Priest an idolater 2. Reg. 16. What were Iason Menclaus Lysimachus by the reporte of the booke of Machabes Was not Caiphas Annas Sadducees by the testimonie of S. Luke Act. 5. and of Iosephus Where is then the visible rocke whose faith neuer failed c we see there was none suche before Christ therefore there neede to be none suche after him His fourth reason is of the name of a pastor which signifieth an ordinarie office for as the sheepe continue after S. Peters death so must there be also a shepheard as Peter was But how proueth he that Peter was an only shepheard forsooth Chrysostom sayth lib. 2. de sacerdotio Christus sanguinem c. Christ hath shedde his bloode to purchase those sheepe the care of whom he did commit both to Peter to Peters successors But whom doth Chrysostom take for Peters successors the Bishops of Rome only No verily but all true pastors of the church as his wordes going before doe manifestly declare Neque enim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur siquidem id multis nobis argument is constabat Verum hoc ille sum agebat vt Petrum caeteros nos edoceres quanta beneuolentia ac charitate ergasuam ipse ecclesiam afficeretur vt hac ratione nos quoque eiusdem ecclesiae studium curamque toto animo susciperemus For his purpose was not then to testifie vnto vs howe muche he was beloued of Peter for that was euident vnto vs by many arguments But this thing then he intended that he might teache both Peter and all vs what beneuolence and loue he beareth towarde his church that by this reason we also might take vpon vs with all our hart the loue charge of the same church This sentence sheweth that Chrysostome accounted him selfe euery true pastor of the church a successor of Peter and not the Bishop of Rome alone As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I haue often protested that he was more addicted to the dignitie of his see then the Scripture would beare him and therefore was ouerruled and resisted in the generall councel of Chalcedon His fift argument is a rule of lawe where the same reason is the same right ought to be The reason of Peters confession and power is such as agreeth to any ordinary office of the church therefore the office of Peter being a rock of strengthening his brethren and feeding Christes sheepe is an ordinarie office But I say that Peters confession made him not a rock but declared him so to be being appoynted of Christ for one of the twelue foundations of the churche the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Peter so it is not ordinarie that it should be singular in any man His sixt reason Irenaeus Optatus and Augustine did recken vp such successors of Peter as had liued till euâ—rie of their ages or times Therefore Peter had successors in his pastorall office It is not denyed but he had them and other Bishoppes also successors in his pastorall office at least the Bishoppes of Antioche whereby your owne cofession he was Bishoppe before he came to Rome Therefore his succession was not singular to the Bishoppes of one see His seuenth reason no man may preache to them to whom he is not sent therefore there must be a generall pastor to sende other to preache to them that are not conuerted to plant newe Bishoprikes to controll them that are negligent to supplie the thinges that lacke to excommunicate such as liue in no diocesse c. For sending he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is onely of the sending of God and of the sending by men But all his questions and doubtes may be aunswered Either the whole church in generall councells or euerie particular church in their synodes as they shall see most expedient may sende preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria order all such matters as he imagineth must be done onely by the Pope But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishoppes to generall or prouinciall councells And I aske him who summoned the foure great principall generall councells and so many prouinciall councels but the Emperours and Princes in whose dominion they were gathered So that here is no necessary affaires of the church that doth require one generall pastor or Pope of Rome when all thinges may and haue bene done best of all without him As for placing of Bishoppes in sees
vacant vniting of two Bishoprikes in one or diuiding one into two may better be done by the auctoritie of those churches with consent of their Princes who seeth and knoweth what is needefull in those cases then by one which sittinge in his chaire at Rome requireth halfe a yeares trauell from some parte of the worlde to him before he can be aduertised of the case and yet must vnderstande it by heare saye and therefore not able to see what is expedient so well as they that are present and see the state of the matter Finally it is against all likelyhoode that Christ woulde make suche a generall sheepehearde ouer all his flocke as many thousande sheepe which liue vnder the Sophi the Cham the Turke can haue none accesse vnto for suche thinges as are supposed necessarie to be had and to be obteyned from him onely Wherefore if the Pope were heade of the churche suche as by crueltie of tyrauntes are cut from him shoulde be cut from the bodie of the church Yea if Hethenish tyrauntes coulde so much preuayle as they do in hindring this gouernment of the Pope pretended to be so nâ—cessarie the gates of hell might preuayle against the churche contrarie to the promise of Christ. The fourteenth Chapter THat the ordinarie auctoritie of S. Peters primacie belongeth to one Bishop alone The whole gouernmeÌ„t of the church tendeth to vnitie COncerning Peters primacie as there is litle in the Scriptures wherupon it may be gathered so I haue shewed that it was not in him perpetuall For there are greater arguments to proue the primacie of Iames. Agayne the greatest shewe of Peters primacy that we reade of in the Scriptures is the primacie or heade Apostleshippe of the circumcision So that if one Bishoppe should succeede him in that primacie he must be chiefe Bishoppe ouer the Iewes and not ouer the Gentiles For the chiefe Apostleshippe ouer the Gentiles was by God committed to Paule Galat. 2. 7. 8. But if M. Sander say as he doth in an other place that the Pope succeedeth both these Apostles and therefore hath both their auctoritie First he ouerthroweth his owne rocke of the church which he will haue to be Peter alone Secondlie his argument of vnitie which he vrgeth in this chapter he subuerteth if the Popes auctoritie be deriued from two heades Thirdly he destroyeth his owne distinction of Bishoplike and Apostolike auctoritie if the Apostolike auctority of Paul should descend to the Pope by succession Nowe let vs consider what weighty reasons he hath to proue the title of this chapter S. Peters auctority was specified before the auctoritie was geuen to the rest of binding loosing Mat. 18. Therfore seeing it was first in him alone it ought to descend to one Bishop alone But let M. Sander shew where it was geuen to him alone or promised to him alone ether For the promise thou shalt be called Peter gaue him no auctoritie nor yet the performance thereof Thou art Peter But still the auctority is promised I will build I will geue I reason as M. Sander doth of the Future tense which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter onely but to all the rest and so all auctoritie is geuen in common Ioâ—an 20. But S. Cyprian ad Iubaianum sayth that Christ gaue the auctority first to Peter Petro primus Dominus super quem aedificauit ecclesiam vnitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit vt id solueretur in terris quod ille soluisset This doth M. Sander translate Our Lorde did first geue vnto Peter c. Wheras he should say Our Lord was the first that gaue to Peter vpon whom he builded his churche and instituted and shewed the beginninge of vnity this power that whatsoeuer he loosed it should be loosed in earth This proueth that the auctoritie came first from Christ but not that it was geuen first to Peter And if we should vnderstand it so that it was first geuen to Peter yet he meaneth not that it was geuen to reside in his person but that in him as the attorney of the rest it was geuen to them also as he saith lib. 1. Ep. 3. Petrus tamen super quem aedificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce respondens ait Domine ad quem ibimus c. Yet Peter vpon whome the churche had beene builded by the same our Lorde as one speaking for all and aunswering in the voyce of the church sayeth Lorde whether shall we goe c. as he spake for all so he receaued for all Which thing if it had bene so as we sinde not in the Scripture yet could it haue beene no ordinary matter to discend to one by succession For the power beeing once receiued by one in the name of the reste and by him deliuered to the rest it should be continued in succession of euery one that hath receiued it and not euery day to be fetched a new from a seuerall heade For that beginning came from vnitie which Cyprian speaketh of when Peter beeing one was the voice mouth of the rest and so receiued power for the rest which being once receiued the church holdeth of Christe and not of Peter or his successors no more then a corporation holdeth of him that was their atturney to receiue either lands or authoritie from the Prince but holdeth immediatly of the Prince Wherfore this argument followeth not although the authoritie had begon in one that it should continue in one The second reason is that the most perfect gouernment is meete for the Church but most perfection is in vnitie therefore there ought to be one chiefe gouernor of all This one chiefe gouernour is our Sauiour Christ ruler both in heauen in earth Who ascending into heauen did not appoynt one Pope ouer all his church but Apostles Euangelistes Prophets Pastors and teachers that we might all meete in the vnitie of faith and grow into a perfect man Eph. 4. 11. 12. The third reason is that the state of the newe Testament must be more perfect then the law but in the law there was one high pastor the high Priest on earth therefore there must be one now also and much rather I aunswere we haue him in deede our chiefe Bishop high Priest of whome the Aaronicall Priest was but a shadow namely Iesus Christ whose gouernment is nothing lesse perfect and beneficiall to his church in that he sitteth in heauen and hath as before is cited lefte an ordinarie ministerie on earth in many Pastors and teachers ouer euerie seuerall congregation and not in one Pope ouer al which could not possibly either know or attend to decide the one thousande parte of controuersies which are determined by y e auctoritie of Christs law and such ministers as he hath ordeyned The fourth reason is of auctority Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae vna est c.
Bishop in euery diocese For he writeth against fiue Elders or Priestes which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatike to be Bishop in Carthage against him But what other malicious ignorance or shameles impudence is this that he peruerteth the saying of Christ of him selfe to the Pope There shall be one sheepefold one shepheard Ioan. 10 Yet see his reason A flocke of shepe is one by force of one pastor therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one the flocke is not one on earth If this argument be good howe is the flocke one vpon earth when there is no Pope For the see hath bene voyde diuerse times many dayes many monethes somtime many yeares Howe was the flocke one when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often and so long together Therefore the flocke on earth is one by that one onely shepheard Iesus Christ whose diuine voice all the shepe heare though in his humanity he be ascended into heauen and not by any one mortal man to whom they can not be gathered nether being so farre abroad dispersed can heare his voyce And the whole order of the church on earth tendeth to an vnitie in Christ not in one man whatsoeuer as one generall pastor For if that one shoulde be an heretike and all the church tend to vnity in him the whole church should be wrapped in heresie with him That diuerse Popes haue bene heretiks as Libeâ—ius Anastasiâ—s Vigilâ—us Honorius Ihon the 23. in knowne condemned heresies it is too manifest by recordes of antiquitie that it shoulde be denyed wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary auctoritie to be limited in one successioÌ„ that it should haue prehemineÌ„ce imisdiction ouer all the churche Seeing vnity is best mainteyned in doctrine by his word in gouernment by the discipline by him appoynted And vnity in truth can not be had at the handes of a man which is a lyer experience sheweth that the iurisdiction which the Bishoppe of Rome hath claimed hath bene occasion of most and greatest schismes and dissentions that haue bene in particular churches wheÌ„ no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome beside so many schismes as haue bene in the same see which haue set all the Christian world together by the cares while they were deuided in factioÌ„s some holding with one Pope and some with an other and some with the third and some with none of them all The 15. Chapter THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinarie pastor who succeedeth in S. Peters chaire and is aboue all Bishoppes according to the meaning of Gods worde VVhy S. Peter dyed at Rome S. Augustines minde touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome THe first reason is that although Peter at the first was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision theÌ„ of the Gentiles yet because he did at length settle him selfe at Rome by Gods appointment and left a successor there he sayeth he may well affirme that the Bishop of Romes primacy is warranted by Gods word A strauÌ„ge kind of warantise for to omit that the primacy ouer the Gentils by Gods worde is giuen to another namely to Paule from whom he can neuer proue that it was taken afterward Where hath he any worde of God to proue that by his appointment Peter setled him self at Rome and appoynted there a successor He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordayned not by Peter onely but by Peter Paule the Apostles who founded the Church there euen as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia was made bishop in Smyrna which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paule and continued by Iohn the Apostles he citeth as witnesses alike with the Church of Rome of the tradition of the Apostles against Valentinus and Marcion which being voyd of Scriptures bragged of the tradition of the Apostles But of Peters primacie or his successors ouer all Bishops Irenaeus sayth not a word No more doth Tertullian whom likewise he quoteth de praescrip but euen as Ireneus would haue the tradition of the Apostles against those heretikes that boasted of it to be tryed by the coÌ„fession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles His second reason is vpon a false supposition that he hath already proued Peter alone to be the rocke to haue chiefe authoritie in feeding c. all which thinges are vntrue That Peter came to Rome he is not content that it be testified by all auncient Ecclesiasticall writers But he sayth it is witnessed by the expresse word of God 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you Although the history of Peters comming to Rome and sitting there 25. yeares testified by so many writers is proued false in many circumstances by the playne worde of God yet I am content to admitte that he came thither towarde the later ende of Ne roes raigne But that in his Epistle he sent salutations from Rome I can not admitte seeing that in such manner of salutations men vse not to write allegorically albeit that in the reuelation of Saint Iohn Rome the sea of Antichrist is mystically called BabyloÌ„ But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write is more probably to be taken for a citye of that name in Egypt where Marke was with him whoÌ„ the consent of antiquitie affirmeth to haue bene Bishop of Alexandria a citie of Egypt also who coulde not haue bene with him at Rome Seeing it is manifest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Galathians and by diuerse of Saint Paules Epistles that if euer Peter was at Rome it was but a short tyme in the later ende of Nero his Empire Whereas Marke dyed in the eyght yeare of his raigne before Peter coulde be at Rome For in the tenth yeare Paule was brought prisoner to Rome Saint Luke accompanying him who would not haue omitted to shewe that Peter was there to haue mette him as the rest of the brethren did if he had then bene at Rome Agayne Paule in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome sending salutations from meane personages would not haue omitted mention of Peter if he had bene there Saint Luke then affirming that he taryed two yeares in prison at Rome which must be vntil the twelfe yeare of Nero it followeth that if Peter came he came very late to Rome within two yeare before his death at which tyme it was not possible that Marke which was dead foure yeares before could be at Rome with him wherefore Babylon in that text can not be taken for Rome Another reason of the Popes supremacy he maketh that Peter not onely came thither but also dyed there A simple reason why the city of Rome should haue that prerogatiue because she murthered y e Apostles Rather might IerusaleÌ„ clayme it in which Christ the head of all dyed After this he telleth the fable
out of the counterfait Egesippus of Simon Magus flying in the ayer the Emperour Nero his great delight in his sorcerye The credit of Egesippus he desendeth by blaming his translatour for adding names of cities which had none such when Egesippus liued But that Simon Magus shewed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero as this counterfait Egesippus reporteth it is plaine by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. natur Histor. who shewing how desirous Nero was and what meanes he had to haue triall thereof yet neuer could come by any It was a practise of old time to fayne such fables for loue of the Apostles as Tertullian witnesseth de baptis of a Priest of Asia that was conuicted confessed that he fained for the loue of Paule a writing vnto Tecla in which many absurd things were contayned Againe so many Apocriphall gospells epistles itineraryes and passions as are counterfaited vnder the name of Apostles and auncient fathers who knoweth not to be fables and false inuentions Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death he preuenteth the objection because he continued not his storye so farre which doubt sayth he he woulde not haue omitted if he had gone so farre foâ—ward in his story But seeing he brought Paule to Rome both in his iorney and in his history why maketh he no mention of Peters being there which if their story were true must haue sit there twenty yeares before To omit therefore the foure causes why Peter should dye at Rome whereof three are taken out of a counterfait August de sa ctis hom 27. the 4. out of Leo Gregory Bishops of Rome he commeth to decyde the controuersie betwene the Greekes Latines who was first successor of Peter Linus or Clemens taking parte with them that affirme Clemens although Irenaeus the most auncient writer of any that is extant name Linus who was not a Grecian farre of but a Frenchmam at Lyons neare hand to Italy whose authority although he reiect in naming Linus to be ordayned Bishop by both the Apostles yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Churche of Rome Maximam antiquissimam c. The greatest and the most auncient knowen to all men founded and setled by two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule And agayne Adhanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church by reason of the mightier principalitie euery Church that is the faithful that are euery where must needes agree But he proceedeth and sheweth the cause why In qua semper ab hys qui sunt vndique conserâ—ata est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio In which alwayes that tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies kept of them that are round about M. Sander calleth it willful ignorance in M. Iewel that sayth the mightier principalitie spoken of in Irenaeus is ment of the ciuill dominion and Romane Empire whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation that it was the greatest and the most auncient the greatest he sayth because it was fownded by Peter the greatest Apostle but so sayth not Irenaeus for he sayth it was founded by two most glorious Apostles and not by Peter alone It was then greatest because the greatest number of Christians were in Rome as the greatest citie But howe is it the most auncient but in respect of Peters senioritie for otherwise Ierusalem and Antioche were auncienter in tyme. I aunswer two wayes first it is sophisticall to vrge the superlatiue degree grammatically as when we saye potentissimo principi to the most mightye prince doctissimo viro to the best learned man c. We doe not meane that no Prince is equall or superiour in power nor that no maÌ„ is equall or superiour in learning to him whome we so commende but to shewe the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great Secondly I aunswer that Irenaeus speaketh coniunctly it is sophisticall to vnderstande seuerally He saith there is no Church of such greatnes so auncient and so well knowen as the Church of Rome From this blinde collection out of Irenaeus he commeth downe groping to Cyprian who speaking of certayne factious heretikes that sayled from Carthage to Rome to complayne of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Afrike to Pope Cornelius Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent ad Petri c. They dare cary letters from schâ—smaticall and prophane men vnto the chayer of Peter and the principall Churche from whence the priestly vnitie beganne Nether consider that they are Romanes whose fayth is pray sed by the report of the Apostle vnto whom falshod can haue none accesse In this saying we must note the priuiledges of S. Peters supremacie to be at Rome 1. This is S. Peters chayer that is his ordinary power of teaching c. Nay rather the Bishops seate which he and Paule did set vp there as Irenaeus sheweth li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the Apostles Nay rather because it is the greatest Church being gathered in the greatest citie of the world as IrenÄ™us also calleth it 3. The priestly vnitie beganne not in Rome but in Peter therefore there is the whole authoritie of Peter The argument is nought the beginning of vnitie proueth not authoritie 4. this worde vnitie doth import that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe sheepeheard so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power This argument is of small importance for nether had Peter alone such power nor any of his successors 5. where he sayth infidelitie can haue no accesse to the Romanes what other thinge is it then to saye in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed Luc. 22. Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles and of all his Disciples to the ende of the worlde Ioan. 17. Beside this Maister Sander translateth perfidia which signifieth falshood or false dealing infidelitie secondly that which Cyprian sayth of all the faythfull Romanes he draweth to his Pope thirdly where Cyprian sheweth howe longe they shall continue without falshoode namely so long as they retayne the fayth praysed by the Apostle he maketh it perpetuall to the sea of Rome whereas the Romanes them selues write to Cyprian of those prayses of the Apostle quarum laudum gloriae degenerem fuisse maximum crimen est Of which prayses and glorye to be growne out of kinde it is the greatest cryme Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Churche of Rome coulde not erre he woulde neuer haue mayntayned an opinion against them as he did in rebaptisinge them that were baptised by heretikes The 6. We must adde heareto that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem the mother roote of the Catholike church lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there we find that Cyprian his fellowes exhorted all such troublesome
his time of whom he saith Qui noster est socius which is our fellow In this sentence Optatus laboreth to proue against the Donatists which were scismatikes that ther is but one Catholike church froÌ„ which they were departed He vseth the argumeÌ„t of vnitie commended in Peters chaire whom he calleth head of the Apostles in respecte of vnitie not of authority which appeareth by this that in the end he accounteth Syricius bishop of Rome and Peters successor not head of all Churches nor vniuersall Bishop of al Bishops but Socius noster our fellowe or companion as one consenting with him in the vnitie of that Church which was first planted by the Apostles and not as a generall gouernor of the vniuersall Church of Christe Wherefore although Optatus doe more theÌ„ was necessary vrge this argument of the vnitie of Peters Chaire yet his meanining was not to set foorth an vnrepr ouable authoritie thereof such as the Pope nowe challengeth but onely to make it tbe beginning of vnitie At length he commeth to S. Hierome in an Epistle to Damasus out of whiche he gathereth diuers sentences Mâ—hi cathedram c. I thought it beste to aske councel of the Chaire of Peter of the saith praysed by the mouth of the Apostle I speake with the successor of a fisher and with a difciple of the crosse I following none first but Christe am ioyned in communion with thy blessednesse that is with the Chaire of Peter Vpon that Rocke I knowe the Church to be builded VVhosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is vnholy If any man lâ—e out of the Arke of Noe during the time of the Floude hee shall perishe I knowe not Vâ—atis I despise Melitius I haue no acquaintance with Paulinus whosoeuer doth not gather with thee he doth scatter abrode that is he that is not of Christe is of Antichriste The conclusion openeth all the matter as longe as Damasus Byshop of Rome gathereth with Christe that is mayntameth true doctrine Hierome will gather with him who professed before that he woulde followe none as first but Christe For he woulde not haue gathered with Liberius Byshoppe of Rome whome hee confesseth to haue subscrybed to the Arians that were Hereukes in Catal. Script ecclesi What mockery is it then to drawe the commendations of a good Catholike Byshop maintaining true Doctrine to euery Byshoppe sitting in that seate agreeing neither in doctrine nor manners with that Christian predecessor Augustine must succeede Hierome who in his 166. Epistle giueth vs this rule Caelestis magister c. The Heauenly maister maketh the people secure concerning euil ouerseers lest for their sakes the Chaire of healthfuâ—l doctrine shoulde be sorsaken in whiche Chaire euill men are euer constrayned to say good thinges for the thinges whiche they speake are not their owne But they are the thinges of God Heere sayeth Maister Sander wee haue a Chaire of healthfull doctrine and that is afterwarde called the Chaire of vnitie therefore it is not the Chayre of euery Byshop which are many and of which many haue beene Heretikes but the only chayre of the bishop of Rome in which Chaire the Pope be he neuer so euill is constrayned to say good thinges and cannot erre But seeing I haue often proued that many Byshops sitting in that Chayre of Rome haue spoken euill thinges and were fylthy Heretikes it followeth that this is not a wodden Chayre that Augustine speaketh of but the Chayre of true doctrine such as the Chayre of Moses was in which not onely Aaron and his successors but euen the Scrybes and Pharisees did sit hauing the authoritie of Moses while they vttered nothing but that which God deliuered by Moses But when they preached false doctrine they did not sit in the chaire of Moses but in the chayre of pestilence as the Pope all other heretikes doe He talketh much of vnitie in S Peter in his chaire seaâ—e and succession as though any of these were worth a straw without vnitie in S. Peters doctrine which was the doctrine of Christ. But Sainct Augustine Contr epist fundament confesseth that the successioÌ„ of priestes from Saint Peter vnto this present time stayed him in the Catholike Church It is true he confesseth that this succession amonge many thinges was one that stayed him And yet he acknowledgeth that the manifest trueth Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneâ—r is to be preferred before all thinges by which I am stayed in the Catholike Church namely before antiquitie consent of nations miracles succession of Byshops and the name of Catholikes Likewise rehearsing the same things in a manner against the Donatistes which Maister Sander hath not omitted Epist. 165. Hee sayeth Quamuis non tam de istis documentis presumanus quam de Scripturis sanctis Although we presume not so much of these documents as of the holy spriptures Wherefore as the argument of sucessioÌ„ was wel vsed against heretikes so long as there was succession of doctrine with succession of persons so now to alleadge the onely succession of persons where the doctrin is cleane changed is as folish ridiculous as by shewing of emptie dishes to proue abundance of victuals or showing vessels ful of filthy waters to proue that they are full of good wine because meate of olde time hath beene serued in such dishes and wine preserued in such vessels But if the authoritie of one man as Saint Augustine was seeme little M. San. bringeth the two councels gatheredin Africa Numidia against the PelagiaÌ„s which sent their decrees to the Sea of Rome That the authori-of the Apostolâ—ke Sea might be giuen to them Epi. 19. if they required the B. of Rome to agree with theÌ„ in the truth what pretogâ—tiue of supremacie do they grauÌ„t vnto him Nay rather they do pâ—iuâ—ly reprehend him that he had so long suffred the Pelagian poyson to be spread vnder his nose in Europe and the doctriue neither called to examination nor confuted yea rather seemed to coÌ„sent to the den of the bishops of the East that Pelagius was iustly absolued But Pope Innocentius himselfe praiseth them Ep 91. that they had kept the customs of the olde tradition in referring the matter to his Sea and sayth That the sathers not by humaine but by diuine sentence haue decreed that what soeuer was done in the prouinces a farre of they should not account it before to be ended except it came to the knhwledge of this sea where whatsoeuer had beene iustly pronounced should be coufirmed by the authoritie of this sea and those other churches should take it as it were waters which should flow from their owne natiue fountain We know the ambitious Ep. of Innocentius if it be not counterfeted because many patches therof are found in other decretal epistles but we deny that y e authoritie which he pretended was acknowledged by these two councels yes saith M. S. the fathers of the Mileuitan councel say
Homousians Athanasians c. but the doctrine of the Cathotholike Christians agâ—eeing with the woordes of God proued them to be no sâ—ctaryes nor Hetetikes so doth our doctrine iustifie vs what names soeuer be deuised against vs. But Maâ—ster Sander woulde haue vs to shewe a man whose pâ—oper name was Papa or Romanus as though many Heretikes were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came and not of proper names of men Angelici Apostolici Barbarita Cathari Collyridiani Enâ—ratitae Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresie Cataphryges Pepuziani and such like were called of the place where they were Wherefore the name of Papistes and Romanistes agreeth â—ith the example of olde heretikes As for the longe tarying large spreadinge and straunge commng in of the Popishe heresie is therefore without example in all poyntes lyke because Antâ—christ is not a common pettit heretike but the greatest and most daungerous enemy that euer the Gospel had The names of Benedictines Fraunciscanes c. Maister Sander woulde excuse because these sectes maintaine no doctrin dissenting froÌ„ the Pope but all seeke the perfectiou of the Gospell by diuerse wayes as though there were any other way but Iesus Christ. Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Peter of Paule of Apollo when the Doctrine was all one and counteth them schismatikes that so did And the purer Pâ—imatiue church condemned such apish immitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and possessing nothing in abstayning from Marriage c. for Heretikes and called them Apostolicos witnesse Epiphan Cont. Aposto haer 61. The thirde Marke of an Antichristian is dissagreement among Heretikes and heere not content to charge vs with the dissagreeing of Anabaptistes from vs he amplysieth the dissention betweene Luther and Zwinglius about the presence of Christes body in the sacrament for which contradiction he thinketh it muste needes followe that one of them is an Antichriste I aunswere euery errour stifely mayntayned maketh not an Heretike except it be in an article of fayth necessary to saluation Cyprian againste the Byshopps of Rome Stephanus and Cornelius helde an errour in Baptisme as greate as that same of Luther dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lorde yet is not Cypryan accoumpted for an Heretike Maister Sander replyeth and sayeth that Cyprian was not so stubborne that he woulde excommunicate them that held the contrary Luther also and Zwinglius althoughe they coulde not bee reconcyled in opinions yet agreed to abstaine from contention at Marpurge Anno domini 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Maister Sander sayth further that in the contention of Cyprian and Stephanus the Catholike Faythe was not fully and vniuersally receiued in any generall Councell But hee forgeteth that the Byshoppe of Rome was one partie whose iudgement should haue ended the striefe if his authoritie had beene such then as he vsurped moste ambiciously afterward Nowe where as he defendeth the Papists for their vnitie which he sayeth could not bee with out the spirite of God I aunsweare he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes where is greater vnitie then euer there was amonge the Papistes who to omit an hundreth small contentions of the schoolemen are not yet agreed of the greatest question of all whether the Pope be aboue the councell or the councell aboue the Pope For seeing some of the Papistes make the Popes determination to be the rule of truth other make the councell there is no vnitie among the Papistes in truth when they are not agreed what is the onely rule of trueth whereas we all agree that the word of God is the only rule of truth wherby we would haue all doctrine tried and examined The fourth marke of an Antichrist is to reigne but a short tyme and here he woulde haue vs to marke howe Luthers kingdome is come to an ende whose doctrine Melancthon hath chaunged although Illyricus woulde defend it What depe roote y e doctrine of God deliuered by Luther hath taken it is so well knowne that it can not be dissembled Neither hath Melancthon departed from him except it were in his opinion of the reall presence Wherefore this is a great impudency to triuÌ„phe ouer the decay of Luthets doctrine which dayly encreaseth to the ouerthrow of the Popish kingdom The fall of Hosiander an heretike no man either marueleth or pitieth The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Caluine teacheth as euery wise man doth know and their learned workes shall liue and be in honor when the Popes decretalls and his Masse bookes c. shall stoppe mustard pottes and be put to viler vses Neither is Caluines doctrine failed by our othe of supremacie for Caluine in the right sence of it taught the same supremacie of Christian Princes which we sweare to acknowledge in our soueraigne Neither doth Beza teache any otherwise of the descending of Christ into hell then Caluine did nor otherwise expounded the place of the Psalme cited in Actes the 2. then Caluine doth as all men that wil read them both may see notwithstanding the shamelesse cauill of M. Sander The long continuaunce of the Popish kingdome is a small cause to bragge of when it being sound enemie to the kingdome of Christ is nowe entered so farre into destruction out of which it shall neuer escape although Maister Sander sayth it doth florish when it is banished out of so many regions and dayly decreaseth in euerie place Gods holy name be praised therefore The fift marke of Antichrist he sayeth is to preach without commission as Luther did who was sent of none I aunswere in the state of the church so miserablie deceaued as it was in his time God sendeth extraordinarily immediatly from him selfe as Helias Helizaeus the Prophetes were sent to the Iewes Israelites which were not of the Priests ordinary teachers so Christ sent his Apostles and Euangelists And so was Luther and such as he sent to repaire the ruines of the churche And yet the Papistes haue small aduauntage against the calling of Luther seeing he was a Doctor authorised to preache in that church where he first beganne which after he had reformed the abuses therof and restored true doctrine in many poyntes banished by the false doctrine of Antichrist The same reformed church hath euer since sent forth ordinarie pastors and teachers and shall doe to the end of the world The sixt marke of an Antichrist is that heretikes preferre the temporall sword before the spirituall And therefore Antichrist shall by force of armes compell men to a new faith for he shall come as S. Paule sayeth in virtute that is to say in power or strength O impudent falsifier of the holy Scripture doth not Sainct Paule say that his comming shalbe according to the efficacy of Satan in all power signes and lying wonders in al deceitfulnes of vnrighteousnes 2. Thes. 2. by which is shewed seduction by false
respondeam c. He doth not so much moue me that I should here answere his slander as that I might shew y t Faustus him selfe through desire of slandering would swarue euen from the vanities of Maniche The laste authorite for the name of Catholike in the 6. demaund is the words of a seruing man belike that sayd to one M. Culpeper which died at Paris lying on his deth bed In any case renounce the Catholike faith which whether it were said so or howsoeuer it were ment I thinke the partie that so spake had as much wisedome as Bristow sheweth wit in alledging his saying for proofe of the name of Catholikes to be rightly giuen to them The fantasticall trance of y t same gentleman which saw his good angel gloriously appearing to him assuring him that hee was in the right way which his gostly father could not do although it were not forged yet can make no preiudice against the vndoubted word of God which condemneth that way of papistrie for the broad waye that leadeth to destruction You haue heard what inuincible reasons Bristow imagineth y t he hath brought to proue the papistes to be right Catholikes First because they call themselues so Secondly because ignorant persons giue them that name And last of all because some learned men call theÌ„ false Catholikes counterfeit Catholikes Catholike heretiks But as the Iudge of the conference that was betwene the true Catholiks the Donatistes said to the Donatistes wheÌ„ they challenged vnto theÌ„ the name of Catholikes so answere I to the papistes illos quanâ—o magis se esse Catholicos dicerent tanto magis iam causaÌ„ ipsam remotis nugarum interposuionibus agere debere in qua probare possent se potius esse Catholicos that the more they vant themselues to be Catholiks y t more they ought all delayes being remoued now to go to the cause it selfe in which they might proue that they are Catholikes in deede rather then we The second motiue is the seauenth demaunde Name of Heretikes that very name a certayne marke of very Heretikes Luthers consciens his side to be Heretikes If the very name of Heretikes were a certayne marke of Heretikes the Christians in the Apostles time should bee verye Heretikes for they were so called yea sayth Bristow of the blind and vnbeleuing Iewes and so are we called by the blind and vnbeleeuing Papistes so were all true Catholikes alwayes by al Heretikes which is so strange to Bristow that he would haue vs bring an Example of any Christians that euer called any people Heretikes whiche prooued not Heretikes indeede You may see his reading is very great whiche thinketh no exception may be brought out of any Historie or writings of the Fathers for this matter I wyll sende him to that vnperfecte worke vpon S. Mathewes Gospell written by an Arriane yet among Papists commonly taken for Chrysostom wherein the Author calleth and counteth the true Christians Heretikes which defendeth the Godhead of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost to be equall in Cap. 23. Hom. 45. Consequenter â—aercticis dicitur hoc consequently this is said to the Heretikes And least you should doubt whome he calleth Heretikes it followeth immediately Quando enim vides haereticos tres per omnia aequales dicentes eiusdem esse substantiae eiusdem esse authoritatis sine principio omnes hos aliqua parte distantes a se non mireris implent enim mensuram patrum suorum Gentilium quoniam illi similiter multos deos colebant For when thou seest the Heretikes saying that there be three in al things equal of the same substance and of the same authoritie all these being without beginning yet differing in some respect one from another maruell not for they fulfill the measure of theyr fathers the heathen men for they did likewise worship many Gods By this one example in stead of many it is cleere that the Arrians did as commonly call the true Christians heretikes as the true ChristiaÌ„s called theÌ„ so But if Bristow cauil y t the Arrians were not Christians I answere they were as good Christians as the Papistes who only almost cal vs heretiks euen as we do likewise cal them And it were a shamelesse begging of the principle to require that we shuld accompt Papists for true Christians wheÌ„ the question is whether they be heretiks or no. But it is a fine quarel y t he piketh against our traÌ„slations of the Byble where we cal Hereticum a man that is author of Sectes as though we feared to call hym an Heretike least men should thinke the Apostle spake against vs. Nay Bristow thei y t so traÌ„slate would haue Englishmen to vnderstand when S. Paule calleth an Heretike that they mighte acknowledge the Pope to be an Archheretike bycause he is an author of so many Sects contrary to the word of God Neyther did y e Author of the Apollogie meane that men should lesse auoide Heresies accounted by S. Paul among y e works of the flesh Gala. 5. where he alledged that S. Paules doctrine was called Heresie of the Iewes Act. 24. or that they should not thinke ill of theÌ„ which are adiudged Heretikes by true Christians but that they should no more regard y t slanderous and malitious rayling of the Papistes than the Apostles did of the Iews who were not much worse thaÌ„ the Papists in some things were more tollerable Last of all where Luther coÌ„fesseth that the members of the true Church were commonly called Heretikes his conscience did not accuse him y t his side were Heretiks for he was able to put a difference betwene him that by heretiks is called an Heretike and him y t is so in deede although Bristow eyther for his blockish wit can not or for his spitefull malice will not conceyue it The third motiue is the eyght Demaunde Name of Protestantes Nicolaites Papists a name of late put on vs by Heretikes Rechabites Christians and Catholikes are all one S. Hieroms motiue name as of Protestantes Homousians Name of Franciscanes c. Whosoeuer in respect of y e doctrine which they professe saith Bristow haue a new name made of some maÌ„s name or otherwise taken up wherby they terme themselues and are coÌ„monly termed and knowen thereby vndoubtedly are heretiques Therefore Lutherans Caluinistes Precisians Puritanes vnspotted brethren are heretiques euen as the Nicolaitanes were I deny y e conclusion For there are none of vs that terme our selues Lutheranes Caluinistes Precisianes Puritanes vnspotted brethren c. The name of Protestants if any doe vse is not in respect of the doctrine wee professe but in respect of a protestation made against the decree of Spire in Germanie Neither is it otherwise acknowledged of vs then the name of Nazatites was of the Apostles the names of Homousians Caesarians Caecilianists was of the Christians in the time of the heresies of Arrius Macedonius Eunomius Donatus c. Paule
denyed a testimony of the booke of wisedom de praedest Non debuit They should not reiect the saying of the booke of wisedom which in the church of Christ hath deserued so long a rew of yeares to be recited in the steppe of the readers of the church of Christ and with worship of diuine auctoritie to be heard of all Christians from the Bishops to the lowest sorte of lay men c. And againe Et Etiam temporibus c. Euen the notable interpreters that were next to the Apostles times when they brought forth that booke for witnes beleued that they brought nothing but a diuine testimonie Touching this defense first I aske of Bristow how he can proue that the booke of Machabees hath had such continuaunce of credit Secondly howe this saying of Augustine coÌ„cerning the booke of wisedom can be true when Hierome plainly reiecteth it as not Canonicall praefat in Prouerb Thirdly I demaunde how Bristow can defend his maior if we admitte this saying of Augustine to be true for not Pelagius as Allen sayth expressely nor any Pelagians as Bristow seemeth to meane but such as defended the Catholike faith against Pelagius reiected this saying of the booke of Wisedome which booke also we refuse although not for that saying and what one article of our doctrine doth that booke impugne nay rather there is testimonies therein manifest agaâ—â—st Images against Purgatory and merites yet can not we therefore allow the writings of Phâ—lo a â—ew since Christes time for the canonicall Scripture of Salomon whose title it salâ—ly beareth But to proceede Luther denyeth the Epistic of S. Iames because it is against his heresie of instfication by faith onely We allowe not Luther neither did he allow him self therein for he retracteth it afterward Yet is not Eusebius counted an heretike which vtterly reiecteth that Epistle Lib. 2. cap. 23. But to goe on Beza doth say that S. Lukes Gospell is falsified because it mainteyneth the reall presence of Christ in the sacramet where he sayth Hic est calix this is the chalice which is shed for you This is an impudent slaunder which I haue aunswered against SauÌ„ders rocke of the church in his ninthe marke of an AntichristiaÌ„ where it is handled at large and thether I referre the Reader To conclude Bristow saith no Scriptures is against the Catholikes but all for them because they must obediently receiue and beleue all Scriptures canonicall But what obedience and beliefe they attribute to the canonicall Scriptures it is plaine by this that they dare not abide the triall by them but flie from them to traditions as Bristow doth euen in the next motiue as though the Scriptures inspired of God were not sufficient both to teache all truth and to confute all errors In the demaund this motiâ—e is handled somewhat otherwise for there we are examined whether in the coÌ„ference of Carthage Augustine and his fellowes did not proue by Scripture that a visible Church should beginne at Hierusalem which shoulde continue visibly to the ende of the world I aunswer they proued sufficiently that the preaching of the gospell beginning at Hierusalem should gather the Church out of all partes of the world and therefore the faction of Donatus which begonne in Africa was not to be found but in a corner of Africa could not be the Church of Christ. But of a visible Church to continue visibly in manner as Bristow demaundeth there was no controuersie in that conference and therefore no proofe thereof brought out of the Scriptures The 9. motiue is the 29 demaund Traditions most certaine The Apostles were of our religion S. Augustine S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Cypriane fasting daies lent masse for the dead prayer for the dead confirmed by the Apostles traditions water mingling mith the wine in the chalice The Masse made by S. Paule S. Paule of our religioÌ„ The true Church sayth Bristow hath alwayes had traditions beside the Scripture and what company soeuer was faine to crye for only Scriptures to deny most certeyne traditions of the Apostles their doctrine was heresie and they heretikes To proue that the church had alwayes traditions beside Scripture he bringeth in the sayings of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. 2. Thess. 3. before the Scripture was all written when it was necessary for the Church to haue much of the doctrine deliuered onely by preaching yet had they no doctrine of faith but such as was coÌ„firmed by scriptures of the olde testament as is manifest 2. Pet. â— But for the certaintye of popishe traditions what proofe hath he First Basil de sp sancto cap. 27. sayth Dogmata c. Matters of doctrine which are kept and preached in the church we haue partly by doctrine committed to writing partly by tradition of the Apostles which are of like force vnto godlines c. But the same Basil writeth contrary to him selfe and agreeable to the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture in that it is not of faith is sinne And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he requireth euen newe planted Christians to be instructed in the holy Scriptures both for their full perswasioÌ„ in godlines also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be not acquainted with mens traditions Furthermore sayth Bristow Augustine Epiphanius the Protestants them selues condemne Heluidius for an heretike for denying the perpetuall virginitie of Marye the mother of Christ contrary to the Churches tradition Nay rather for troubling y e church with contention about that in which he hath no grouÌ„d out of the Scriptures Now let vs see how they are proued to be heretikes that refuse traditions of the Apostles are fayne to cry for onely Scriptures First that Maximinus the Arrian did so ergo whosoeuer doth so is an heretike according to Bristowes logike And yet he belyeth Maximinus for he refused not traditions of the Apostles but such wordes as were beside the Scripture meaning Homousion such like termes which were theÌ„ newly vsed but yet conteyned no newe doctrine but euen that which alwayes was approued according to the Scriptures The same thing did the decree of the heretical Emperour Constantius forbid not traditions of the Apostles of which was no controuersie betwene the true Christians the Arrians But that the Scriptures onely are of sufficient authoritie to confute heresies Augustine declareth euen against the same Maximinus lib. 3. cap. 14. Sed nunâ— nec ego Niccnum c. But now must not I bring forth the councel of Nice nor thou the couÌ„cel of Ariminum to make any preiudice but by the authoritie of Scriptures not being proper to ether but coÌ„mon witnesses to vs both let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason Likewise he and his fellow Bishops sayd vnto the Donatists in the conference of Carthage Si tantummodo id qu. crerctur quâ— vel rbi esset Ecclesia nihil se acturos publicis gestis sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo
testimonijs If this onely were the question which or where the Church were that they woulde pleade nothing at all by publike actes of men but only by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures Yet sayth Bristow the Apostles were of our religion because Chrysostom sayth Ad pop Antioch that it was decreed by the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries a remeÌ„brance should be made of the dead This sayth Bristow was masse for the dead How prayers for the dead came in how at leÌ„gth sacrifice of the masse was applied vnto the dead I haue shewed sufficiently against Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles which some of the olde writers doe ascribe to their traditions wee should receiue many thinges that euen the Papistes them selues doe not obserue As that it is a wicked thing to fast on SoÌ„day or to pray kneling that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes c. which with diuerse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth vpon the tradition of the Apostles as wel as oblation for the dead De coron nul hearing therefore such manifest vntruths are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition by most auÌ„cient writers what certainty can we haue of their tradition without their owne writing Againe S. Hierom saith it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40 daies in the yeare If this be true then is the popish story false that maketh Telesphorus Bishop of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth the great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5 cap. 26. saying that some fasted but 1 day some 2 daies some more some 40 howres of day night this diuersitie proueth â—â—â—â— Hierom vntruly ascribeth y t tradition to the Apostles which should haue bene kept vniformely if it had any institution of the Apostles Cyprian sayth it was our Lordes tradition that the wine in the communion should be mingled w t water But the Scripture saith not so S. Paule w c deliuered that w c he receiued of Christ saith not so And yet CypriaÌ„ coÌ„teÌ„deth principally for the vse of wine in the cup against the watry heretikes that vsed onely water It is a coÌ„mon thinge with the auncient writers to defend euery ceremony mhich was vsed in their time by tradition of the Apostles But the chiefe matter is the masse which sayth Bristow S. Paule one of our religion made I maruell whether Bristow writeth this for fooles to beleue or for wise men to laughe at When they them selues make Gregory or Scholasticus or I can not tell whom auctor of the canon and when they write howe euery peece was added by what Pope what impudence is it to say that S. Paule made the Masse and to call Augustine to witnesse that which he good man did neuer thinke of and much lesse write Whose wordes Bristow hath mangled and falsified for thus he citeth them Ep. 118. cap 6. Totum illum agendi ordinem quem uniuersum per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse That by him was ordeyned this order of doing which through the whole world the Church doth keepe in doing of Masse The wordes of Augustine speaking of receiuing the communion fasting or before all other meates are these vpon the wordes of S. Paule Caetera cum venero ordinabo Vnde intelligi datur quia multum erat vt in epistola totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret quem universa per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morum diuersitate variatur Other thinges will I set in order when I come Whereby it is giuen vs to be vnderstood because it was much that in an epistle he should set forth that whole order of doing which the whole Church throughout the world doth obserue that this thinge was ordeyned by him which is varied by no diuersitie of maners vnderstanding the custome of receyuing the communion fasting which he sayd before was generally obserued in all places But of ordeyning the masse there is no title You see now howe â—â—â—â— Apostles especially S. Paule is of Bristowes religion beside ChrysostoÌ„ Hierom Cypâ—iaÌ„ The 10 and 11 motiues are confusely conteâ—ned in the 34 demaund The Courches iudgement is alwayes infallible VVhen by Iewell the Church of God dyed Donatistes and Luciferians aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine and S. Hierome were of our religion Protestants in their owne conscience be against the Church which is euerlasting and visible No scripture against the Catholiks but all for them Christ to be loued for the authoritie of his Church for which there be playner prophecyes then for Christ him selfe Although we should graunt the Churches iudgemeÌ„t to be alwaies infallible yet would we neuer graunt the popish churches authoritye which falleth so manifestly from the word of God thereby sheweth her self to be the malignant Church Synagogue of Satan That the Church of Christ hath alwaies ben from y e beginning shal continue vnto the end of the world we all confesse and defende Wherefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristow to saye that by Iewell the Church dyed within six hundreth yeares after Christ. And that the Donatistes and Luciferians are reuiued in Protestants For we nether say that the Church is perished out of all places except Africa as the Donatistes nor that it is become a stewes with the Luciferians But the Papistes are more like to the Donatistes which say the Church is perished out of all partes of the world except Europe and in steede of the Church they defende a stewes and sincke of all dolatrie superstition vngodlines Therefore Augustine and Hierom be not of Bristowes religion for condemning those heretikes to whome Bristow and his Papistes are more like then the Protestants Nether doe Protestants in their conscience thinke the Church of Christ to be against them because Castalio an Anabaptist translateth Ecclesiae the Churche into reipublicae the common wealth or because many vse the name of congregation which is the true signification of this word Ecclesia as no man will deny that is not past all shame That the Churche is euerlasting and visible to them that haue suche eyes as the Churche is that is spirituall we neuer deny But that it is visible to the world alwayes that shall neuer be proued That no Scripture is against the Catholikes we graunt but that many Scriptures are against the Papists it hath bene more then a thousand times proued That the church geueth testimonie to Christ that the prophecies of the churches euerlasting continuance are plaine euident It is no question betwene vs. But that the synagoge of Romish Papists is the church of Christ to whoÌ„ such credit or reuerence is to be geuen that I say if Bristow woulde burst for anger against the Protestantes he shall neuer be able to proue The 11. motiue The practise or custome of the church of God S. Paule and S. Augustine of our
religion Exorcisme exufflation in baptisme Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Baptisme necessary for saluation of children ChauÌ„ge of religion neuer made by us Altares prayer for the dead used alwayes Reall presence of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t Pilgrimage reliques of Saints S. Hierom of our religioÌ„ Miracles for reliques Churches coÌ„firmed by miracles VVhat an impudeÌ„t atteÌ„pt is chauÌ„ge of religioÌ„ Of the churches practise custome I say euen as of the churches iudgement that how much soeuer it be to be esteemed yet is not the Popish church the Catholike church of Christ but an apostasie schisme from it Neither is it sufficieÌ„t for Bristow to say y e Popish church practiseth many things that the auÌ„cieÌ„t church of Christ practised therfore it is the true church of Christ except he can proue that the Popish churchteacheth practiseth all nothing els but that which the ancieÌ„t church of Christ did teach practise In stede whereof Bristow can allege nothing but certeine spots wrinkles of the elder church which the Popish church doth embrace hauing almost nothing els like vnto it But let vs see how substantially he proueth out of S. Paule S. Augustine that the churches custome and practise is an infallible rule of truth First S. Paule saith he 1. Cor. 11. after many reasons for the vncomelines of womeÌ„s going bareheaded recoyleth to this inuincible forte Si quis c. But if any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome for women to pray vncouered nor the church of God See how this impudent asse to stablish his ground of custome is not ashamed to falsifie the wordes of holy Scripture S. Paul saith if any man seme to be desirous of contention we haue no such custome nor the churches of God whereby he meaneth plainly that it is not the custome of the Apostles nor of the church of God to be contentious about such small matters of external behauiour May we herof inferre that whatsoeuer the church at any time hath vsed is allowable to be vsed alwaies S. Aug. Ep. 118. Ian. is cited by Bristow but corruptly Si quid tota per orbeÌ„ frequentat ecclesia hoc quia it a â—acienduÌ„ sit disputare insoleÌ„tissimae insaniae est If y e whole church do vse any thing only to call it in question whether that thing should be so don is a poinct of most prowd or most straÌ„ge madnes But Augustine is not so generall for his words are siquid horuÌ„ if any of these things speaking of ceremonial obseruations as of receiuing the coÌ„munion fasting c. be vniuersally vsed of all the church when it is not coÌ„trary to the word of God it were madnes to striue about it For in the first place Augustine setteth the auctority of Gods word secoÌ„dly the custome of the vniuersal church being not contrary to Gods word last of all the customs of particular churches which are varied according to the diuersities of coÌ„tries natioÌ„s Now for these matters in coÌ„trouersy betwene vs I answer as Augustine doth to the questioÌ„ of Ianuarius immediatly after the words cited by Bristow Sed neque hoc neque illud est in eo quod tu queris But neither is this nor that in the question that thou propoundest that is neither the practise of the vniuersall church nor the auctority of the Scriptures serueth to decide this question but it is the third kind So say I to Bristow nether the auctority of the holy Scriptures nor the practise of the vniuersall church can be shewed for these things which thou defeÌ„dest but they are of a third kind that is contrary to the word of God and the practise of the most auncient Primitiue church But Augustine sayth Bristow proueth that infants are borne in sinne against the Pelagians which are reuiued in ProtestaÌ„ts by the customes practise of the church which was to baptise theÌ„ for remission of sinnes And this practise he called the waight of truth a most plaine bignes of truth The slauÌ„der that PelagiaÌ„s are aliue in ProtestaÌ„ts by denying children to be borne in sinne I wil no more esteme then the barking of a dogge against the moone But where he sayth that Augustine by the only practise of the church coÌ„uinceth the Pelagians calling the practise poÌ„dus veritatis c it is a shameles lye for his words are in the same Epist. 105. Circunstiâ—antur enim diâ—inarum auctoritate lectionuÌ„ antiquitus tradito retcÌ„to firmo Ecclesiae ritu in baptismate paruulorum For they are compassed about both by the auctoritie of the diuine readings also by the stedfast practise of the church deliuered of old reteined in the baptisme of infants But he vrgeth them with exorcisme and exsufflation which were there vsed in the church I confesse but their meaning by exufflatioÌ„ exorcisme he defendeth out of the Scriptures And who can blame Augustine if after he haue mightely confuted the Pelagians out of the Scriptures to shew the nouelty of their heresie he alleaged the perpetuall practise of the church which she alwaies had alwaies shall haue in praying for the conuersion of infidels for the perseueraÌ„ce of the faithful in goodnes This is all one saith Bristow as if we should reason against these heretikes out of priuate mens beades out of the publike prayers which are in the portuse or Breuiary or in the missall and such like bokes The deuill it is except Bristow can proue that such beades and prayers were euer vsed in the church For Augustine sayth de bono perseuer ca. 22 Atque vtinam tardi corde infirmi qui non possunt velnon dum possunt Scriptur as vel earum expositiones intelligere sic audrient vel non audirent in hac quaestione disputationes nostras vt magis intuer entur orationes suas quas semper habuit habebit ecclesia ab exordijs suis donec finiatur hoc seculum And I would they that are dull of hart weake which can not or as yet can not vnderstand the Scriptures or the expositions of them would so heare or not heare our disputations in this question that they would rather consider their owne prayers which the church alwaies hath had shall haue from her beginning vntil this world be ended You see plainly that Augustine ioyneth to the auctority of the holy Scriptures the perpetuall practise of the church which hath continued from the beginning and shall remayne vnto the ende Which seeing it can not be shewed for Poperie the argument of the practise of the church serueth not for Popery Bristowe proceedeth and passeth ouer the example of Christian women which killed them selues rather then they would haue their bodies abused yet notwithstanding by the churches iudgement were honored as martyrs To which I aunswere the church considered their minde which was good not the fact which was euell At last he commeth to affirme that the
no Protestantes let them aunsweare for them selues If he calles them Puritanes which desire to haue the Church thorowly reformed there is no such dissention betweene them but that they all agree in the Articles of Faith maintayne brotherly concorde one with an other notwithstanding in diuersitie of opinions concerning the matters and manner of reformation But what an impudent attempte is chaunge of Religion hee will shewe vs out of Luther which writing againste the Anabaptistes Anno 1528. affirmeth that much Christianitie and true Christianitie is vnder the Popedome If chaunge of Religion bee so impudent an attempte why were the Papistes finding Religion quietly establyshed by lawe so impudent in Queene Maryes time not only to attempte but also to bring to passe in deede an alteration of Religion But the Popish Religion was true Christianitie by Luthers confession I aunswere Luther did meane nothing lesse by that confession then to defende any parte of Popery to bee Christianitie but writinge against the Anabaptistes which woulde haue all thinges abolyshed which the Papistes vsed he sheweth that such partes and Articles of Christianitie which in generall confession and acknowledging of the authoritie of the Scriptures the Papistes haue common with vs are not therefore to bee reiected because of them they haue bene abused Otherwise it is a poore Moâ—iue vnto Popery that Luther by these or any other woordes did euer minister vnto you The 17. Motiue is the 11. Demaunde The Catholike faith in England mightely planted lightly changed S. Augustine the Apostle of Englishmen of what Religion and authoritie Miracles for our whole Religion Sainte Bede of our Religion His story to be read of Englishmen Images and Crosses confirmed by miracle Prophecyes and visions for our Religion The Catholike Faith was purely planted in this Island by the Apostles euen in the raigne of Tiberius as restineth Gildas sixe hundreth yeeres before Augustine came from Rome bringing in deede with him the principall groundes of Christianitie and with all much Monkish superstition But that the Religion of Papisâ—rie differeth in as many pointes from that which Augustine planted as Augustines doth from oures I haue prooued abundantly in aunsweare to Stapletons Fortresse and breefely in the Table of differences And in such poyntes wherein wee differ from Augustine I haue proued that Augustine differed from the Apostles As for his Miracles affirmed by the Saxons and denied by the Briton writers shall still remaine in controuersie for me As also his prophecie so tearmed by the Saxons which the Britons affiâ—me to be a threatening of crueltie which he himselfe procured to be executed on the poore Students â—â—ergie of Bangor In the demaunde Bristow would knowe of vs whether the Britains by Eleutherius were coÌ„uerted to one faith and the Saxons by Gregory and Augustine vnto an other But I haue shewed before that the Britanes were not coÌ„uerted by Elutherius although perhaps the Church which was more then an hundreth yeares of age in his tyme might by him of charitie be confirmed in truth or admonished to beware of such heretikes as then troubled the Church abroade But I deny that Eleutherius maynteyned all that superstition which Augustine brought in And I affirme that â—â—â—â— Britons church in Augustines tyme differed in more things then in the celebration of Easter from the Romish Churche as I haue shewed in that confutation of Stapleton euen by testimony of Bede him selfe Although I will not deny but there might be some corruption euen amonge the Britayns also as there were that maynteyned the heresie of the Pelagians Wherefore into that Catholike faith which was first mightely planted in this lande by the Apostles of Christ and not of Gregorie through the most weightie argumentes taken of the auctority of the holy Scriptures is this realme by the great mercie of God returned from the schiâ—me and heresie of Antichrist so I hope shall remaine euen vntil the second comming of Christ. The 18. motiue is the 3. demaund Going out S. Optatus motiue The churches practise is alwayes infallible The vnitie and constancie of the Bishops of England Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing We like Optatus Motiue well for going out of the Church into any other faction But it may not be drawn contrarie to his meaning against those which goe out of Babilon into Ierusalem He saith VVe must see who hath remained in the roote with the whole worlde Verely not the Papists which are departed from the doctrine of the Apostles which is the roote of the Church by them planted in all the worlde VVe must see who is gone foorth which Bristow doth rightly referre to that saying of Saint Paule Discedent quidam à fide Some shall departe from the Fayth But who are those They that teache the doctrine of deuilles forbidding to marrye and commaunding to abstaine from meates Nowe whether Papists or protestants be such let the worlde iudge Optatus will haue it farther considered VVho is set in an other Chayre that was not before Verely none so manifestly as the Pope who sitteth in a Chayre that none of the Apostles nor Apostolike men for many hundreth yeeres after Christe did knowe Againe VVho hath sette an Aultar against the Aultar who but the Papists which haue erected the Sacrifice of the Masse to ouerthrow the Aultar of the crosse of Christ Finally VVho hath made an ordination the other before ordayned beeing whole sounde Quis ordinationem fecerit saluo altero ordinato Which Bristow hath falsely traÌ„slated thus VVho hath placed Bishops there where others were placed before which are yet aliue As though it were a faulte to putte out false Bishoppes and to supply the roomes with true Bishoppes where as Optatus meaneth of Heretikes which are gone from true Byshoppes and sette vppe Heretikes in schisme the true Bishoppes still remayning as the Papistes did in Queene Maryes time vntyll they had burned vppe almoste all As for the vnitie and constancy of the popishe deposed Prelates which hee commendeth is sufficiently knowne to the worlde which although they were all saue one obstinate in the beginning of her Maiesties raygne because they hoped by trayterous practises foolish prophecies deuilish coniuration to see an alteration shortly aswel for religion as also for the whole state of the common wealth and withall had experience of the mercifulnes and compassion of the Kinges of Israell so that they were not in feare of their liues or any great hazard of their goods yet had they all or the most part of them such was their good constancy reuolted from popery and sworne against the Pope in the raygne of Kinge Henrye and King Edward As for the decaye of Protestants and professors of the truthe of Gods word which the cold prophet foreseeth by some trayterous deuise whispered among his pewfellowes at Louayne or Dowaye it shall haue such successe and euent by Gods grace as hitherto the like treasonable practises haue obteyned
whiche alwayes Gods holy name be praysed therefore hath turned to the confusion of Popery and the further spreading of the light of the Gospell In the demaunde he vrgeth vs to shewe when the Romanes went out of the truth fâ—rsaking any company of Christians then liuing This hath bene often shewed that the Romanes though not all at once yet by litle and litle euen as the mysterie of iniquitie got strength which began to worke in the Apostles tyme haue departed from the communion of other Christians The first storye that maketh notable mention is Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25. of Victor which did cut him selfe from all the Churches of the East about a ceremonye since which tyme the Romane Bishops by litle and litle haue departed vntill they made a generall apostasie and defection from the vniuersall Churche condemning all the Christians in the world except such as held of their particular schismaticall and hereticall Churche of Rome The 19. motiue is the 4. demaund Risinge afterwarde Saynt Ireneus and Tertullians motiue He spendeth muche labour in vayne to proue that the first religion is the onely true religion and that all sectes that arise after are false which we graunt most willingly with Irenaeus Tertullian and the Scripture it selfe But he hath not one worde to proue that our religion is of a later springe then the Apostles and therefore like an asse he flyeth to their common stable saying that Luther liued but yesterdaye as though Luther were the firste author of our religion Which if it be not as auncient as Christ and the Apostles might easiely be confuted by the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles contayned in the holye Scriptures The 20. motiue is the 5. demaunde Beginninge with wondringe and gaynesaying of Christians then in vnitye vvhich is Saynte Irenaeus motiue Our religion of Christ reuealed in the fleshe began with wondring and gaynesaying of Scribes Pharisees as it is manifest by the historye of the Gospell Marke 1. yet was not the doctrine of Christ newe or straunge but newely begonne to be restored which was by them corrupted so is the same now wondred at and gaynesayde by their successors the Papistes but of true Christians it is nether wondred at nor gaynesayde contrariwise the heresie of Papistes in manye poyntes was wondred at and gaynesayde by true Christians whiche Bristowe saythe we can not proue to be in anye one For example I will name one of the chiefest articles which they holde namely the Popes supremacye vpon which all the rest in Eusebius testifyeth that when Victor Bishoppe of Rome which was the first that challeÌ„ged any supremacie tooke vpon him to excommunicate the Churches and Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter His presumption was wondred at and gainesayde not only by those Churches and their Bishops but euen by others neere hand as by Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce which sharpely reproued him therfore more theÌ„ two hundreth yeeres after when Zozimus other Romish Prelates made claime to a kind of supremacy in resisting appeale out of Africa and for that purpose had counterfaited a decree of the Nicâ—ne councel They were wondred at and gainesaid by the whole councell of Carthage The like might I shewe for worshipying of Images the reall presence transubstatiation c. But where hee sayeth that all heresies were wondered at and gainesaide immediatly after they arose it cannot be proued Nor that all was Heresie that was gainesaide by them that were in vnitie For the baptisme of Heretikes was gainesaide by Saincte Cyprian and all the Bishoppes of Africa yet was it none heresie that Infants might be sauedwith out receiuing of the communion was gainesaid by Innocentius Bishop of Rome and by S. Augustine and by all the church that was at vnitie against the Pelagians August contra duas epistolas Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 2. Cap 4. Yet was not that opinion then helde by the Pelagians otherwise horrible Heretikes and heresie but that which the Bishop of Roms the rest of the known visible church did holde was an erâ—or whereby you may see how truely the commaundement of Christe vnto Peter to confirme his Brethren after his conuersion doth giue the Byshop of Rome ' power neuer to be deceiued nor to fall into error And that the Church may be the piller and stay of trueth although the chiefe members thereof and generally all that are knowen to be members thereof may be taken in some particular error The 21. Motiue is the 42. demaunde Vnsent Orders Protestants allowe better of our orders theÌ„ of their owne Wheras Bristowe chargeth vs to be vnsent it is nothing else but a popish slaunder and petition of principle for we are called and sent ordinarily by the Church and elders of the same to preach the word of God and to minister the Sacraments Neither are we ordayned by a lay Prince as he like a lewde Papist doth slaunder both our Christian Prince and vs. And although the Prince by letters Patents hath sent some to preach and visite the Churches of her dominions yet shee hath doone it by authoritie of the worde of God and by example of godly Princes Iosaphat and other 2. Chro. 17. not taking vpon het to execute any ecclesiasticall function but according to her kingly authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall And where Bristowe saith we allowe better of their popish orders then of our owne secking as much as we can possible to be consecrated by one of their orders except it be some such proude hypocrite as Bristowe is that so iudgeth and seeketh it is a moste abhominable lye For withall our heart wee abhorre defie detest and spit at your stinking greasie antichristian orders Neither doth our Church receiue any of your execrable ordering to minister in the Church before they haue solemnly by othe renounced your Antichriste and publikely as well professed to imbrace all true religion as Protested that in their conscienses they defy all papistry and other heresies Although many godly men wishe yet a more seuere discipline in examining and receiuing such as come our of your heresie to serue in the Church of God The 22. motiue is the 43. demaund Suceession S. Optatus motiue The Church is euerlasting visible S. Hieroms S. Augustines motiue the Church euerlasting The communion of the B. of Rome to be kept of all Christians Succession in the see Apostolike Tertullians and Augustines motiues That the Church is euerlasting Bristow neede not haue takeÌ„ such paynes to proue that this continuance is preserued by succession is also to be confessed But y t this succession is visible limited to any one sea of bishops it is false For euen as he him selfe sayth it is necessary that all Adams children to be come of Adam by a continuall pedegree of fathers and grandfathers and other progenitors euen vntill his time and yet no one of Adams childreÌ„ can deduce this pedegree by
naming of all his progenitors from Adam vnto his time so there is no doubt but the Church hath had a perpetuall succession in the world from y e beginning thereof vntil this day although she can not name a particular succession of persons in any one place for all ages that are past But euen as by the Scriptures we are taught that Adam is our naturall father although we can not name all our auÌ„cestors that haue bene betwene vs and him right so by the Scriptures we are taught that the Church is our heauenly mother although we can not frame such tables of succession as the Papistes require vs to shew which they can not performe them selues For although they can name a number of Bishops whereof some haue taught at Rome some haue sitten and slept in their chayer at Rome and some at Auynion some haue played the deuill therein an hundreth of the last being no more like to a score of the firste in doctrine and life then God whose children the first were is like the deuill whose derlings the last were yet what is this to shewe a succession of their Church And howe doth this proue them to be the true Churche can not the Churche of Constantinople and other Churches in Greece doe the like vnto this daye Yet doe the Papistes count all them for heretikes and scismatikes Whatsoeuer therefore Optatus Hierom Augustine Tertullian or any other haue written of succession of Bishops in the Apostolike sees they meane so large and so farre forth as they continue in succession of Apostolike doctrine Otherwise woulde not Hierom haue embraced Arrianisme because it was receyued by Liberius who sate in the Apostolike see of Rome and coulde name his predecessors from Peter Nor Optatus haue receyued Eutychianisme because it was defended by Dioscorus which satte in the Euangelisticall see of Alexandria and coulde name his predecessors from S. Marke the disciple of S. Peter Nether woulde Augustine haue consented to Arrianisme because it was mayntayned by Eulalius and Euzoius Bishops of the Apostolike see of Antioche althoughe they were able to shewe their succession by many Bishops euen vnto S. Peter him selfe who planted his chayer at Antioche by all Papistes confession seuen yeares before he came to Rome You see therefore howe farre the motiue of succession may drawe or driue any man to haue regard vnto it euen as long as there is succession of doctrine as well as of place and person and not longer nor further The 23. motiue is the 44. demaund Apostolike Church The Communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians Apostolike Church is the Romane Church Apostolike Church as the Romane is S. Augustines motiue Succession of the Bishops of Rome the motiue of Optatus S. Augustine and S. Irenaeus This motiue in effect is all one with the former and in a maner so confessed by Bristow him selfe But thus he takâ—th his principle of their singing in the Masse our saying in the communion of the creede in which we confesse that we beleue one onely Catholike and Apostolike Church This one Catholike Church sayth Bristow is our Church that is Apostolike because it agreeth with the faith of the Church of Rome which is the sea of an Apostle holding on to this day by succession and to which was written an Epistle by an Apostle I aunswer it is not the popish Romane Church because that Church is departed from the vniuersal Church of Christ planted by the Apostles through out the worlde and holdeth not on in succession of the doctrine of the Apostle which did write that epistle to the Romanes But Bristowes wise reasoning is to be noted S. Peter was an Apostle That is true he was the first Bishop of Rome It is a great doubt whether he euer came at Rome and it is out of doubt by the Scriptures that he taried not there so longe as the histories affirme and last it is false that he was a Bishop of a particular Church which was an Apostle ouer all the world and specially ouer the circumcision There is a citye in the worlde named Rome And that citye by the Scripture is the seat of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. vers 18. S. Paules epistle to the Romaines is extant and euen that epistle will proue the Church of Rome at this day to be not apostolicall but apostatical as in many articles so in the article of iustification Rom. 3. vers 28. Are not those causes why a Church is called Apostolike sayth Bristow No verily but onely because it holdeth and mayntayneth the Apostolike doctrine which if it doe in all necessary articles then is it Apostolike hath succession and plantation of the Apostles or els not although it be gathered in such cities in which the Apostles haue preached planted and to whome they haue written But Tertullian doth so define Apostolike Churches sayth Bristow I say it is vntrue for Tertullian against newe heretikes sendeth vs not to the emptye chayres of the Apostles which had written to such cities but vnto the the testimony of their doctrine receyued from the Apostles and continued vntill that time So he sendeth them that are in Achaia to Corinthe such as are in Macedonia to Philippi those that are in Asia to Ephesus them which be neare Italy to Rome from whence they of Africa had their authoritie not by excellency of that Church aboue other Apostolike Churches but by nearenes of place Therfore he saith Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es à Macedonia habes Philippos Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adieceris habes Romam vnde nobis quaeque auctoritas presto est statuta Is Achaia nearest vnto thee thou hast Corinthe If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi If thou canst goe into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thoulye neare to Italy thou hast the Church of Rome from whence vnto vs also in Africa authoritie is setled nearer at hand Tertul de praeser But Bristow sayth that the auncient fathers when there were many Apostolike Churches standing they did principally and singularly direct men alwayes to the Church of Rome This you see to be false by the place of Tertullian last ciâ—ed But that they did more often direct men to the testimony of the Church of Rome it was for that by meanes of the Imperiall citie it was more notorious and best knowne Otherwise it is a very lye of Bristow where he sayth that when the fathers name the Apostolike church they do meane the Romane church by excellency as the Poet signifieth Vergil and the Philosopher Aristotle A like lye it is that no Church remayneth in the world founded by any of the Apostles but onely Rome For many Churches remayne to this day that were planted by the Apostle Paule who from Hierusalem to Illyricum filled all the contryes with the doctrine of the Gospell of which
many vnto this day continue in profession of Christianitie beside all the Churches of India AEthiopia which were also planted by the Apostles Thomas and other The more beastly is the blundering of this Bristow who dreameth that the councell of Constantinople the 1. which made this confession by the Apostolike Church did not onely meane the Romane Church but also none other but the Romane Church As though that councell could not distinguish the Catholike Apostolike Church dispersed ouer all â—â—â—â— face of the earth from the particular Apostolike Church of Rome which was but a member therereof when the same councel gaue the like priuiledges of honor to the Church of Constantinople which the Church of Rome had reseruing but the senioritie to y e Church of Rome And being called to a councel at Rome by the Princes letters procured by Damasus Bishop of Rome other Bishops of Italy the West they refused to come as hauing already by the Emperour of the East being gathered to Constantinople â—oncluded what they thought good to be decreed Histor. trip lib. 9 cap. 13. And in their epistle written to their fellow ministers Damasus Ambrose c. gathered in councell at Rome wherein they excused their refusall to come they call the Church of Antiochia seniorem vere apostolicam Ecclesiam the elder truly an Apostolike Church The church of Ierusalem they call the mother of all Churches Ep. Concil Constanti Hist. trip lib. 9. cap. 14. Nether was it euer in their mind to make the particular Church of Rome the only Apostolike Church of the world but onely a principall member consenting with the same The succession of bishops of Rome alledged by Irenaeus Tertullian Augustine Optatus doth nothing in the world defend the popish bishops in their successioÌ„ vnto this day for so much as they succeede not in doctrine as well as in place Nether doe we make any leape from Luther vnto the Apostles but prouing our doctrine to be the doctrine of the Apostles we doubt no more of perpetuall succession thereof then knowing our selues to be descended from Adam we doubt whether we haue had a line all discent of progenitors vnto this time that I may vse Bristowes owne example to declare that numbring of Bishops is no more necessary in the one theÌ„ shewing our pedegrie in the other Seing the question is not how many men in what places were professed this doctrine but whether it be the same which â—â—â—â— Apostles taught but that can not better be proued then by the writings of â—â—â—â— Apostles The places cited by Bristow for succession out of Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Augustine you shall sinde answered in my confutation of Stapletons fortres part 2. cap. 1. of Sanders rocke cap. 15. where also is answered the place of S. Luke cap. 22. of Christ praying that Peters faith might not faile The 24. motiue â—â— the 45. demaund The Romaines neuer chauÌ„ged their religion S. Bede of our religion the Râ—maine church his motiue ProtestaÌ„ts be of many old heresies The Apostles were of our religion Prayer for the dead vsed alwayes If the Romaines had not chauÌ„ged their religion since their faith was coÌ„mended by the Apostle there should be no controuersie betwene vs them And if Bristow caÌ„ proue by the Apostles writing that he is of their religion or that they were of the Popish religioÌ„ the strife is at an ende How farre Bâ—de was of your religion I haue shewed in the answer to Stapletons fortresse But he vrgeth vs to shew what Pope chaunged their religion what tumults rising in the worlde thereon what Doctors withstoode it what couÌ„cels accuâ—sed c. which he saith they can shew in all innouatioÌ„s both great sinal that euer by heretikes were atteÌ„pted What an impudent lyar is this Bristow to brag of that which at this day is impossible to be don by any maÌ„ liuing in the worlde For of so many heretikes as are rehersed by Epiphanius Augustine not the one halfe of theÌ„ can be so shewed as Bristow like a blind bayard boasteth they can doe But if we say the chaunge was not made al at once we must shew wheÌ„ euery pece was altered as they do of our doctrin of old taught by many old heretiks AErius denying praier for the dead c. Whereof many are slauÌ„ders lyes the rest if we can not defend by Scriptures let them be takeÌ„ for heresies To the purpose we haue often shewed and are ready daily to shew the beginning of many of their heresies errors as of the Popes supremacy in Victor of prayer for the dead in the Montanists of their crossing in the Valentinians of images in the Gnosâ—ikes and Carpocratians and so of a great many other errors which are contrary to the holy Scriptures by which we first reproue them of falshood and as stories serue vs we open their beginnings And wheras Bristow without all shame affirmeth that prayer for the dead was vsed alwayes citeth Irenaeus among other for his auctor he sheweth nothing but impudency matched with his heresie for there is no worde in Ireneus to proue that prayer for the dead was vsed of any godly man of his time Tertullian a Montanist is the first that maketh any mention of prayers for the dead only in such bookes as he wrote when he was an heretike Whereas Augustine sayth Ep. 119. That y e church of God nether appâ—oueth nor keepeth secret nor doth such thinges as be against the faith and good maners it is to be vnderstanded of such things as the church knoweth to be against the faith For of some thinges the church may be ignorant as Augustine confesseth in his retractations lib. 2. cap. 18. Vbicunque in his libris commemoraui ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugaâ— non sic accipiendum est quasi iam sit sed quae praeparatur vt sit quando apparebit etiam gloriosa nunc enim propter quasdam ignorantias infirmitates meâ—brorum suâ—rum habet vnde quâ—tidie tota dicat Dimitte nobis dâ—bita nostra Wheresoeuer in those bookes I haue made mention of y e church not hauing spot or wrinckle it is not to be takeÌ„ as though she were so now but which is prepared that â—he may be when she shall appeare also glorious For now because of certaine ignorances and infirmities of her members euen the whole church hath cause to say euerie day forgiue vs our trespasses Notwithstanding the watchmen therefore prophecied by Esay continually geuing warning vpon the walles against the inuasion of open enemies and blasphemous heretikes yet many hypocrites haue crept into the church secretly and vnder shew of pietie haue shewed many errors and superstitions while the mysterie of miquity wroughâ— the full manifestation and Apostasie of Antichrist In the demaunde Bristow denyeth that any Pope did erre although I haue shewed both out of stories S. Hierom the Pope Damasus and the generall
councels the contrarie But admitting they did erre yet sayth he they erred not in such matters as the Protestantes doe now charge the Pope Romaines withall Whereto I answer that against that blasphemous principle of theirs that the Pope can not erre we first bring in those examples of Popes that were heretikes for their time altered religion like heretikes in such matteâ—s as we both confesse to be errors Then this being obteyned that the Pope is not priuiledged from error the matters in controuersie wherewith we charge the Pope are to be examined only by the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures and thereby to be decided The 25. motiue is the 9. demaunde The conuersion of Heathen nations Caluines Legates in India The discorde of Protestantes Iesuites Fryers preaching in India Miracles for our whole religion The Apostles were of our religion The church is euerlasting and visible All nations that were at the first coÌ„uerted to the true faith of Christ were conuerted by the Apostles whose faith and doctrine we hold and will proue by their writings that we holde none other As for the argument of â—ryers preaching in India miracles wrought so fa. re hence with such great conuersion of the Indians vnto Popery if it were true yet proueth it no more then the preaching and miracles of the false Apostles Phil. 1. and the conuersion of the Gothes and Vandalls Crepides c. by the Arrians and other nations by Nestorius c. doth proue those false Apostles to be true Apostles or the heresies of the Arrians c. to be true doctrine Wherefore not the Papistes but the Apostles of Christ were his witnesses vnto the vttermost places of the earth But of this matter of câ—nuersion and all thinges conteyned you may reade somewhat more at large in mine aunswere to Stapletons fortresse where the same is handled part 1. cap. 16. 17. The 26. Motiue is the 18. 13. and 14. demaund By what religion hath Idolatrie bene destroyed Prophecies for our religion Protestantes be possessed with deuills Churches confirmed by miracles Deuills expelled by reliques Deuills are in heretikes S. Hierome of our religion The martyrs of our religion Vigilantius aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine Chrysostome of our religion The honor and vertue of Sainctes reliques S. Augustines motiue for which Christ is to be beleued Our religion an inuincible motiue to forsake idolls and beleue in Christ who is to be beleued for the vertue of the signe of his crosse which working miracles was the motiue of Lactantius The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament The crosse and the masse confirmed by S. Bernard in Italy S. Cyprian of our religion The Iewes religion chaunged into ours by Christ c. In this motiue is much babling but no matter at all The summe of that he would proue is this That Popery is not idolatrie as we charge it because by Popery Idolatrie hath bene destroyed Although this argument is naught because one kinde of Idolatrie may destroy an other yet it is falsely affirmed that Poperie hath destroyed all idolatry That Popery hath destroyed idolatry Bristow wil proue by three examples the one of the reliques of Sainctes and the honor of them the other of the signe of the crosse and the honorthereof and the last by the reall presence in the Sacrament which he calleth his Lord and his God But our Lord and God is in heauen according to the Psalm 115. The destruction of idolatrie by Christ in deede was prophecied therefore the Pope setting vp and mainteyning as grosse idolatrie almost as euer was any of the Paganes sheweth him selfe to be a verie Antichrist But to the purpose Hierom lib. 28. in Isa. cap. 65. sayth that the heretikes in Fraunce were possessed with the deuill which could not abide the might and whips of the holy ashes If he spake this against VigilaÌ„tius other godly men which reproued the immoderate honoring of reliques and other superstitions he spake of his owne iudgement and not of the iudgement of the church For he only of all writers of his time counted Vigilantius an heretike as he did Ruffinus also which yet is takeÌ„ for as good a Catholike as he It is knowne how he taunteth and scoffeth at Augustine Wherefore his censure is not sufficient to make Vigilantius opinion heresie nor them heretikes which were of his iudgemeÌ„t But admit this iudgement of Hierom to be sounde yet was not the honor and estimation of reliques which he defendeth against Vigilantius the same which is in Poperie but much differing there froÌ„ For thus he writeth ad Râ—panum contr Vigilant Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias sed ne solem quidem â—unam non Angelos non Archangelos non Cherubin non Seraphim omne nomen quod nominatur in prâ—esenti saeculo in futuro colimus adoramus ne seruiamus potius creaturae quaÌ„ creatori qui est benedictus in saecula But we worship and adore I say not the reliques of the martyrs but not the sunne the moone not the Angells not Archangels not Cherubin not Seraphim euery name that is named both in this world and in the world to come least we should serue the creaturerather then the creator which is blessed for euer By this you may see that the honor they gaue to reliques was but a reuerent estimatioÌ„ of them for Christs sake whose seruaunts the Martyrs were and a lesse honor then they gaue to the Sunne and the Moone as is manifest by his gradation and consequently no religious worship As the Papistes vse and mayntayne of the reliques not of Saynctes but oftentymes of deuills incarnate of beasts and all manner of fayned bables Nether is there any thing more monstrous in popery then their shameles fayning of infinite reliques That Augustine writeth that deuils were tormented and expelled at the memories or burialls of the martyrs where somtimes idolls were worshipped it proueth that idols were destroyed by Poperie For if God wrought miracles at such places where the bodies of his Martyrs slept to coÌ„firme the faith for which they died doth this make any thing for Popery But the same Augustine to the Maudaurenses that were Pagans and other heathen men vseth the argument of the greater honor and reuerence doone by Kings and Emperours at the tombes and memories of the Saintes and Martyrs and of miracles wrought at the same places to shew the power of Christe to the confusion of idolatrie This wee graunt but how doth Popery ouerthrowe Idolatrie There reuerence although in soÌ„e respects superstitious was far from popish Idolatrie of worshipping of Saints Images bones c as wee haue shewed euen now out of Hierom the most eger defender of those vses and abuses in his time The miracles approued none other doctrine then the maâ—tyrs died for who died for none other doctrine but such as is contayned in the holy Scriptures in which Poperie hath no ground
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
Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word Which because the Papists dare not atteÌ„pt Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation priuiledge of the sayd libell to shew a bad shift better then none at all why they wil not answere it For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing we require no approbation nor priuiledge dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it haue approbation priuiledge The 29. motiue Protestantes them selues take thinges vpon our churches credit The churches auctority S. Augustines motiue VVhat Sor. pture the Protestants deny Although we did receaue such things as he reherseth vpon their churches credit it followeth not that theirs is the true church for we receaue nothing from them without dew exammation The Scriptures we receaue not vpon the only credit of the Popish church but vpon the credit of y e vniuersall church of Christ. The creedes articles of doctrine tearmes of person trinitie consubstantiality Sacraments c. we receaue because they be consonant to the Scriptures not because the church of Rome tellâ—th â—s they be true As for the auctoritie of the church which he sayth was S. Augustines motiue to beleue the Gospell was not a single or sole motiue but a commotiue or an argument that with other argumeÌ„ts did moue him for the sayth not moueret but commoueret and so it is with vs. Prouided alwayes that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholike or vniuersall church VVhat then sayth Bristow was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine ment or can you hold laughter when the question is asked No verily for when the Protestants church that it is now so called in this age like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustines time is a member of the Catholike vniuersall church of Christ and so proued by the holy Scriptures it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an hereticall assembly departed from the vniuersall church long since Augustines departure out of this life But Bristow will proue that the church at whose commanndement Augustine beleued the Gospell was not the ProtestaÌ„ts church because that church commaunded him to beleue the bookes of Toby Iudith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees to be canonicallscripture which the church of Protestantes doth denye But what it Augustine were deceiued to thinke he hearde the voice of the Catholike church when he did not shall the Protestantes churche be condemned S. Hierome who if the church of Rome were the Catholike church was more like to heare her voice because he was a Priest of the church of Rome telleth vs a cleane contrary tale For thus he writeth In praefat in Prouerbia Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam Therfore as the Church in deade readeth the bookes of Iudith and Tobias and of the Macchabees but yet she receiueth them not among the Canonicall scriptures so she may reade these two Bookes speaking of the booke of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the common people but not for confirming the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall doctrine Doth the Church of Protestants iudge otherwise of these Bookes then that Church which thus instructed Hierome What then I must say as Bristowe doth S. Hierome and the Catholike Church in his time of our Religion The Church of Rome now is of an other iudgement then the Church of Rome was then ergo it is not now that it was then But whereas Bristowe chargeth vs to to deny or at least to leaue indifferent the Canticles of Salomon The Epistle to the Hebrues The Epistles of Saint Iames S Peter S. Iohn Sainct Iude with the Apocalips it is a diuelish slaunder as God knoweth and the woâ—ld can beare vs witnesse The 30. Motiue is the 36. and 37. demaÅd Storehouse of the Scriptures Tht Iewes Religion chaunged into ours by Christ. The Churches learning and wisdome The Church store S. Irenaeus motiue Bristowe demaundeth whether the Popish Church receiuing the Scriptures of the olde and newe Testament from Christ hath not kept them faithfully without adding minishing or corrupting I aunswere no for the Popish church receiueth none of Christ but the catholike church of Christ. Againe the popish Church hath added whole bokes to the canon which the chuch of the Iewes neuer receiued nor the vniuersall Church of Christ. But those Bokes saith Bristow hath the Protestants church robbed vs of w c are allowed by approued Councels You heard in the last motiue Hieromes iudgement of those bookes whervnto agreeth the couÌ„cel of Laodiâ—ea cap. 59. Augustine receiueth the boks of Macchabees but with condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Augâ— consec â—pist Gaudent cap. 13. Last of al the popish church either of fraud or negligence hath corrupted an exceeding great number of textes of the scripture in her vulgar latine translation w c she receueth as only authentical The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied For wheras the trueth is Ipsum contret caput â—â—â—â— the same seede shall broose thine head the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman Gen 3. Wheras he saith the Protestants church for this 100. yeeres as we coÌ„fesse our selues occupyed no bible nor had any thing to do with the scriptures he lieth out of al measure for the church of Christ hath alwaies had the scriptures in euery nation where it was it had theÌ„ in their mother toung How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchmeÌ„t 3 or 4. hundreth yeeres past in the English toung beside other in the Saxon language The like are to be proued to haue ben in al places where the Churches were gathered as in France Italy Bohemia c. Finally whatsoeuer he bableth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures trueth the like may be said of the greke Church which they coÌ„demne as schismaticall hereticall therefore this storehouse is no Motiue to proue the Romish Sinagogue to be the church of God In the 37. demaund he asketh whether as wel Protestants as other doe not condemne the old writers errors other heresies of Heretiks which made great shew of scriptures by the rule of y e popish churchs faith I answere the Protestants out of the scriptures do can disproue such shew of scriptures made by maisters of error are no more moued by the popish churches authoritie then the Apostles were moued by authoritie of the Iewish Synagogue to reproue all the grosse Idolatrie and snperstition of the Gentiles Therfore the popish Church is not Depositorium Diues that rich storehouse of trueth which was S. Ireneus motiue The 31. motiue is the 41. demaund Sending and teaching of all diuine
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
were of another factioÌ„ but no of the church of Christ. Howe vaine a brag it is that the martyrs were of the Papistes religion because they keepe holy their dayes I leaue to be answered with childrens laughture But it is a great offence I weene that Protestants haue put downe most of the Saincts daies namely S. Lawrence his day all our Ladies daies assumption all If a man shoulde aske you wherefore you keepe not S. Abrahams day coÌ„sidering he was the father of the faithfull nor S. Esayes c what could you answer As for the Ladies daies w c he complaineth to be put downe by vs namely the feasts of her conception natiuitye visitation assumption the Church could be without some of theÌ„ more then 12 hundreth yeares For Vrbanus the 6. instituted the feast of the visitation of some called the new found Lady daye about the yeare of Christ 1380. as the very popishe seruice of that daye confesseth in the first lessoÌ„ The feast of the natiuity is not much elder as both the lessons Durand do acknowledge which affirmeth that one Fulbertus a Bishop Cardinal made part of the seruice That the feast of the assumption can not be very auncient it appeareth not onely by the barbarous hymnes in the popishe Churche that daye but also by the lessons taken out of Bede by whiche it is manifest that the Church coulde be without that goodly solemnitie more thâ—n 700. yeares after Christ as a great number of other festiuities which borrow their lessons out of Bede doe shew sufficiently that the popish seruice is nether so auncient nor so vniuersall as the Papistes most impudently doe affirme As for the feast of the conception of the Virgine Marye is not full one hundreth yeare olde being decreed by Sixtus the 4. in great despight of the Dominike Fryers which did both preach and wright against it Wherefore there is no such intollerable fault assuredly committed in omitting such festiuities as Bristow cryeth out nether we lacke proper dayes of our Ladye as he sayth whereby he bewrayeth the grosse Idolatrie of Papistes which are not content to honor our Sauiour Christ in his Sainctes but the Sainctes must haue proper dayes dedicated to their honor alone and vtterly seperated from the honor of Christ. For it satisfieth not Bristow that we keepe holy the annunciation purification of Mary because the one of them sayth he is the conception the other the presentation of Christ. But Papistes keepe her natiuitie visitation conception and assumption which are the proper dayes of our Lady I passe ouer that he affirmeth the assumption of her body as a certaine truth which the very popish lessons songe on that festiuitie leaue in doubt and incline rather to the contrary opinion that the was assumpted onely in soule Likewise that he calleth her the Lady of Saincts and Angels which title the holy Scriptures doe not only not giue vnto her but plainly denye For there is but one Lord Eph. 4. both of men and of Angels which doth not onely exclude all other Lordes of the masculine gender but much more all Ladyes and generally surmounteth all principalitie power Lordship and euery name that is named both in this world and in the world to come Eph 1. 2. The Virgine Mary is therefore no Lady of Sainctes and Angells but a fellow seruaunt of God with them Luke 1 48. Apoc. 22. 9. What excellency soeuer she hath of Gods gift more then any of them That we keepe no solemnitie of S. Lawrens it is not for any contempt of his holines nor for any worship of Iohn Baptist and the Apostles that we solemnize their memories But therein the Churche vseth her libertie as in things indifferent Whereas Bristow doubteth not that if any of vs would once be present at the reuerent solemne doing of the popish Catholike seruice especially at Christmas Easter or such like time but it would melt our stâ—ny harts with ioye c. He bewrayeth many poyntes of follye at once For first many thousands of vs haue bene present and with greefe of hart haue seene and beheld the doing of those Idolatrous solemnities Secondly he declareth how he him selfe is caried away with piping singing sensing and swinging in copes c so that he can not discerne the true worship of God which is in spirite and veritie from the carnall and counterfeit solemnities of Idolatry and superstition Last of all how childishly doth he referre all Catholike solemnitie to the vaine pompe vsed onely in great and Cathedrall Churches when a thowsand paâ—â—shes beside in the poore contrey townes haue all their trashe so beggerly and rudely set forth that the Papistes them selues laughe them to scorne The rest of this motiue is spent in disswading Papists from learning our seruice or sermons or reading of our bookes by which it is plain that he so much mistrusteth his cause that he dare not once permit his disciples to inquire of it or to heare any thing that may be sayd to the contrary As for popishe priestes that say the newe as he termeth it seruice I woulde they woulde followe his councell to saye it no more That it is not lawfull for Christians to communicate with heretiks or Idolaters it is a playne case But it shall neuer be proued that they be heretikes which teach nothing but the doctrine of holy Scripture or that they are Idolaters which are ready to giue their liues rather then to worship Idolls But the yeare of Iubely is a greate motiue for greate fooles to embrace popery which Iubely Pope Boniface the 8. did first institute in the veare of our Lord 1300 by apish or rather deuelish imitation of the fathers of the old testament for filthy lukers sake beside the horrible blashemye of full remission of sinnes graunted by the Pope in that yeare which is denied to be giuen by the death of Christ. As for the Iubely which Bristow speaketh of anno 1575. is of a later institution ordeyned to be kept euery 25. yeare because it was to long for the Pope to tary vntill the hundreth and 50. yeare as Boniface appoynted This is the antiquitie of that Iubely pardon and pilgrimage The miracle which S. Augustine reporteth of Innocentia that was warned in her dreame to desire the first woman which she did meete returning from baptisme at Easter to signe her breast with the signe of the crosse on which was a canker for cure of which she had longe prayed vnto God declareth in deede the vertue of Christ which can vse all meanes to worke health where it pleaseth him but nothing at all maketh for popery For if it hath pleased God at any â—yme to worke wonders by the signe of the crosse it followeth not thereof ether that the signe of the crosse hath any vertue in it more then that hemme of Christes garment had by which a woman also was healed or els that an ordinary ceremonye is to be made of signing
with the crosse more then of touchinge the hemme of anye garment In the 22. demaunde he asketh whether in the most auncient seruice of the primitiue Church there was not alwayes prayer for the deade and to Saynctes the ceremonies vsed by Papistes in baptisme c. I answere no. Cyprian whome he quoteth Ep. 66. speaketh not of prayer for the deade in any place but of oblation for the falling a sleepe that is thankes giuing for the departure of the deade and naming them in the prayers of the Church which dyed in the faith of Christ and in obedience of the Church In the tyme of Eusebius that errour of praying for the deade was in deede receyued in many places of the Churche which beganne first amonge the Montanists The ceremonies of exufâ—lation and exorcisme were not idlely vsed in the primitiue Church as they are of the Papistes but when the persons to be baptised were sensibly possessed with deuills as appeareth in Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 7. ad Magnum Likewise where he demaund th whether we reade at any tyme when Masse did first come into the Churches I aunswere if by Masse he meaneth that popish forme of sacrificing which they vse and call Masse we reade of euery parte of it when and by what Pope it came in By Masse he meaneth the doctrine of the carnall presence transubstantiation adoration of the sacrament and making it a sacrifice propitiatory for the quicke and the deade I aunswer that we reade all these heresies to haue crept into the Church of Rome since the first six hundreth yeares And as for the substance of the canon being contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles is easie to be proued that it came not from the Apostles beside that some of them ascribe it to Gregory and Gregory him selfe to Scholasticus so that being of some antiquitie it conteyneth in it matter repugnant euen vnto the popish heresies For first it calleth the coÌ„secrated breade and wine the sacrifices and offereth them for the whole Church Secondly after consecration it calleth the Sacrament Panem sanctum vitâ—e aeternae calicem salutis aeternae holye breade of eternall life and cuppe of eternall health of the giftes of God and prayeth God to accept it as the sacrifice of Abell Thirdly the priest prayeth that God will commaund â—â—â—â— same to be caried by an Angellinto his high alter c. Fourthly he prayeth for all them that haue receyued the same sacrament with him which can not stand with a priuate Masse Finally that it came not euidently of the Apostles as Bristow impudently affirmeth it may be euideÌ„tly seene by this that diuerse Sainctes are named in it which liued more then two hundreth yeares after the Apostles as Cosmus Damiaius c. And that we are able to finde more fault with it then with Gloria Patri Te Deum c. it is plentifully declared by many volumes and namely by Bishop of Sarum in his sermon and defence of the same against Harding The 33. motiue is the 21. demaund Ecclesiasticall monuments and liuings Churches the worke of the Catholikes Vniuersities of heretikes and Catholikes Protestants be vsurpers of other mens liuings Although a great number of churches that are now standing were builded by Papistes and for Popery yet not all For the chiefest and most auncient Cathedrall churches were neither builded by Papistes nor for Popery but by Christian Princes and for the vse of Christian religion Of such churches writeth Euseb. in vita Const. lib. 30. Hist. Eccl. lib. 10. cap. 4. where was but one table or altare which was remoueable made of bords placed in the midest of the Church contrary to the popish fashion which hath many Altars and all againste walles or pillers and the chiefest against the farthest wall most commonly It is a fonde reason of Bristowe that they were built for Popery because they are builte in length to the East or in forme of a Crosse. For many are built rounde and those with crosse Iles are moste vnmeete for masse at the high Altar which they that sit in the crosse Yles cannot see Likewise Bede whome Bristowe in the demaunde without shame doth quote for the contrary testifieth that the churches of the Romaines lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaking of Niua one that was brought vp at Rome which at a place called Candida casa now Whiterne Made a Church of stone of an other facion then the Britans were wont to build These are y e words of Bede of Stapletons translation And concerning the founding of Ecclesiasticall liuings and Vniuersities we know that the first dotation of Churches was by Christian Princes what if superstition hath added any thing to them Nether the building of Churches not the founding of liuings and Vniuersities doth proue the builders or founders to be of good religion not yet coÌ„demne the vsers of such Churches liuings and Vniuersities of vsurping or sacriledge The idolatrous Church of Pantheon at Rome was turned into Maria rotunda Gregory councelled Augustine to conuert the Idolatrous Churches of the Saxons to the vse of Christian religion Beda lib. 1. cap. 30. The Vniuersitie of Athens founded by heaâ—hen Philosophers was after frequented by Christian schollers as testifieth Gregory Nazianzene in Monod And if we beleue our English stories y e liuings of the Idolatrous Flamines Arch Flamines was conuerted to the mayntenancs of the Bishops and ArchBishops The 34. motiue is the 23. demaund Heretikes are apes of the Catholikes The Churches learning and wisedom The Communion booke an apish imitation of our Masse booke The maner of Apes is to counterfeit and follow visible actions without any meaning or profit Such imitation haue we none but the apish Church of Rome is ful of such following of the gestures of Christ in their masse and other ceremonies Yea they counterfeit the voice of Pilate Iudas in reading the gospel on Palme Sonday They play the apes of the Primitiue Church in coniuring the deuil in baptisme Yea they be the apes of Aaron the leuitical Priestes in their robes sensing sacrificing The very Pagans they follow in ceremonies festiuities as their owne Durand confesseth In whose Rationale diuinorum you may see the learning wisdom of the popish Church for all their mischieuous mysteries As for vs we imitate nothing that they doe to get commendation by similitude of their doings but rather we abhorre whatsoeuer hath but a shew of popery if we vse any thing rightly which is abused of them we are not therefore apes of them but they apes of the auncient fathers whose doctrine we doe truely follow as they vainely imitate and in imitation falsely peruert their examples That the communion booke is an apish imitation of the masse booke is a most shamelesse lye For what similitude hath our ministration of the communion with their masse any more then our doctrine with theirs If any thinge in ceremonies or discipline haue bene tollerated not
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
are made according to that which is namely the trueth set foorth in the holy Scriptures not according to that which euery foole will fondly suppose or imagine The 44. Motiue is the 49. demaund The Church that all Chrsstes enemies fight against Englande ioyneth with Christes enemyes againste Christendome VVhat Religion the Iowes impunge as the Religion of Christ. Christ is to bee beleeued for conuerting of Emperours and powers from their Idols to serue his seruauntes The Church is euerlasting and visible Saincte Augustines motiue Emperors turned from their Idols and praying at Peeters sepulchre and the Christianitie of humane lawes Sainct Augustine of our Religion Protestants bee of many olde heresies The popish Church was not persecuted by the heathen Emperous but the Catholike church of Christ The popish Church is not of so great antiquitie that shee had then any shewe in the worlde although the misterie of iniquitie did then woorke and euen in the Apostles time The Heathens Turks and Iewes doe no more hate the popish church then they doe the church of God which is in England The warres against the Turke be at this day maintained by the states of Germany which are of our religioÌ„ aswel as by the Papists That there is no publike ayde sent against the Turk out of England it is not in any allowaunce of Turkish religion but because the state seeth it not necessary neither was there any publike ayde sente an hundreth yeeres be ore the reuolte from Papistrie And yet euen in the Queenes maiesties raigne there hath gone ayde out of England against Soliman which died at the siege of Segesto where diuers noble Gentlemen of Englande goinge on their owne charges as Bizia testifieth wan more true glory then they that 2. or 3. hundred yeeres before vpon a superstitious vowe were signed with the crosse to fight against the Saracens for the possession of the earthly Ierusalem How often shall I aunswer that the first christian Emperours were not conuerted from Idolatry to Christianitie by the popish Church but the later Christian Emperours by her haue bene peruerted from the true worship of God vnto Idolatry That the Emperours being conuerted from Idolatry did pray at Peter the fishermans sepulchre as Augustine sayth it sheweth the vertue of y e Gospel of Christ that had made so great alteration in them but nothing at all proueth the authoritie or any error of the popish Church for Augustine sayth not that they prayed vnto Peter but at the sepulcher of Peter meaning in the Church that was builded vpon the place that was supposed to be the buriall of Peter The lawes that those Emperours made against Idolaters may well serue against the Papistes w c are as grosse in all kindes of Idolatry as the Gentills for the most part were Finally it was not y e popish Church but the Church of Christ that suppressed the heresies of the Arrians Sabellians Nestorians c. But Iouinian did let out of hell Priestes and Nunnes mariage which gate not the Church of Protestantes but our Church sayth Bristow hath stopped The Church that striued against Iouinian was nether for mariage of Priestes of whom many thowsands were maryed in that tyme yea and a thowsande yeares after nor yet for mariage of such as had vowed virginitie and could not contayne when both Epiphanius the hatchet of heresies and Hierome that greatest aduersary of Iouinian agree that they ought to marye Epiph. cont Apostolicoshaer 61. Hierom ad Demetriadem Nether were Epiphanius Philaster and Augustine which disalow the opinion of Aerius concerning prayers for the dead members of the popish church for this one error which they held seeing they hold the principall substance of religion against the Papists and agreeable to the word of God That Bristow sayth in the demaund VVe count Turkes Iewes and very Atheistes for our frendes and all that be not Papistes it is a most detestable slaunder The Anabaptistes burned in Smithfield were no Papistes the blasphemer of Christ lately burned at Norwiche was no Papist whose sharpe execution sheweth that heretikes blasphemers and Atheistes when they are discouered finde no friendship at the handes of Christes Church but such as they deserue Finally the Easterne Church which of long tyme hath bene separated from the Romish communion hath as great enemies of the Turkes heathen and Iewes as the Popish Church hath yet will not the Papistes allow it for the Catholike Church The 45. motiue conteyneth the 31. 32. 33. 40. demaundes Euer visible and Catholike Vniuersalitic Antiquitie Consent Protestants were neuer before this tyme. They are ashamed of their fathers Hus was not a Protestant VVicklefe was not a Protestant VVicklefe condemned by Melancthon Prophecy for our religion No Scripture against the Catholikes but all for them Here is nothing but the old popish bragge of vniuersalitie antiquitie and consent which is as easily denied as it is allwayes alleaged without proofe Sauing that in the demaundes they are sundered as though euery one of them without the other two were a sufficient triall of truth which nether Vincentius nor Optatus nor Augustine nor any that vsed this argument did euer meane But that is truth which being most auncient hath at all tymes of all true Christians by general consent bene receyued But this can not be proued of any one error of poperye For if any of these three be omitted the argument is of no force to proue truth All nations by generall consent embraced Idolatrie yet was the true worship of God which was knowen onely in Iurye the more auncient The worship of Iupiter was more auncient then the honor of Christ shewed in the flesh and more vniuersally receyued but not of the true worshippers of God As for generall councells which in the demaund of consent he sayth to be all against the Protestants he is not able to shewe one approued generall councel that was held within six hundreth yeares after Christ that decreed any thing contrary to that which we beleue in any poynt But confessing that in many ages some there haue bene in some poyntes of our opinion yet he sayth we can shewe no lyneall succession but leape from Luther to Christ without any recorde of our religion in all the meane tyme hauing no monument of such Church nether in leafe or lyne of seruice booke As one that loueth antiquities well I would fayne see what leaues the Papistes can shewe of their seruice bookes to proue a lyneall descâ—nt from Christ to Pope Gregory the 13 when Bristow sweareth perdie to agree in all poyntes with Pope Leo the tenth which was in Luthers tyme some of their seruice being made by Thomas Aquinas some by Fulbertus some taken out of Beda some out of Gregory some out of Augustine some out of Hieronyme some out of Iohn Chrysostom and of Ambrose and the eldest I thinke not of Origen which argueth nether antiquitie nor vniuersalitie to stand with the popish seruice as for
because they are found in some holy men as in S. Athanasius Epiphanius Augustine c. Although these opinions are but fewe in comparison of so many articles of religion in whiche we dissent from the Papistes which if they coulde be founde in heretikes we should soone heare of them yet what Logike is in this conclusion of Bristow you shall see by examples of the like and euen of the same heretikes Aerius as Augustine reporteth out of Philastre did also receiue into his felowship none but suche as wete continent and had so renounced the worlde that they possessed nothing in common likewise they abstayned from fleshe The very same doth Bernarde report of the heretikes called Apostolike that they rereuerenced mariage and abstayned from all flesh and whitemeates In canti ser. 66. This diuelishe seede prophecied before to be the note of Antichristian hypocrites grew in many heretikes before the time of the Papistes and not these only but many other also Worshipping of Images in Carpocratians Ep. 1. lib. 1. T. 2. prefat contr Gnostic 27. 29. The superstitious estimacion of the crosse in the Valentinians Epiph. Ho. 31. Transubstantiation of the wine into blood in Marcus and the Marcosians Ireâ—aeus lib. 1 cap. 9. Prayer for the deade in the Montanistes Tert. de Monon de Anima c. Inuocation of Angells in the Caianites and many other Popishe plantes were first sowne by the deuill in elder heretikes And yet were this no good argument to confute these opinions or errors because they are founde in heretikes except they were found to be contrarie to the word of God All is no heresie whatsoeuer an heretike hath affirmed for there was neuer heretike but affirmed much truth neither is all truth that is affirmed by euery Sainct and holy man for not one of the ancient writers but is acknowledged to haue affirmed some vntruth Only the holy Scripture ought to haue this preheminence as Augustine sayth that it may iudge of all sayings and writings it selfe being iudged of none because it is the word of God which can not erre or be deceaued Cont. Crescon gram lib. 2. cap. â—â— But Bristowe hath Scripture to proue that he which denyeth prayer for the dead being found among the Arrians Anabaptists can not choose but be bouÌ„d in bundells with them and cast into the fire Mat. 13. In deede he that is an Arrian or Anabaptist shal not escape for denying prayer for the deade But the Angells that are the reapers are not so vnskilfull but that they can discerne true Christians denying the abuse of prayers for the dead which the Scripture doth not admit from blasphemous heretikes among a great number of falsehoodes affirming some truth But it is a sore matter that he sayth The verie worst sorte of heretikes of this time as the Anabaptistes Trinitaries yea the verie Epicures and Atheistes were first Protestantes ye such they be and will seeme to be still He had spoken more truly if he had sayd they were first Papistes But what heretikes and Atheistes woulde seeme to be it is no dishonor to our cause seeing all hypocrits would seeme to be true Christians That only Papistes are troubled in our countrie and all other sectes tollerated and mainteyned the publike execution and punishment of Anabaptistes and other blasphemous sectes as the Familie of Loue c. doth playnly proue to be false and Bristow to be a shamelesse slaunderer The 47. motiue is the 50. demaund Sure to continue The church is euerlasting and visible Protestants do decay and shall come to nothing The churches continuaunce S. Augustines motiue England beware destruction Luther was a false Prophet I neede not to shewe how often and how vainly Bristowe repeateth one thing to make a great number of motiues The euerlasting continuaunce of the true church hath bene seuen times at least before alleaged But neither is it proued that the Popish church is that true church nor yet that any sect or companie which shall continewe to the ende of the worlde is the Catholike church of Christ. For although Antichrist is and shall be more and more consumed with the breath of the Lordes mouth which is his holie worde yet shall he not be altogether abolished vntill the ende of the worlde Yea at the ende of the worlde as our Sauiour Christ sayeth fayth shall be verie scant and hard to be founde and iniquitie shall haue the vpper hande Therefore there shall be a great church of malignant hypocrytes euen to the ende of the worlde It is true therefore that Christes church is sure to continewe but not whatsoeuer sect shall continew is thereby proued to be Christes true church How vayne his bragge is that Protestantes doe decaye and shall come to nothing by their dayly increase in all partes of the world God be thanked may be seene to all men Likewise how true it is which he affirmeth that Papistes doe increase and to such numbers euen in Englande that there are more Papistes nowe then when the Gospell was first preached notwithstandinge so many yeares preaching of vs and large silence of them who liuing in Englande can be ignoraunt I confesse there are too many obstinate Papistes in Englande whome none of Bristowes motiues hath either moued vnto Poperie or confirmed therein but onely great tolleration and lenitie which is vsed in these times But if such seueritie were vsed nowe as in times past the Pope shoulde not haue many confessors in Englande to glorie of And to say the truth what one of these Papistes dare professe what he thinketh of the Popes auctoritie because the lawe is somewhat sharpe in that poynt If the like lawe were of hearing masse we should haue as fewe suffer for masse as for the supremacie But to returne to our motiue S. Augustine doth well to send Honoratus the Manichee to followe that way of Catholike doctrine which from Christ him selfe by the Apopostles is descended vnto vs and from hence to posteritie shall descende De vtilit cred cap. 8. But that it is not the way of all Popish doctrine which neuer came from Christ nor his Apostles nor the most auncient church And if the tradition be vncerteyne how shall we know what came from Christ and his Apostles but that which we finde in the Gospell of Christ and the Epistles of his Apostles But the same Augustine sayeth Bristow biddeth the simple Donatistes to Number the Priestes euen from the verie seate of Peter and in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded That same is the rocke which the prowde gates of Hell doe not ouercome P. S. contra Donatistas Augustine speaketh of the Catholike church which was the vine whereof the Church of Rome at that tyme was but a growing braunch For a litle before he sayth Scitis Catholica quid sit quid sit precisum a vite You knowe what the Catholike church is and what is that which is cut of from the vine But if
particularly to euerie one of them sheweing whether it be a true and proper note of the church and if it be that it belongeth to vs and not to them Although Bristow say that this way we know full well that they shall haue the victorie flying therefore euermore to our weake false castle of only Scripture That the scripture onely is our castle we do gladly admitte but that the same is a most strong true impugnable castle none but a blasphemous heretike will deny But you must saith Bristow still labour to get them if you can with their consent out of the castle into the plaine fieldes aforesayde to make them graunt expressely that there in your handes they can not stande Nay Bristow you must beate vs from our castell if you can for we will neuer consent to goe out of it for defense except it be to offer you the aduauntage not in the playne fieldes as you cal it but among your pettie piles and small holdes And so we haue done often So did that reuerende father the Bishoppe of Salisburie in that noble challenge wherein you were shamefullie foyled in your owne grounde and many of your fortes beaten about your eares But you doe not well to teach your schollers to seeke a gentle aduersarie to fight withall which must first of all be willing to laye downe his sworde and shielde and then you are good enough for him with your manlie motiues with which when you haue treandled him about like a tenis ball you sende him backe agayne to his castell of onely Scripture to see whether they will beare him out in his opinions For example is not this Scripture manifest inough on your side and agaynst vs This is my body This is my blood Mat. 26. Verily euen as plaine as this They did all eate the same spirituall meate They all dronke of the rocke that followed theÌ„ y e rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10. They are both one maner of speaking and both of one matter Therefore they haue both one meaning The second exaÌ„ple is By works a man is iustified not by faith only Iac. 2. And this is also Scripture knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Lawe but by faith of Iesus Christ Gâ—lat 2. And agayne by grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast The later being in maner of speaking contrarie to the former text doe playnly shewe that these two Apostles speake not both of one kinde of faith or iustification But that Iames speaketh of a dead faith as his wordes are playne Vers. 17. and of iustification before men Paule of a liuing faith and of iustification in the sight of God The third example is out of Iames 5. Where I must first note that Bristow in translation doth manifestly corrupt falsefie the Scripture The Latine is Infirmatur quis in vobis If any amongest you be daungerously sicke let him send for the Priests of the church and they to pray ouer him anealing him with oyle in the name of our Lord c. First Bristow addeth this word daungerously of his owne heade which is neither in the Greeke nor vulgare Latine text to draw the text of Iames violently to their popish greasing which they vse only when a man is desperatly sicke and past hope of recouerie in theiâ— iudgement Whereas Iames speaketh generally of any kinde of sickenes wherewith any of the faithfull were molested Secondly Bristowe leaueth out the wordes following which are these and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke person and the Lord shall restore him or raise him vp the Latine is alleâ—iabit shall ease him which wordes declare that the Apostle speaketh not of a perpeâ—uall Sacrament of the church but of a ceremonie vsed by them that had a speciall gift of healing the sicke in the primitiue Churche whiche ceremonie must needes cease with the gift except it be among apes that practise outward gesture and actions without effect The other two examples out of the 2. of Machabees the one of praying for the deade the other of Ieremie praying for the people are no partes of the castell of Canonicall Scripture and therefore with other errours in the same bookes I omit them The last exaÌ„ple is out of Genesis 48. The saying of Iacob the Patriarke of Iosephs two childreÌ„ God who hath fed me from my youth euen to this day The Angell who hath deliuered me out of all aduersities blesse these children which is sayth Bristow as if one would say God and our Ladie blesse them Nay rather God by Iesus Christ blesse them for what other Angell but Christ the Angell of the great councell was the deliuerer of Iacob which when he wrestled with him in a vision and mystery Gen. 32. he doubted not to call God Euen the same Angell which led the children of Israel through the wildernes whoÌ„ S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth Christ who was not an Angel by nature but by office in that as the Mediator he was sent to deliuer the people before he came in the flesh But if we should vnderstand the Angell of whom Iacob speaketh for soÌ„e priuate Angel appointed of God to protect him yet is it not as if one would say now God our Lady blesse theÌ„ For that God vseth the ministery of Angels to defend prosper his seruaunts but not the ministery of Saincts in heaueÌ„ for any such purpose that we can learne by the holy Scriptures Iacob might therfore pray y t God would send his Angell to protect those children euen as he had done for him As for that vaine brag that all Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalipse is for theÌ„ against vs is nothing els but a false alarme as though he woulde on all sides assalt our castel of only Scriptures wheras he purposeth nothing lesse But this can not be borne that he sayeth some places of Scripture be so playne against vs that we can not aunswere them but by plucking the pen of the holy Ghost out of his hand that wrote theÌ„ meaning that we deny the auctority of such books as be not Canonicall the Machabees especially But this he sayth can not be For either they are proued muâ—ncibly to be of the holy Ghostes indighting or no Scripture at all is proued to be suche as you may remember the common saying of S. Augustine Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I shoulde not beleue the Gospell it selfe vnlesse the Catholike Churches auctoritie did compell What shall I say to this impudent blasphemer that alloweth none other tryall of holy Scripture but the authoritie of the Church because Augustine supposing that hee were an Heathen Againe sayth he would not beleeue the Gospell except the authoritie of the Church with other thinges did moue him his woorde is Commoueret whiche Bristowe not so ignorauntly as
diuinitie Hosius sayth that this commaundement of Christe Drinke ye all of this beeing vnderstoode doth appertaine vnto laye men contrary to their Churches determination is the expresse worde of the Deuill And for departing from the faith of the Fathers c. I aunswere it is false there is but one true Faith of all true Christians in al times from which wee will neuer departe although wee haue departed from some erroneous opinions of some fathers which because they are contrary to the woorde of God by hearing whereof Faith commeth they deserue not the name of Faith Finally whereas hee sayth the authoritie of the Church is the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures it is vntrue For although he should meane not the popish Sinagogue butthe true catholike church of Christ yet is it not the onely witnesse of the Scriptures For euen the Iewish Synagogue is witnesse of the olde testament and many sectes of heresies of all the scripture beside that the spirit of God is the chiefe and principall witnes of all which speaketh so euidently in allthe canonical scripture that if all mē on earth should refuse to giue credite vnto them yet his maiestie alone is sufficient to get credite vnto them especially with all those whome he teacheth inwardly in heart as he speaketh sensibly to their eares The last argument is That in place of all Religion and goodnes which they haue remoued deuising a new Gospel of their foresaid onely vaine fayth which teacheth all sinnes all heresies to presume of saluation What can bee more impudent or false then this slaunder seeing God and the worlde knoweth that wee teach none other Faith but the fayth of the Gospell which worketh by loue and promiseth remission of sinnes and saluation to none but such as earnestly repent and are willing to remoue all heresie and to imbrace all true Christian Religion and goodnesse God be praysed A DISCOVERY OF THE DAVNGEROVS ROCKE OF THE POPISH CHVRCH lately commended by Nicholas Sanders D. in diuinitie at which the Catholike Church of Christ hath bene in perill of shipwracke these many hundreth yeares By W. Fulke D. in diuinitie THE eternal rocke of the vniuersal Church Christ was the rocke an other foundation no man is able to put 1. Cor. 3. 10. The temporall rocke of the Militant Church Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will build my Church Mat. 16. SPaule speaketh manifestly 1. Cor. 3. of building of the Church Militant and Christ Mat. 16. speaketh of an eternall rocke against the which the gates of hell shall not preuayle Therefore your distinction of eternall and temporall vniuersall and militant which is the foundation of all your rotten rocke is an impudent and blasphemous falshood Of the continuance of your temporall rocke it is in vaine to contende when your rocke is nothing els but an heape of sande and dunge whereon your popishe Church is builded To the right worshipfull M. Doctor Parker bearing the Saunder name of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to all other Protestants in the Realme of England Nicolas Sander wisheth perfect faith and charitie in our Lorde declaring in this preface that the Catholikes whome they call Papistes doe passe the Protestants in all maner of signes or markes of Christes true Church Concerning the omission of titles accustomed to be giuen to the Archbishop of Canterbury for which you excuse your selfe I thinke M. D. Parker while he liued did not much esteeme them giuen to him by any man and least of all looked to receyue them at suche mens handes as you are but touching the religion church whereof he was a minister I will aunswer you in his behalfe and of all other ministers and members thereof that no excuse will serue you vpon so slender reasons as you bringe to condemne the same of schisme and heresie nor to defend that Synagogue of Satan wherof you professe your selfe to be a Champion to be the vndefiled Church and spouse of Christ. For thinke you M. Sanders that we wil more mislike the Church of Christ persecuted by the hypocriticall crueltie of Antichrist for the space of 5. or 6. hundreth yeares before our age then we do the same persecuted by the furious rage of Heathenish tyrantes for 300. yeares after the first planting of the same amonge the Gentills And thinke you if we are now to learne that all that glory and bright shining of Christes Church promised by the Prophets is spirituall and not carnall heauenly and not earthly eternal not transitory Or that we know not your synagogue to be the very contrary kingdome and sea of Antichrist euen by that outward glory and glistering pompe of open shewe that you boast of according to the prophecy of Christ in the reuelation Apoc. 13. 17. And as for the citie built vpon an hill whereof you haue neuer doone babling by the playne context of the Gospel is not the whole Church but euery true pastor and minister thereof who are also the light of the worlde the salt of the earth and a candle set on a candlesticke to giue light not hiden vnder a bushell to be vnprofitable Mat. 5. And Christ hath alwayes bene with his Church although the Church of Rome be departed from him and he both liueth raigneth for euer ouer the house of Iacob though he be persecuted in his mēbers by the whore of Babylon and his name is great amonge the Gentilles from the Sunne rising to the going downe thereof notwithstanding that all nations haue dronke of the cuppe of her fornications The prophecyes of Gods spirit doe not one of them ouerthrow the other but the one sheweth how the other is to be vnderstanded And whereas you say our Church hath bene vnder a bushell before these fiftie yeares because no historie maketh mention of any congregation professing our faith in any townes or places of diuers cōtryes at once I aunswer this is as true as all your doctrine beside For all auncient histories that write of the state of the primitiue Church make mention of the same faith which we professe And although towarde the reuelation of Antichrist the puritie of the faith beganne to be polluted yet the substance thereof continued vntill by Antichrist that great defection apostasie was made wherof the Apostle prophecyeth 2. Thess. 2. 3. And yet euen in the tyme of that a postasie many histories make mention of the continuance of our faith and Church in diuers contryes in Europe namely England Fraunce Italy or although vnder cruell persecution and tyranny beside great nations of the East which neuer submitted them selues to the Church of Rome and yet retayned the substance of Christian faith and profession though not without particular errors and superstition Wherefore although they that were blind or farre of from the Church of Christ could not see her glory although she had bene set vpon neuer so high an hill no more then a citie built vpon the Alpes can
will proue that it is first with the Papistes For if by Gods word we meane the written letter of the Bible they are before vs because we haue none assured copies thereof which we receyued not of them for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered Gods word to the Romaines the Church of Rome hath alwayes kept it without leesing or corrupting I aunswer we meane not by Gods worde the written letter onely but receyuing and obeying the true and playne sense thereof to be the marke of the Church Againe I deny that we had any assured copies of the olde and new testament of the popish Church but the one of the Iewes in Hebrue the other of the Greeke Church in Greeke And whereas he talketh of a certayne daye in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered the Scripture to the Romains it sauoreth altogether of a popish fable finally how the Romish Church in these last dayes hath kept the Scripture from corruption although I coulde shew by an hundreth examples yet this one shall suffice for all the very first promise of the Gospell that is in the Scripture Gen. 3. that the seede of the woman shoulde breake the serpents heade the popish Church hath ether willfully corrupted or negligently suffered to be depraued thus ipsa conteret caput iuum she shall breake thyne heade referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressely to the seede of the woman The second marke is that the Papistes acknowledge more of the Bible then we doe by the bookes of Toby Iudeth Wisedom Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees I aunswer in that you adde vnto the word of God it is a certayne argument that you are not the true Church of Christ for the true Church of Christ hath euer accompted those bookes for apocryphall witnesse hereof Hieronym praef in prouerb Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritateÌ„ EcclesiasticoruÌ„ dogmatum confirmandam Therefore as the Church doth in deede reade the bookes of Iudith Tobias and of the Machabees but she receyueth them not among the canonicall Scriptures so she may reade these two bookes meaning the booke of Wisedom and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall opinions Nether is Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. whoÌ„ M. Sander quoteth of any other iudgement but prescribeth rules how the canonicall Scriptures are to be knowne And cont Gaudent epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesseâ—h plainely that the booke of Machabees is not accompted of the Iewes as the law the Prophets and the Psalmes which our Sauiour Christ admitteth as his witnesses yet it is receyued of the Church if it be read or heard soberly Whereby it is manifest that the Church in his tyme receyued it not absolutely as part of the Canonicall Scripture but vnder condition of a sober reader or hearer As for the decree ascribed to Gelasius it hath no sufficient credit of antiquitie and much lesse the late councels of Florence and Trent which he quoteth Beside that the same decree of Gelasius admitting but one booke of Esdras excludeth the Canonicall booke of Nehemias and receyueth but one booke of the Machabees which will doe the Papistes but small pleasure The third marke the popish Church receyueth not only the hebrue text of the old testament the greeke of the new but also the greeke translation of the septuaginta and the common Latine translation to be of full authoritie whereas we giue small credit to those translations except they agree with the first Hebrue and Greeke copies Therefore the Papists haue Gods word in more authenticke tongues and copies then we haue I aunswer The Tridentine councell alloweth none for authenticall but the common Latine translation that is the worst of all but in that the popish Church admitteth differing translations from the originall truth of the Hebrue and Greeke text to be of full authoritie with the truth it appeareth plainely that she is not the Church of Christ which ether willfully confoundeth error with truth or els lacketh the spirite of discretion to know the one from the other And for more authentike copies it is impudently sayd that the Papistes doe receiue for we receiue not onely all these which he nameth but also the most auncieÌ„t Chaldee Paraphrastes the Syrian text of the new testament yea the Arabicall text of the whole Bible beside all vulgare translations of English French Dutch Italian Spanish which the Papistes can not abide All those I saye we receyue as authenticall copies for Christian men to vse but so that the tryall of all translations be made by the originall truthe of the Hebâ—ue and Greeke texts in which tongue the olde and newe Testament were first written Fourthly the Papistes doe translate and expounde Gods worde in all maner of tongues better then we because they haue not onely internall vocation but also externall vocation and commission from the Apostles by lyneall succession of Bishops and Preestes whereas we haue no commission but â—rom the common wealth which hath none authoritie to make Preestes c and yet how shall they preache if they be not sent Rom. 10. I aunswer concerning translations of the word of God into all tongues I neuer saw any nether is there any translation to be shewed of any Papist into any vulgare tongue And as for the externall calling of the Papistes I say it is not from any lawfull succession of the Apostles and auncient Church whose faith and doctrine they do not follow in their interpretations for if lyneall succession of Priestes and Bishops coulde make interpretations good the doctrine of Arius Nestorius Macedonius and many other heretikes whose externall calling was according to the lyneall and ordinary succession of Bishops and Priestes might be auctorised for Catholike Yea the Papistes might not refuse whatsoeuer Luther Bucer Cranmer and other haue taught which had the same lyneall succession that M. Sander doth nowe bragge of And as for our externall calling he sayth falsly it is of the common weale c whereas it is of the Church and therefore ordinarye and lawfull and the saying of S. Paule whom he citeth Rom. the tenth is of the inward calling and sending by God whereof our doctrine agreeable with the Scripture and our whole intent to set forth the glory of God is a sufficient profe the one to satisfie men the other to aunswer our owne conscience Fiftly he sayth it is no perfection at all on our side that we reade Gods word to the people in our Church seruice in the vulgare tongue for thereby we lacke the vse of the better tongues as of the Greeke and Latine O maister of impudencie what vse is there of the Greeke and Latine tongues to be read to the people
that vnderstande them not And why are those the better tongues he sayth they were sanctified on Christes crosse for all holy vses and especially to serue God in the tyme of sacrifice But howe were they sanctified I pray you For sooth because Pilate wrote the title in Hebrue Greeke and Latine that it might be vnderstoode of all nations for what cryme he was condemned And is Pilate nowe become a sanctifier of tongues for Gods seruice is the malicious scorne of an heathen tyrant a sanctification of these tongues O brasen foreheads of shameles Papistes But heare more yet of this impudent stuffe This sanctification was the cause that the Apostles in the East and West deliuered these tongues alone as holy learned and honorable not regarding the infinite multitude of prophane and barbarous tongues whereof it came that the East Church was called the Greeke Church the West the Latine Church But the Scripture Acts the second doth teach vs that the holy Ghost hath sanctified all tongues of all nations to the praysing of God and that the Apostles deliuered the magnifical prayses of God in all languages Act. 2. 11. And although the Greeke and Latine tongues were most vsed most commonly vnderstoode in the Romane Empire yet the Church of Christ was enlarged farther then euer the Romane Empire extended in Persia Armenia AEthiopia India c. where there was no knowledge ether of the Greke or Latine tongues And euen in the Romain Empire those nations to whome the Latine Greeke tongues were not vulgare vsed their Church seruice in other tongues Hieronym in epitaphio Paulae ad Eustochium telleth that at the solemne funeralls of Paule euery nation that was present did singe their Psalmes in order in their owne language Hebraeo Graeco Latino Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant In the Hebrue Greeke Latine and Syrian speache the Psalmes were songe in order But seeing Maister Sander alloweth none other sanctification of the tongues but Pilates title on the crosse how is the Hebrue tongue which was one of the three and the most principall as the first tongue of the worlde and for the excellencye therof called the holy tongue how is that I say shut out from Church seruice why was there not an Hebrue seruice established by the Apostles as well as the Greeke and Latine But yet he bringeth another argument to proue that it is lawfull to reade seruice to the people in a tongue w c they vnderstaÌ„d not by the exaÌ„ple of Christ who in time of his sacrifice did recite the beginning of the 21 Psalme My God my God why hast thou forsaken me in y e Hebrue tongue which he knew the people did not vnderstand and did not interprete the same in the vulgar tounge Good Lord into what foollishnes doth satan carry their minds that wilfully striue against the truth For what reason is this Christ in his priuate praier that concerned his owne person spake with a touÌ„g that was not commonly vnderstood therefore the ordinary publike seruice ought to be in a strauÌ„ge toung Christ compassed about with his enemyes none within the hearing of him but the virgine Mary Iohn the Euangelist â—â—â—â— loued him or regarded him spake Hebrue therefore the Prieste in the church must speake Latine or Greeke But when M. Sand. hath played with this argument as long as he can his antecedent is vtterly false for Christe resited not that texte of the Psalme in the Hebrue but in the Syrian toung which was the vulgar tounge vnderstood and spoken of all the people as is manifestly proued by the word Sabacâ—tani reported by both the Euangelists Mat. 27. Mark 15. Which is of the Syrian tounge whereas the Hebrue texte is Hazabtani as I report me to all that can but read two tounges Hebrue and Syrian And whereas the malicious Hel-houÌ„ds said he called for Elias it was not because they vnderstood him not but because they most dispightfully mocked his most vehement praier taking occasion of the like sound of the name of God of Elias as scornefull deriders vse to doe Sixtly lest the Protestants should passe the Papistes in any one iote they haue the vse of the vulgar tongues in Dalmatia Assyria AEthiopia which acknowledge the supremacie of the Byshop of Rome This is a loude lye for neither the church of Dalmatians Moscouites Armenians Assirians AEthiopiaÌ„s nor any other of those East nations that retaine the name of Christe did euer acknowledge the Popes supremacie I knowe they haue fayned Fables of Letters sent from Preto Ioannes and such like which are meere forgeryes vppon the submission of some one poore wanderer that hath come out of those countryes But M. Sand. will shewe the cause why all Nations are not suffered likewise to vse their vulgar tounges in their seruice First he sayeth vulgar tounges cause barbarousnesse for the Preachers of those Countryes vnderstande not the Latine and Greeke tounges by this meanes What an absurde reason this is experience doth shewe For when or where was greater ignorance in the Cleargie then there and at such time as the Latine seruice was vsed How many in all England vnderstoode or coulde read the Greeke toung within these sixtie or eightie yeeres I speake nothing of the Hebrue tounge Contrarywise what age was euer more full of lyberall knowledge in all Sciences and learned tounges then this is euen in England France Germany where seruice is vsed in the vulgar touÌ„ge Theâ—fore the vse of thevulgar touÌ„ge in Church Seruice is not the cause of barbarousnesse The seconde reason is that necessitie inforceth the Apostolike See to tollerate these Nations in their vulgar tounges because they knowe none other but Protestants by schisme are fallen from Latine to Englishe that is from better to worse and therefore not to be tollerated But indeede the necessitie is because they will not receiue your Latine tounge and our schisme is from Antichriste to be ioyned with Christe from whose doctrine the Church of Rome by horrible schisme is departed for what the doctrine of Christe is concerning Publique Prayers in a tounge that is not vnderstoode his Apostle Saincte Paule hath abundauntly taught vs the 1. Corinthes the 14. Chapter Finally we defende that our naturall Engliâ—he tounge is better to ediâ—ie Englishe men then your balde Latine touÌ„ge that you vse in your popish seruice is for any vse of any man learned or vnlearned Seuenthly the Papistes doe not onely consider the written letter but also the plain meaning of euery proposition and as the words doe sound so doe they vnderstand them And heerof he bringeth many exaÌ„ples To this I answere that if they vnderstande all propositions aswel figuratiue as plain proper speaches as the words doe sound they make monstrous interpretations as if they vnderstande this proposition the rock was Christe as the words sound they make a new transubstantiation of the stone into Christ or this This cuppe is the newe Testament
the Sacraments haue not fayth 2. Thess. 3. 2. The 8. marke of the Church if not onely the playne vnderstanding of any one sentence but also the circumstance of the place and the conference of Gods worde be necessary the Papists haue vsed it in euery question For proofe herof M. Sanders referreth vs to his treatise of the supper of the Lord lib. 4. and to his booke of Images cap. 2. 11. in this booke to the ca. 2. 4. I answer you make a light shew for a fashion but you nether coÌ„sider the circumstances rightly nor make any true collation of one place with another as is proued by the answers of these bookes Therefore your Academical conclusion is false hereticall blasphemous that the onely word of God being neuer so well handled is no sufficient marke to shew the truth When Christ sayth Sanctifie them in thy truth Thy word is the truth Ioan. 17. 17. The 9. M. Sander sayth the heads of the Church the councels the Bishops and the auncient fathers must be Iudges whether we do well apply the Scriptures or no as whether S. Peter be the rock which M. Iewel denieth he proueth by 16 doctors afterward cap. 4. of w c proofe we shall consider God willing in due place But whereas M. Sander quoteth Aug. cont Iulian. lib. 2. for his rule of Iudges I say he hath no such rule in that booke onely Augustine doth coÌ„uince the argumeÌ„ts of the Pelagians of nouelty by the iudgemeÌ„t of Iren. Cyprianus Rheuanus Ambrosius c. and other which liued before their time and therefore were no partial iudges so do we conuince the Popish heresies and their argumentes of noueltie not only by the manifest worde of God but also by the testimonie of the most auncient fathers although we may not admit all that they did write to be true euen as the same Augustine being pressed with the auctoritie of Ambrose Chrysostome and Cyprian by the Donatists Pelagians prouoketh from them onely to the Scriptures de nat graâ—cap 61. de vnit eccl cap. 16. cont Crescon lib. 2. cap. 31. de gratia Christ. cap. 43. That the allegation of the fathers suffiseth not of it selfe we agree with Maister Sander but that there is any other triall of the truth theÌ„ Scripture we wil neuer graunt seeing God hath therein deliuered his whole doctrine whatsoeuer is necessarie for vs to beleue that we may be saued Ioh. 20. 31. But the Papistes for the tenth marke ioyne tradition and practise of Gods church which can neuer deceaue amaÌ„ VVe thinke sayth Chrysostom the tradition of the church to be worthie of beleefe Is it a tradition aske no further But howe shall we proue it to be a tradition of the church The Valentinians as I shewed before out of Irenaeus denyed the Scriptures to be sufficient without knowledge of the tradition Therfore to discerne the tradition of â—â—â—â— church from the tradition of the heretikes we haue none other triall but by the Scriptures Therefore Chrysostom saith in 2. Cor. Ho. 3. that S. Paule did write the same thinges which he told them before in preaching As for the vniuersall practise either of the Popes supremacy or of the sacrifice of the masse which he braggeth of shall neuer be proued but the contrarie The eleuenth marke is the auctority of generall couÌ„cells confirming the truth condemning heretikes such he maketh the late councell of Trent to be But we deny that Conciliabulum of a few Popish hypocrits to be a generall councell in which no man should haue a definitiue voyce but they that were accused of heresie and whereof he that is most of all charged with heresie that is the Pope is made the supreme iudge wherefore the Papists haue no lawfull generall councell on their side although generall councells as he confesseth are no sufficient triall of the true church both because they may be hindered many wayes and also because they may erre as did the conncells of Arimine and Ephesus In respect of these considerations he maketh the twelfth marke to be the supremacy of the Pope whichis wholly theirs for triall whereof this booke following was written But for proofe that Christ hath appoynted such a iudge ouer all he citeth Ioan. 21. that Christ coÌ„maunded Peter to feede his sheepe as though that perteyned not to euerie one of the Apostles as much as to Peter Also Lu. 22. that Christ hauing praied that Peters faith might not fayle commaunded him when he was conuerted from his fall to confirme his brethren which perteineth only to the person of Peter and can not with any cable ropes be draweÌ„ to the Bishop of Rome or any successor of Peter for it concerneth his singular full comfort duty in respect of his fall Gods mercy except that according to analogy it may be applied to any man that is so raised after his fall and so that precept confirme thy brethren geueth no speciall commaundemeÌ„t to the Pope but to euery man whom God hath mercifully conuerted as he did Peter With the twelfth marke M. Sander would haue ended but that the Protestantes affirme the lawfull preaching of Gods word and the lawfull administration of the Sacramentes to be a marke whereby they wilbe tried But seeing lawfull preaching ministring must be tried by Gods worde M. Sander first asketh what we call Gods word secondly he asketh if he haue not proued it to be more with theÌ„ theÌ„ with vs whatsoeuer it be It is like this Popishe academicall Atheist hath proued Gods word to be on his side â—â—â—â— wil not haue it certeinly known what Gods word is After this he will proue the Papists to be most lawfull preachers because they are likest to the Apostles in conuerting many nations within these 900. yeres wheÌ„ he sayth no man aliue could once heare vs peepe As though controuersie of nations would argue a true church By which reasons not only the Protestants may nowe proue them selues to be most like the Apostles in conuerting so many nations of Europe but also the Arians and most of all the Mahumetists might proue them selues the true church It is not therfore coÌ„uersion of nations but conuersion of theÌ„ to the true doctrine of the Apostles which maketh vs like the Apopostles the Papistes Arians Mahometists most vnlike vnto them And where he saith that no souÌ„d of ours was heard in 900. yeares space by any man aliue to see how impudeÌ„tly he lyeth read Flaccius Illyricus in catalogo testium veritatis you shal see in all ages what monumeÌ„ts are extant of some few whom God reserued from that generall Apostasie of Antichrist Read also the acts monumentes set forth by M. Foxe you shall see the same most plentifâ—lly He wil proue their administration of the Sacraments to be more lawful then ours because they haue fiue more then we But I answer because they haue fiue more then the
of saluation brought in by the Pope then S. Paule deliuered to the Galathians we hold the Pope theÌ„ iustly accursed But we iustifie them sayth he by the word of God not written I am sure but by your counterfeit word of traditions as you say by bookes of auncient fathers and yet not by bookes of the most auncient fathers in whome is litle or nothing at all of suche drosse and chaffe amonge a great deale of good corne But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like thinges sayth he but keepe the olde humilitie obedience and vnitie is our fault if we haue any O fautles hypocrites if the older truth had neuer bene reuealed vnto you against your olde heresies your faults had bene the lesse but nowe your darkenes being conuinced of the light your pride rebellion and schisme from Christ and his Church is and appeareth most haynous and manifest Now seeing M. Sander dare not encounter with vs in this very poynt of our contention he sayneth an Idoll of an aduersary to shew his manhood vpon before his friendes that they may prayse him for a worthy champion He imagineth that we reply that Luther and Caluine did so change popish religion as Christ and his Apostles did chauÌ„ge the Iewish religion and then he layeth on lode that Luther and Caluines authoritie is not like to Christes whereas we make no such comparison but affirme that these godly preachers were sent of God so to reueale and discouer the idolatry corruptions mayntayned in the Church as Elias Elizeus Oseas and the other Prophets were sent to restore and reforme the true worship of God corrupted and decayed amonge the Israelites reprouing and reforming all thinges according to the infallible rule of Gods worde And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech I say it is horrible blasphemy to make any successors vnto Christ in â—â—â—â— priesthood which the holy Ghost sayth he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as passeth not from him by succession to others because he liueth for euer And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin in Psal. 33. de ciui Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont adu leg lib. 1. cap. 18. reade the places who will and he shall finde that these fathers speake not at all of any propiciatory sacrifice of Christes very body and bloode in the sacrament but of the sacrifice of thankes giuing which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God in the celebration of the holy mysteries for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blinde and obstinate Papists to see the bookes margent paynted with quotations of doctors by them which peraduenture neuer turned the bookes them selues but borowed their quotations of other men But M. Sander sayth whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine doe all things according to Gods worde they are the more to be abhorred not only because the one is contrary to the other but also because they pretende to haue their doings figured and prophecyed in the Gospel whereas there is but one Christ which hath bene borne dyed but once therefore these men haue no power to abrogate the Masse or to take away the key of auncient religion To their dissention I aunswer it is not in many poyntes but in one that not of the greatest weight as for their pretence of theyr doinges to be figured or prophetied in the Gospell it is a dreame of M. Sanders drousie head for they make none such but they shew the abuses of the Romish church by the doctrine of Gods word by the same they shew the way to reforme them and this to the glory of Christ who dyed but once they abrogate the Masse by which it should follow if it were of any force that he should dye often for without death sheding of bloud there is no sacrifice for remission of sinnes Heb. 9. 22. 26. If we deny the Masse to be that they say it is he aunswereth that as he doeth not reade that the Iewish priestes did erre concerning the substance of their publike sacrifice So is it lesse possible that the vniuersall church of Christ should erre in that publike act wherin Christ is sacrificed Here is a wise argument hauing neither head nor foote nor any ioynt to hange togeather For whatsoeuer M. Sander readeth we reade that Vrias the high Priest made an heathenish altar in the Temple at the commaundement of the king Achas offered sacrifice theron 2. Reg. 16. VVe reade also in Iosephus that Caiaphas diuers other of y e high Priestes were Saduces which could not but erre in the substaÌ„ce of their publike sacrifice when they beleued not the resurrection Seeing the end of theyr sacrifices was to signifie y e eternall redâ—ption by Christ. Now to the second parte of the argument I say the vniuersall church dyd not erre though the schismaticall synagogue of Rome departed froÌ„ Christs institutioÌ„ But M. SaÌ„der chafeth vs away with this double negatiue no no maisters Antechrists you may be christ you caÌ„not be Gods curse light on him that would haue any other Christ theÌ„ Iesus the sonne of God Mary which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heaueÌ„ But it is your Antechrist of Rome that vsurpeth not only the office but also receiueth the name of Christ God of his AntechristiaÌ„ Canonists w c I know you will not deny though your face be of brasse because â—â—â—â— boks may be shewed to any maÌ„y list to se theÌ„ After his large excursion he returneth to D. Parker whome he would aduise to reuolt to the popish church but he God be thanked hauing ended his dayes in the catholike church of Christ on earth is now receued into the fellowship of the tryumphant church in heauen I passe ouer how maliciously he â—ayleth against the blessed martyr Tho. Cranmer for defence of whose learning and godlines I refer the reader to his story faithfully set forth by M. Fox All other Archbishops of Canterbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Gregory were of their popish profession Of a great number it is as he sayth but not of all For the opinion of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament was not receiued in the Church of England for two or three huÌ„dereth yeeres after Augustines arriual as that Homely which that reuerend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury caused to be translated and imprinted doth manifestly declare And whereas hee sâ—orneth at the persecuted congregation of Wickleue Husse and the poore men of Lyons boasting of the externall pompe and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church I haue sufficiently aunsweared before that bothe the apostacy of the church of Antichrist the persecution of the church of Christ was so described proficied before that neither the one nor the other should trouble any mans conscience w
t the straungens thereof so long as the trueth of the little flock the falshod of the reuolted multitude are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures The conclusion of all his Preface is that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superfluous Yea verely all Scriptures Doctors and Councelles be needlesse where there is such a person alwaies at hand who cannot erre in any thing that he commandeth men to beleeue or doe And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures doctors couÌ„cels Learning Tounges c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth But what saye you M. Sander did there neuer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre Was that See neuer voyde many dayes many monethes and many yeeres togither And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes who sat in Peters Chaire You will say one of them but which you cannot tell Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar The one cursed the other absolued the one commannded the other forbadde Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire and vnitie thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth and with his glorious appearance and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse for euer and euer Amen The first Chapter THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after him VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope and of S. Peter he sayth we deny all primacie and chiefe gouernment in the Church Wherevpon he rayseth three questions to intreate of Whether it be against the worde of God that there should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe authoritie Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church that we affirme there is a spirituall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ which neuer was giuen to Peter nor to any mortall man Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches there is must be a primacie of order which is temporall according to the disposition of the Church And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime but that he had it not alwayes it appeareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers consent was President and Primate and vpon the controuersie beeing throughly debated pronounced the definitiue sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia Syria and Cilicia was written in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren But concerning S. Peter M. Sander moueth newe questions First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter whiche is a stone or Rock Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise wheÌ„ he chose him to be an Apostle Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke the question is whether Peter himselfe be that Rock vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church or Christ himselfe or the fayth and confession of peter M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists passing ouer the second question that is whether Christe himselfe whom Peter confessed by this rock denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter not barely confirmed but in respect of the promise past the present confession and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection of which foure conditions the Protestantes hee sayth doe lack no lesse then three But what doe the Papists lack when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ the only foundation then the which none other can be layde 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone I wil franckly yeelde vnto him that which he coulde neuer win by force that Christ saying to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building for then hee should put him selfe out of place but one of the prâ—ncipall stones of the foundation euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were for so the holy Ghost speaketh Ephe. 2. vers 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted groweth vnto an holy temple vnto the Lord. Nowe let vs consider whether any singular authority was committed to peter when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea because it was sayd to him alone feede my sheepe and no particular flock named it must needes be ment the whole flocke Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock Christ saide onely to Peter come after me Satan for thou art an offence to me c. Therefore Peter onely was an enemie of Christe If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him let him take the other also Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter 5. Heere is no particular slocke named therefore he meaneth the whole vniuersall flocke But he vrgeth farther that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors But if labouring in preaching the gospel be the feeding of Christes flock not Peter but Paule laboured more then he and all the rest of the Apostles 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe that by thrise confession and iniunction to feede he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship from which he deserued to be depriued M. Sand. liketh not for three causes First he sayth hee had not lost his Apostleship because his fault was not externally proued nor confessed in iudgment nor stubbernly defended c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell had neede of externall proues or a Commissaries court to depriue Peter of his office O blockish reason Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme that hee was altogither excluded from his office by his fault but
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
as Christ his Apostles forbiddeth as we see to be vsurped and practised by the Pope of Rome his clergy howsoeuer M. Sander in tearmes of distinction would seeme to shadow it But he will shewe out one of these places which we alleadge as if it did vtterly forbid all superiority amonge the Disciples luc 22 that the ecclesiasticall primacy is cleerely establyshed and confirmed First he sayth most vntruly that we deny all superiority amonge the Discyples of Christe as though we denyed all gouernmente amonge Christians excepte hee doe childishly vnderstande the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiasticall onely and yet wee denye not all superioritie among them but that kinde of primacie which the Pope claymeth and tyrannically vsurpeth Secondly he maketh a longe preamble before he come to the matter that althoughe the Apostles did diuerse times striue for the primacie as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 vpon the request of Zebedees wife Mark 10. after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ neuer denyed that there should be one greater among them and often signifyed that the same shoulde be S. Peter especially when he sayde thou arte Peter and vppon this Rock I will builde my Church If you demaunde why they stroue for supremacie when hee had determined it he yeeldeth a substantial reason because while Christe lyued vpon Earth it was in his free choise to haue appoynted it otherwise vntill at the last in the 21. of Iohn he saide vnto him Simon thou sonne of Iona. c. By these it appeareth that M. Sander confesseth that no text of Scripture proueth the supremacie of Peter more directly and playnely then this of Iohn 21. which when euery Childe seeth howe little force it hath to proue it you may easily iudge that the Papists them selues againste their owne consciences doe inforce all other Textes vttered before to establishe it And namely this of Luke 22. in which he sayth that Christ taking vppe the strife that was among his Apostles about the primacie ended his talke at laste with Simon Peter shewing him to bee that one that was greater then the rest What Asse if he coulde speake with mans voyce would reason thus that because Christe conuerting his speache from exhorting all his Apostles to admonishe Peter of his speciall daunger he stoode in by his infirmitie signifyed that Peter was greater then all the Apostles But wee muste heare him compare these words of Christe Luke 22. with the words of S. Mathew and Marke in other places which he sayth the Magdeburgen cent doth huddle vp as they were alone wheras they differ much The wordes of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these VVhosoeuer among you wil be greater let him be your seruitor And whosoeuer among you will be first shall bee your seruant In Sainct Luke 22. He that is greater among you let him be made as the younger and he that is chiefe as he that ministereth M. Sander will haue greate difference to be in these sayings First generally that the former sentence speaketh not of the greatnesse among ecclesiasticall officers but all Christians which is vtterly false because this kinde of greatnes is prescribed vnto them to whome external dominion is forbidden But that is not to all men but vnto the Apostles onely and their successors therefore this kinde of greatnes is proper only vnto them For he speaketh not of greatnes by humilitie onely but of greatnes without forraine dominion and worldly dignity and ioyned with seruice which is peculier to the ministery ecclesiasticall Secondly he maketh sixe friuolous differences which either are false or else make no diuersitie in the sence of the places The first Mathew and Mark speake of any man VVho soeuer S. Luke of one man which by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pointed out If the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe alwaies pointe one certaine man it is somwhat that M. Sand. saith but If ten thousaÌ„d times and more as euery man meanely learned in the Greeke toung doth know it signifieth not one certaine man then is this a fond difference The second the other speake of a desire to be great VVho so would be great S. Luke of the effect already present he that is greater But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver 4. ouerthrow this differeÌ„ce with the former for ther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greateste is taken for any one that shall humble himselfe as a Childe and not for one made primate of the Church The third difference is that the letter speake of him that would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great S. Luke of him that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greeke phrase But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the others signifyeth the greatest according to the Hebrue phrase it is manifest by the word vsed by both which call him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or chiefest of all Therfore these three differences are not worth three chippes The fourth S. Matthew calleth him that woulde be great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seruaunte S. Luke giueth no name of seruice to him that is greater but he is willed to be youÌ„ger or vnderling Yet S. Luke in another place Cap. 9. vers 48. calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the least which shall be the greatest But what fonde quarrelling is this Doth not the Pope call himselfe seruaunt of the seruantes of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest seruice belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dignitie though indeede he yeelde no seruice but vsurpeth all tyranny Is M. Sander nowe ashamed of that seruice that the Pope by solemne title hath so longe professed As for a preeminence of order we deny not but it was among the Apostles must be in euery seuerall company although it be not necessary that it should be perpetual in one man but as euery Church shall ordaine but a primacy of authoritie ouer all the Church we vtterly deny that euer it was graunted to Peeter or any man by our Sauiour Christe M. Sand. citeth Ambrose in Luke 22. to proue it Qui lapsus es c. Thou which didst slide before thou didst weepe after thou haste wepte art set vpright that thou shouldesirule others who before haddest not ruled thy selfe Loe sayth he Peter did rule others A great myrracle but doth it follow that either he ruled al meÌ„ or that he ruled his equals the Apostles of whome the same Ambrose sayth De spiritu Sancto lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Paulus inferior Petro quamuis is ecclesiae fundamentum hic sapiens architectus sâ—iens vestigia credentium fundare populorum Neither was Paule inferiour to Peter although hee was the foundation of the church Paul a wise builder knowing howe to founde the steps of the people beleuing And again in his boke de incarnatione Domini ca. 4. Hic inquam vbi audiuit vos â—utem quid
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
Church c. of Christe of God him selfe and calleth Princes his vassalles c. of which blasphemies his Cannon Lawes are stuffed full And therefore it is too farre in the day for M. Sander to make vs thinke there is no difference betweene white and black Pride and Humilitie Gentlenesse and Crueltie Holynesse and hypocrisie fayth and falshode vice and vertue The thirde Chapter OF the diuerse senses whiche are in the holy Scripture and namely about these woordes vppon this Rocke I will builde my Church and which is the moste literall and proper sense of them TO contende about the diuersitie of senses it were to take vppe a newe controuersie I admitte that whiche Maister Sander confesseth the lyter all sense onely to be of force to conuince the aduersary And the literall sense not to bee alwayes according to the grammaticall sounde of the wordes but according to the moste playne meaning of the speaker As when Christe sayeth to Peter â—o thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen hee meaneth not materiall Keyes of Yron but authoritie in the Kingdome of Heauen as Keyes are deliuered by the Maister to his Stuard but not as keyes of a citie are deliuered which betoken the giuing of possession of that Citie to be gouerned by him which receiueth the Keyes as Maister Sander sayth For that was no part of Christes meaning to resigne the gouernment of his Church to Peter for such giuing of Keyes is of the subiectes to their Superior but to make him one of the Stuardes of his great house to open and shut according to his apoyntment Otherwise onely Christ hath the key of Dauid which openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth Apocalips 3. verse 7. Likewise when he sayth Thou art Peter I confesse and agree with Maister Sander that the lyterall sence is not thou art a naturall stone but thou art that towarde my Churche whiche a stone is towarde the house that is builded vppon that stone But so that Peter is not the onely foundation nor the Corner stone which is onely Christe but one of the twelue stones of the foundation as it may more playnely appeare in the Apocalips the 21. Chapter and the 14. verse Furthermore I confesse that what soeuer by necessary conclusion may be gathered of any true literal sense is of equall authoritie in the word of God with that w c is expressed in playne words As the consubstantialitie of Christ with God the Father the blessed trinitie and such like But whereas M. Sand. ioygneth to these not onely the perpetuall virginitie of the virgine Mary which is not certainly though probably to be gathered but also transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse and Purgatory against which the sense of the scripture is manifest I will not admit them for examples But to come to his purpose he findeth in the auncient Fathers foure diuerse senses of these woordes vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church whereof three hee reiecteth as vnperfect which haue auncient writers as he confesseth for their Authors the last hee hath no auncient writer to defende The firste that Christe is that Rock on whome the Church is builded which Augustine holdeth The second that euery Disciple of Christ is the rock which is Origens opinion The third that Peters faith or confeffion is the rock which is Chrysostoms iudgement The fourth which is his owne and therefore he calleth it the perfecte sense is that Peter concerning his office in Gods Church through the promise of Christ which is past and the faithfull confession of his Godhead which is presently made and the power of feeding his Sheepe which then was to come is this Rocke vpon which the Church is builte Heere I wishe the reader to note that the Papiste reiecteth three senses of three seuerall auncient writers and maketh the fourth him selfe that you may see with what equitie they exclaime againste vs if vppon neuer so good ground we departe from the interpretation of the auncient Fathers But nowe let vs see what reasons hee hath to confute these three Doctors oppinions as vnsufficient interpretations Firste he sayeth If Augustines sense were true all the three other shoulde be voyde In deede his owne sense vnderstanding Peter to be a singular Rocke more then the other Apostles is made voyde thereby as it is false But the other two may stande very well well with Augustines meaning for hee meaneth not Christe barely but Christe whome Peter and euery true Disciple of Fayth confesseth to be the rocke of the Church Neither doth the worde thou hinder this sense Seeing Augustine vnderstandeth Peter to be a denominatiue a Petra of the stone nor the woorde I will builde for notwithstanding he hadde begunn to builde his Church before yet hee woulde builde stil and that more magnificall then before The sence of Origine hee reiecteth as not literall vppon which I will not stande The sense of Chrysostome hee refuseth sayinge the Fayth of Peter is not the onely Rocke wherevpon the Churche shall be builded for then it had beene buylte vppon the Fayth of Iohn Baptiste before this time A pythy argumente as though there is any more then one Fayth Ephesians 4. verse 5. whiche is the same in Peter and in Iohn and in all the other Apostles the same I saye in kinde not in number Neither did Chrysostome meane that the singulare Fayth of Peter were the Rock of the Church but the same one Fayth and confession embraced of euery member thereof That he sayeth I will builde whereas hee had already begunne to builde and did then presently build What inconuenience is it but in a quarrellers minde Hee speaketh of the Future tenses to signifie the great amplyfication of his Church which he woulde make by the preaching of the Apostles But of all senses Maister Saunder lyketh his owne beste asperfect and contayning all the other therein For first sayth he if Peter be the Rocke then Christe that made him is much more as the geeuer and authour of his power But I deny that Christe did giue the same that he is him self that is to be the onely singular foundaâ—ion Rocke and corner stone of his Church Secondly he sayth if Peter in respecte of his confession be a Rock then his confession is a Rocke But then say I they that make the same confession are as much a Rock as he Thirdely he sayth if Peter beeing captaine Disciple of all that euer were be a Rock then all other Disciples that are contayned in him as in y e chiefe may also be this Rock Who had thought Peter had bene such an vniuersal thing to containe al disciples in him Doth not this containe manifest blasphemie to make all Disciples contained in Peter whiche are contayned onely in Christe as the members in their mystirall body whereof hee onely is chiefe heade Soueraigne Captaine or what other name of superioritie can bee deuised But nowe that hee hath
made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one he is not ashamed to charge Maister Iewell for leauing the moste literall sense and mingling three opinions of these foure in one as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ were the onely or moste literall sense But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particulerly with all circumstaunces for my parte considering all circumstaunces I think the most simple and plaine meaning of Christe is that Peter it a Rocke or stone vppon which the Church is buylded but none otherwise then euery one of the Apostles is Ephe 2. and 20. verse and in the Apocalips the 21. chapter and 14. verse Of which M. Sander also confesseth euery one to be a Rock in his kinde But nowe let vs see the fiue circumstaunces by which Maister Saunder will proue Peter for to bee such a Rocke as none of all the reste of the Apostles is but he The firste Christe promised Symon before he confessed that he shoulde be called Peter whiche was the firste cause of beeing the Rocke Iohn I. Admit this to bee a promise not an imposition of a name in respect of the giftes of fortitude constancie where with he woulde endue him this proueth him not to be a singular rocke The second he was named Peter before he coÌ„fessed which was the performaunce of the promise Mark 3. I dout not but that he had coÌ„fessed Christ before he was made an Apostle although he had not made that solemne confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstaunce is a friuolous argument And his brother Andrewe which first brought him to Christ confessed Iesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ. The thirde when he had confessed the Godheade of Christ which was the fruâ—ct of the gift of the promise Christ pronounced him to be such a rocke whereupon he would build his church which was the reward of his confession But all the Apostles made the same confession therefore the same reward was geuen to all that they should euerie one be a rocke or stone on which the church should be builded The fourth Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle which was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter was in respect of his greater weakenes when he was left to him selfe The last to shew what strength Peter should geue to his brethren after his conuersion Christ bad him feede his lambes wherby he was made such a rock wherby he should stay vp his church by teaching ruling y e faithful as whose voyce the sheepe should be bound to heare in payne of damnation First I answere that the strength or confirmation which he should geue to his brethren was not all one with his feeding of the lambes but was vsed to the strengthening of his weake brethren the rest of the Apostles whom after his maruelous conuersion he did mightely confirme though in his fall he was shewed to be the weakest of all Then I say the feeding of the sheepe of Christ was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles in which he had no prerogatiue of auctoritie geuen but an earnest charge to shewe his greater loue by greater diligence in his office So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock then euery one of the Apostles is The fourth Chapter DIuerse reasons are alleaged to proue chiefely by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture that these wordes thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will builde my church haue this literall meaning vpon thee ô Peter being first made a rocke to thend thou shouldest stoutely confesse the faith and so confessing it I will build my church the promise to be caelled Peter was the first cause VVhy the church was built vpon him the Protestants can not tel which is the first literall sense of these wordes vpon this rocke will I build my church FIrst it is to be remembred that M. SaÌ„der in the chapter before reiecting the interpretatioÌ„ of three of the greatest Doctors of the church Origen Augustine and Chrysostom not only is bound in equity to geue vs the same liberty which he taketh him selfe but also to confesse that these three principal doctors following other senses then his were ignoraunt of that which he all other Papists make to be the chiefe article of Christian faith namely of the supremacie of Peter when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rocke wherupon Christ would build his church and therfore would neuer haue subscribed to his booke which he instituteth the rock of the church But nowe to the argument of this chapter Chrysostomis cited to proue that where Christ sayth to Peter thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cepha which is by intepretation Peter a newe name is promised to Simon in Ioan. Hom. 18. Honorifice c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him For the certeine foretelling of things to come is the worke only of the immortal God It is to be noted that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all thinges which shoulde come to passe afterwarde to him For he did not call him Peter neither did he say vpon this rocke will I builde my church But he sayd thou shalt be called Cephas For that was both of more power and also of more auctoritie There is nothing in this sentence but that we may willingly admit Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelue foundations of the church as he was afterward And that Chrysostom iudged no singular thing to be graunted by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter appeareth by his wordes in Euang. Ioann Praef. Where he applieth the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus columna omniuÌ„ quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum qui caeli claues habet For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ being a piller of all the churches which are in the worlde which hath the keyes of heauen Neither doth Cyrillus whom he citeth make any thing for his purpose In Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon c. And he telleth afore hande that his name shalbe Peter and not nowe Simon by the very word signifying that he would build his church on him as on a rocke and most sure stone These are the wordes of Cyrillus but that he meaneth not his person but his faith he sheweth manifestly in his booke de Trinit lib. 4. speaking vpon the text of Math. 16. the grounde of M. Sanders booke Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud quam inconcussam firmissimam discipuli fidem vocauit in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata fundata esset vt non laberetur I thinke he called a rocke by denomination nothing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast
faith of that disciple on which the church of Christ should be so established and founded that it should not fall Here is an other principall Doctor ioyning with Chrysostom against M. Sander who affirmeth that the rocke is nothing els but Peters faith After these he nameth Theophylact and Euthymius two late writers but he citeth nothing out of them presently But after shewing the force of Gods promise to be effectual to work al meanes necessarie for the performaunce of it he citeth out of Euthymius in Luc 6. that it was like that in Ioh. 1. Christ promised that Simon should be called Peter in Luk. 6 called him Peter All this needed not we doubt not but Simon was called Peter Yea but Cyrillus sayth in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 64. that he being Prince and heade first cried out saying thou art Christ the sonne c. Therfore he was head before his confession by promise and name I will not here say how contrary M. Sander is to him selfe which in the cap. 3. sayd that his supremacie was graunted to him as a rewarde of his confession But I will aunswere Cyrillus by him selfe in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 28 that Peter was Ordine maior superior in order to auoyde confusion not in degee dignitie or auctoritie And whereas M. Sander vrgeth so vehemently that the name of Peter was not geuen for his confession but was singular to him by promise so that it belonged literally to no Prophet Apostle nor disciple but only to him his successors it is a most fond friuolus matter for the name of Bonarges was specially geuen to the sonnes of Zebedee in respect of their excellent giftes and at the same time that the name of Peter was geuen to Simon which secing it perteineth not to their successors which haue not the same giftes no more doth the name dignity of Peter perteine to any that sit in his chaire if euer he had any fixed chaire among the Gentiles which by Gods ordinaunce was appoynted to be the principall Apostle of the Iewes Moreouer where he laboreth tooth nailc to proue that these wordes vpon this rocke I will build my church are to be referred to Peter as I sayd before I will graunt euen as muche But that Peter by these wordes was made a singular rocke more then all the Apostles vpon which the whole church is builded I vtterly deny neither shall he be euer able to proue it For it is an impudent lye that onely Peter at this time had this high reuelation to acknowledge Christ to be the sonne of God For he aunswered in the name of all the rest who beleued the same which he in their name confessed Did not Andrewe before Peter acknowledge him to be the Messias Did not Nathaniel which was none of the Apostles acknowledge him to be the sonne of God and the King of Israel Ioan. 1. 49. But he reasoneth substantially when he saith thou only art the rocke because thou alone hadst this name c. promised thou alone hadst it geuen thou alone didst confesse me to thee alone I say thou art Peter As though a man may not haue a name whose signification is common to many Salomon alone was promised to be called and was called Iedidiah that is the beloued of God shall we therefore reason that Salomon onely was beloued of God as for that he onely confessed I haue shewed before that it is false for Christ saying thou art Peter meaneth not to say thou onely art a rocke but thou well aunswerest thy name which signifieth a rocke or stone and I wil in deede vse thee as a rocke or stone to builde my church vpon yet not meaning the person but the office and doctrine of his Apostleship But nowe hath M. Sander no lesse then 21. reasons to proue that Peter is the rocke here spoken of w c althogh they may for the most parte be easily auoided yet I will graunt that Peter is one of the twelue stones whereupon the church is builded but not the only stone Therfore his first foure arguments I deny 1. Simon is alone promised to be called Peter 2. he alone is called Peter 3. Christ speaketh to him alone saying And I say to thee c. 4. Christ sayth of him alone thou art Peter therefore Simon alone is the rocke of the church let him proue the cōsequence if he can The next 5. which proue that these wordes are to be referred to Peter although that they be not verie strong yet I graunt the wordes may be aptly referred to Peter the reasons are 1. vpon the pronoune The 2 the worde rocke of which Peter is named 3. the conference of thē together 4. the word I will build 5. the word my church The 10 Argument I denye that Christ. by saying to Peter Feede my Lambes feede my sheepe made him the heade stone of Gods militant Church nexte vnto Christe The eleuenth that Peter is shewed to be the Rocke spoken of by geuing of the Keyes I confesse ebut seeing the keyes are giuen to all the Apostles this proueth Peter to be none otherwise a Rocke then euery one of them That Iohn receued the Keyes I shewed euen now out of Chysostome The twelfth that the propertie of a Rock in constant withstanding of tempests agreeth with Peter I graunt and so it doth to the rest of the Apostles for whome Christ prayed as he did for Peter who also strengthened and confirmed their brethren as Peter did The 13. I confesse that hell gates shall not preuayle against the Church nor against any member thereof which is a small reason to make Peter supreame heade thereof The 14. which is the authorities of those doctors that teach Peter to be the rocke whom he nameth when he citeth their sayings or quoteth their places I will seuerally consider The 15. their reason also when I see them to deriue Peters authoritie to his successors I will waighe likewise The 16. the practise of 1500. yeares I deny The 17. I deny that all generall councells or any generall councell for 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged Peter to be the rocke in that sence the Papistes do now The 18. if the confession of Peter be the rocke yet it is none inconuenience that the church shoulde be builded theron which began to be builded on the same confession offered by Iohn Baptist. The 19. though you confound the diuerse senses geuen by the fathers in your fourth sense yet that proueth not your sense to be true The 20. seeing the Apostles are certeyne foundatiōs and rockes vpon which the church is builded I confesse that Peter must needes be one but that he was the most principall rocke in respect of his name Peter which is a stone I say it followeth no more then that Salomon was best of al men beloued of God because of that name Iedidiah which signifieth beloued of God The 21. that all the Protestantes doe not agree in the interpretation of
these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church it proueth not your exposition to be true for neither do all the old Doctors nor yet the new Papistes agree in one the same interpretation of this text And oftentimes it may inuincibly be proued that an heresie hath no grounde out of suche a text of Scripture although the true and naturall sense thereof can not be found at all The fift Chapter IT is proued out of the auncient fathers that S. Peter is this rocke whereupon the church was promised to be builded otherwise then M. Iewell affirmeth THat Peter was a rocke or stone vpon which the church was builded is graunted of vs but that he alone was a rock for the whole church to be builded vpoÌ„ we deny and M. Iewell rightly affirmeth that the olde Catholike fathers haue written and pronounced not any mortall man as Peter was but Christ him selfe the sonne of God to be this rocke whereon y t whole church is builded But M. Sander will proue if he can out of the old writers that not onely Christ is the chiefe rocke but Peter also is an other rocke so that the church by his doctrine is builded vpon two rockes and this he will shew 1. by their words 2. their reasons 3. by the same places which M. Iewell alleageth for the coÌ„trary opinioÌ„ The decretal epistles of Anacletus Pius Fabianus c. which in his owne conscience he knoweth to be forged he omitteth and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip aduers. haeres Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicaÌ„dae ecclesiae Petram dictum Was any thing hid from Peter which was called a rocke of the church which was to be builded This is graunted that he was a rocke or stone whereon the churche is builded and the same Tertullian in his booke de pudicitia sayth of this whole text that this was conferred to Peter Personally and perteineth to none other but such as he was namely an Apostle or Prophet Secundum enim Petri personam spiritualibus potestas ista conueniet aut Apostolo aut Prophetae For according to the person of Peter this power shall belong to spiritual men either to an Apostle or to a Prophet Where is then the succession of the B. of Bome But Hippolytus saith Princeps Petrus fideipetra Peter is chiefe a rocke of faith He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rocke whereon faith is builded Origenes in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud c. That great foundation and most sound rocke whereupon Christ hath builded his church But let Origenes expound him selfe in Math. cap. 16. Si autem super vnum illum Petrum arbitraris vniuersam ecclesiam aedisicari à deo quid dicis de Iacobo Ioanne filus tonitrui velde singulis Apostolis Verè ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est Tues Petrus super hanepetram edifiâ—abo ecclesiam meam pertae inferorum non praeualebâ—nt ei tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibus q perfectis fidelibus dictum videtur quoniam omnes sunt Petrus petrae in omnibus aedificata est ecclesia Christi aduersus nullum ecrum qui tales sunt portae preualent inferorum But if thou thinke the whole church is builded by God vpon that one man Peter what sayst thou of Iames and Iohn the sonnes of thunder or of euerie one of the Apostles Therefore it was in deede truly sayd vnto Peter Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will builde my church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile agaynst it yet it seemeth that it was spoken also to all the Apostles and to all the perfect faithfull because they are all Peter and stones and on them all the church of Christ is builded and agaynst none of them which are suche the gates of hell shall preuayle By this you see howe Origen is none of his howe so euer he abuse his name Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. lib. 4. Ep. 9 which sayeth that the church was builded vpon Peter Which we confesse as vpon one of the foundation stones but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum sayth Hoc erant vtique caeters Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscinur vt ecclesia vna monstretur The rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honor and auctoritie but the beginning procedeth from one that the church might be shewed to be one This speaketh Cyprian vpon the very text now in discussing Consequently he citeth Hilarie lib 6. de trinit Petrus c. Peter lieth vnder the building of the church and in ca. Math. 16. O in nuncupatione c. O happy foundation of the church in hauing the new name pronounced and ô rocke worthie of the building of that church which should dissolue the lawes of hell But the same Hilarie sayeth of Christ de trinit lib. 2. Vna haec est foelix fidei petra Petri ore confessa tu es filius Dei viui This is that onely happie rocke of fayth confessed by the mouth of Peter thou art the sonne of the liuing God And agayne lib. 6. Super hanc igitur confessionis petram ecclesiae aedificatio est Vpon this rocke of confession is the building of the church And againe Haec fides ecelesiae fundamentum est per hanc fidem infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae inferorum Haec fides regni caelestis habet claues c. This fayth is the foundation of the churche by this fayth the gates of hell are of no force agaynst it This fayth hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. Therefore not the person of Peter is the rocke for all the church to be built vpon S. Ambrose hath the next place whome he citeth Scr. 66. Si ergo c. If Peter then be a rocke vpon which the church is builded he doth well to heale first the feete that euen as he doth conteyne the foundation of faith in the church so in the man he may confirme the foundation of his members Of the auctoritie of this Sermon I will not dispute it shall sufâ—ice that Ambrose in Ps. 38. sayth Quod Petro dicitur Apostâ—lis diâ—itur non pâ—testatem vsurpamus sed seruiâ—â—s â—mperio That which is sayd to Peter is said to the Apostles we vsurpe not power but we serue vnder commaundâ—ment By this saying of Ambrose Peter is so a rocke and foundation as the other Apostles are not a rocke to beare all the building him selfe S. Basil is alleaged in Concâ—de paenit Petrus petra est c. Peter is a rocke through Christ the rocke For Iesus geueth his owne dignities he is a rocke and maketh a rocke This proueth not Peter to be the onely rocke of the militant church as M. Sander would make him After him he citeth Hierom in 16. Math.
blessed faith obtaine an exceding or passing glory vltra humanae infirmitatis moduÌ„ beyond y e measure of mans infirmitie w c wordes also Hilary hath left you should thinke he preferreth Peter in auctoritie before y e other Apostles For Peters fayth confession he did before interprete to be the rocke of the Church w c because it was common to all the Apostles he maketh their authoritie equall Vos ô sancti beati viri ob sidei vestrae merituns claues regni caelorum sortiti ligandi aique soluendi in caelo in terra ius adepti O you holy and blessed men which for the worthines of your faith haue obtayned the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and haue attayned to auctoritie to bind and loose in heauen and in earth And if you vrge that Peter spake when all the rest helde their peace yet is that primacye but of order not of authoritie for they all beleued as Peter confessed and Peter confessed in the name of all the rest The 3. Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae est vna c. The Churche which is one is founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one which hath receyued the keyes of it This reason sayth he can beare but one such rocke for if there were more rocks at once there should be more churches But it is reason that Cyprian should expound him selfe which by founding meaneth the beginning of the foundation as he sayth de simplicitate pr elat Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum c. The Lorde speaketh to Peter I say to thee sayth he that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuayle against it To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen And to the same after his resurrection he sayth Feede my sheepe And although he giueth to all his Apostles after his resurrection equall power and sayth as my father hath sent me so also doe I sende you receyue the holy Ghost Whose sinnes you forgiue they shall be forgiuen and whose sinnes you retayne they shall be retayned yet that he might shewe the vnitie by his authoritie he disposed the beginning of the same vnitie beginning at one For verely the rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power but the beginning procedeth from vnitie that the Church might be shewed to be one Thus farre Cyprian By which we see that there is but one beginning yet all the Apostles are equall This vnitie of beginning of building Tertullian also lib. de pudic sheweth to haue bene in Peter when he was the first that preached after the ascention of Christ. The 4. Augustine Hom. de pastoribus Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe there were many Apostles and it is say dâ— to one feede my sheepe Here he will haue Peter to represent Christ the onely good shepeheard although the wordes importe no such thing but onely a mystery of vnitie which is but friuolously gathered by the author of that booke or homely vntruly ascubed to S. Augustine where yet he will not haue Peter to be the head but to beare a figure of the body of Christ which is the Church Whereupon his wordes follow soone after Na n ipsum Petrum cui commendauit oues suas quasi alter alteri vnum seâ—um facere volebat vt sic ei oues commendaret vt esset ille caput ille figuram corporis portaret id est Ecclesiae tanquam sâ—onsus sponsa essent duo in carne vna For he would make euen Peter to whome he commended his sheepe as one to another one with him selfe that he might so commend his sheepe to him that he him selfe might be the heade and Peter might beare the figure of his body that is of his Church and so they might be as the bridegrome his spouse two in one flesh These words shew how vaine M. Sanders collection is for Peters headship beside that he citeth the wordes otherwise then they are in the author euen as his note booke serued him The 5. reason is vttered by Hierome aduersus Iouinianum lib. 1. aunswering the obiection of Iouinian and intending to proue that Iohn the virgine was as excellent as Peter the maried man At dicis c. But thou sayst the Church is built vpon Peter Albeit the selfe same thing in another place be done vpon all the Aposiles all doe receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the strength of the Church be grounded equally vpon them yet therefore one is chosen among twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Here he woulde haue three thinges to be noted First that the Church is so built vpon Peter the rocke that in the same place where it is built vpon Peter the like is not done vpon the other Apostles But seeing he him selfe before vrged the future tence I will build this collection is false Christ promiseth that he will builde his Church vpon Peter but when he buildeth he vseth all the Apostles as well as Peter Secondly that the church is equally built vpon all the Apostles therefore not more on Peter then on the rest Thirdly that one is chosen head to auoyde schisme But if all be equall he as keth how one may be head I aunswer euen as the foreman of the Iury in some respectes is chiefe and yet they are all equall But he aunswereth they are equall in authoritie as Apostles but not as Bishops But seeing the office of euery Apostle is aboue the office of euery Bishop it will followe that euery Apostle as Apostle is aboue Peter as Bishop of Rome which were a perilous matter for Maister Sander to admitte Howbeit concerning this distinction of his more is to be sayd in a more proper place In the meane tyme he vrgeth that Peter was chosen of Christ to be heade to auoyde strife and schisme which reason seeing it holdeth alwayes there ought alwayes one heade to be chosen to be a heade and perpetuall rocke by succession I aunswer the reason of auoyding schismes may gayne so much that in euery Church such as the first of the Apostles was such an head for such purpose may be chosen but it will not inforce one heade being a mortall man ouer all the Churche which no one man can keepe in vnitie and how conuenient the headship of the Romish Church is to auoyde schismes let so many schismes as haue bene made euen for the attayning of the same headship beare witnes Whereof one continued 39 yeares As for Leo Bishop of Rome it is well knowen hee was too much addicte to maintaine the dignitie of his Sea and yet he was farre from the tyranny which
the later byshops vsurped and practised vnder pretence of Peters supremacie His words ate cited in Ann. ass ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum c. Vppon this stone this soundnes and strength I will builde an euerlasting temple and the hight of my Church which is to reach to Heauen shall rise in the strength of this Rocke A great extolling of Peter vsuall to the Byshops of Rome but yet no more is saide of him then may be truely faide vpon euery one of the Apostles The 6. reason is vttered by Augustine Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram c. Our Lorde saide to Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church vppon this rocke I will builde my church And againe in Ioan Tr. 124. Ecclesiae c. Peter the Apostle by a generalitie that was figured did beare the person of the Church by reason of the primacie of his Apostleship Heere he maketh much adoe aboute his primacie by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church willing to inferre that because hee was primate of the Apostles and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church therefore he was soueraigne ruler and generall officer of the whole militant Church But it followeth not that euery one which is made an atturney or Proxei to receiue a thing for a whole comminaltie is thereby made generall ruler of al that comminaltie The Papistes them selues in the Councell of Basill discharge vs of this conclusion where they agree to the sentence of Iohn Patriarch of Antiochia which citeth Augustine to witnesse that Peter receiued the Keyes as minister of the Church And Augustine writeth De Agone Christ. cap. 30 Non enim siae causa inter omnes Apostolos huius ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus Huic enim ecclesie clauis regni caelorum datae sunt Et cum ei dicitur ad omnes diâ—itur Aâ—nas me Pasce oues meas For not without cause amonge all the Apostles Peeter sustaineth the person of this Catholike Churche For to this Churche the Keyes of the kindome of Heauen are giuen And when it is saide vnto him it is saide to all Doest thou loue me feede my sheepe By this sentence it is playne that Christe after Augustines minde preferred not Peter in power before all the rest but to receiue equall power with the reste hee made him as it were the Attornye of the rest So that all these reasons duely considered the sayinges of the Doctors which affirme Peter to be a rocke or stone on which the Church is builded doe not prooue that hee was an onely foundation of the whole Church but with the rest of the apostles he was one and the firste of the twelue stones whereon the Church was founded and that in respect of his office and doctrine not of his person as he wasa mortal man The seuenth Chapter THE authorities alleadged by M. Iâ—well to proue that Peter was not this Rock proue against him self that Peter was this Rocke although they proue that there was an other kinde of Rock also beside him which thinge wee denye not THE first authoritie is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc vet test Thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will build my church He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had sayd before Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God M. S. replieth that it is neither said that Peter was not this Rock nor that Christ was this rock But that the confession of Peter was the Rock whiche he graunteth and therefore Peter much rather muste be the rock For his confession which commeth from his soule and heart as from a fountaine or springe is greater then the acte of confession Firste I deny his Argument because Peters confession came neither from his soule nor hart but from God which reuealed the trueth vnto him as Christ saith Flesh and bloode c. Secondly I say Gregory meaneth by Peters confession him which Peter confessed namely Christe which is the onely Rocke of the Church whereon the whole Church is builded as his wordes doe sounde for he had sayde before Thou art Christ c. But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke findeth faulte with M. Iewels argumente comparing it to this There commeth eloquence from a man but he is not eloquent Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is not the Rocke Would a man thinke that a Doctor in Diuitie should either be so ignoraunt in the Arte of reasoning or so impudent in peruerting a good reason that a very Childe might reproue either the one or the other I appeale to Logicians whether this reason of M. Iewels The Rock commeth from Peter by confession Ergo Peter is not the Rock be like this argument Eloquence commeth from Cicero therefore Cicero is not Eloquence and not as M. Sand. inferreth Ergo Cicero is not Eloquent But he hath another Example A mans Oration is eloquent therefore the man him selfe is eloquent So Peters confâ—ssion is the Rocke therefore Peter hâ—â—selfe is the Rocke I deny the resemblance for there is resembled the Adiectiue in the one and the substantiue in the other But thus he shoulde compare them Tuilyes defence of Mylo is an eloquent oration therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration which reasoning is no more absurde then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is the Rocke Contrarywise you may reason Peters confession was the Rock therefore Peter was Rockey or stony The seconde authoritie is Hilarie Haec vna est c. This is that onely blessed rock of Faith that Peter confessed with his mouth M. Sander caueleth that this is not spoken vpon the wordes said to Peter but vpâ—on the wordes spoken by Peter But beside that the whole context of the place is against him both in that lib. 2. De trinit and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifiâ—ato est vpon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church which M. Sand. would auoyde by bringing in of two rocks Christ Peter the particle exclusiue shutteth him cleane out of the dores for Hillarie sayth not that Christe is a Rocke but that he is the onely Rocke Therefore this is but one Rocke and one building and not as M. Sand. sayth two Rocks and two buildings for aswell hee might say two Churches Now where Hilarie vpon Mathew acknowledgeth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church it is answeared before that he was one of the xii foundations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a farre other meaning then Christ is the onely Rock The 3. authoritie is Cyrillus Dial 4. de trini The rock is nothing else but the strong assured faith of the disciple This saith M. S. is that I would haue for this disciple was S. Peter and the rock here spoken of is nothing else but S. Peters faith therfore it is not Christ. Nay rather the rock is nothing but S. Peters faith therfore it is not his
person so no mortall man For those woordes nothing but Peters faith do not exclude Christ because faith cannot be without necessary relation vnto Christ but they exclude the person of Peter as a mortall man because flesh blood reuealed not this confession vnto him but the Heauenly father The 4. authorite is Chrysostome Vpon this Rocke that is vpon this faith and this confession I will builde my church M. San. saith he that beleeued confessed was Peter and not Christ ergo the rock is Peter not Christ. Although this argument haue no consequence in the world yet to admitte that it doth followe I will reply thus but he that beleeued and confessed was not Peter onely therefore Peter onely was not this rock The 5. is Aug. de verbis dom Christe was the rocke vpon which foundation Peter him selfe was also builte M. San. asketh if one Rock may not be built vpon anonother as Peter vpon Christ yes verily but Peter none otherwise then the reste of the Apostles who were all foundation stones laid vpon the great corner stone or onely foundation Rock Iesus Christ. S. Augustine againe addeth in Christes person I wil not builde my selfe vpon thee but I wil build thee vpon me M San. following the allegory of building coÌ„fesseth that Christ is the first greatest stone vpon which by all proportion the seconde stone that should be laide must be greatest that can be gotten next the first If this be so it is meruaile the Angel which shewed vnto Iohn the building of the heauenly Ierusalem shewed him not this second stone by it selfe but the xij stones lying equally one by an other vppon the maine foundation Apo. 21. whereby we see that M. Sand. vttereth nothing but the visions of his owne head The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat. He is â—â—â—â— rock whosoeuer is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththis seÌ„se as not literal seing Peter is a disciple the first he wil proue Peter next to christ to be y e chief rock In deed according to this sense it must needes be that Peter is one principall rock among so many thousand rocks but because he is named first in the Catalogue of the Apostles it is a sory reason to make him so to excel that he is one rock that beareth al the rest But M. Iewel is frantike in M. San opinion that denying any mortall man to be this rock nowe proueth euery mortall man that is Christs disciple to be this Rock Nay rather M. Sand. is brainsick that cannot vnderstand this reason euery Christian is such a rock as Peter was therefore Peter in being a rock was not made Pope or hed of the vniuersal church Origines procedeth vpon such a rock all ecclesiasticall learning is built But S. Peter is such a Rock saith Maister Sander ergo vppon him all ecclesiasticall learning is built VVho would wish such an aduersary as M. Iewel is who proueth altogither against him selfe Nay who can beare such an impudent caueler that findeth a knot in a rush For your conclusion is graunted M. Sand. that all ecclesiasticall learning is builte vppon S. Peter but so it is builte vpon euery true Disciple of Christe by Origens iudgement Againe Origine sayth If thou thinke that the whole Church is built onely vpon Peter what then wilte thou say of Iohn the sonne of thonder and of euery of the Apostles First M. Sand. chargeth the Bishop for leauing out in English this worde Illum so that he shoulde haue saide vpon that Peter whereby he accuseth him to deny that Peter is a Rock whiche is an impudente lye Secondly when this authoritie doth vtterly ouerthrowe his whole building of the popish rocke he can say nothing but that Iohn was a mortall man and so were all the Apostles aswel as Peter therfore M. Iewel saide not truely that the olde sathers haue written not any mortall man but Christe himselfe to be this Rock when Iohn and all the Apostles be rockes As though there were no difference betwene the onely foundation and rocke of the whole Church which is Christ all the other stones that are built vpon it Last of all Origen sayth Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not preuayle onely against Peter or are the keyes of the kingdom of heauen giuen onely to Peter M. Sander aunswereth It is enough that the gates of hell shall least of all preuayle against Peter he hath chiefly the keyes of heauen But what reason hath he for this impudent assertion Peter of all the Apostles first confessed in the name of the whole Church Admit this were true as it can neuer be proued that this was the first time that any of the Apostles confessed Christ yet no primacy of superiority is hereby gayned if the sentence as Origen expounded it perteyneth to euery faithfull disciple What aduauntage M. Sander hath taken of the Bishops allegations let the readers iudge The eight chapter THe conclusion of the former discourse and the order of the other which followeth THe conclusion consisteth of 7. poynctes In the first he repeateth what he woulde haue men thinke he hath gained in his former discourse concerning Peter to be the Rock of the Church where on it is builte In the second for continuaunce of the building promised there must be alwayes some mortall man which beeing made the same Rocke by election and afterwarde by reuelation shoulde make the same confession whensoeuer hee is demaunded or consulted in matters of Religion If this were true there were no necessitie of the holy Scriptures neither yet of Synodes and Councelles if one Pope were abe to resolue all the demaundes mooued by all menne of the worlde In the thirde he sayeth if there muste be some such one Rocke it is not possible it shoulde be any other but the Bishop of Rome First because he alone hath beene the firste and chiefe in all assemblyes Secondly he only sitteth in Peters Chaire Thirdly and the consent of the world hath taken him so euer indeede but by the aduersaryes confession aboue a thousande yeeres But God be thanked the Churche hath no neede of any such Rock neither is any such taught Ephe. the fourth where the order of the building thereof and of all necessary builders of Fayth and doctrine are fully sette foorth And the three reasons are all false in manner and forme as they are vniuersally set downe as in their proper places shalbe shewed In the the fourth he gloryeth that he hath chosen to proue that poynte which of all other is moste hard That all the Apostles were not the same thinge that Peter was And firste he will aske in what Gpspell or holye Scripture it is written that euery other Apostle was the same Rocke which Sainct Mathewe testifyeth Sainct Peter to haue beene I answeare not onely by necessary collection out of many places of Scripture whiche he him selfe acknowledgeth to be the literall
sense as well as that which followeth the sounde of wordes it is proued but also in plaine wordes of Sainct Paul Ephe. the second verse 20. Where the Churche is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophetes Iesus Christ beeing the head corner stone And Apo. 21 verse 14. Where the twelue precious stones the foundations of the wall of the Cittie had on them the names of the xij Apostles of the Lambe The 5. is either thus or nothing at all for it is not noted in him as the other bee If Cyprian or Hierome were alleadged for this equallitie it were sufficient for him to say they were no Euangelists For he sheweth it written thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter You see these men that bragge of the Doctors will be holden by them as long as they liste The 6. whereas all holy Scriptures is on the popish Catholicks side he lamenteth the vnhappines of these dayes in w c men altogither vnlearned in them by the bare naming of Gods word haue among Pedlers won their spurres and amonge the ignoraunt haue gotten the opinion of knowledge As truely as none but Pedles and ignoraunt men imbrace this doctrine which we teach so truely all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side Among so many Princes noble men and excellent learned men as at this day acknowledge this doctrine to be the trueth M. Sanders head was very sleepy when he could see none but Pedlers and ignoraunt persons The seuenth he will take vpon him to shew by what meanes Sainct Peter excelled the other Apostles and sheweth in what order he will proceede which seeing it is contained worde for worde in the titles of the seuen Chapters next following I though it needelesse heere to rehearse The ninthe Chapter THat Saincte Peter passeth farre the other Aposlles in some kinde of ecclesiasticall dignitie THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes peraduenture more then some of the Apostles that he had greate dignity among the Apostles may easely be graūted but that he had auctority ouer them such as the Pope claymeth ouer all Bishops is of vs vtterly denyed Neitherd oeth any one nor all together of M. Sāders 34. argumentes proue that he had one iote of auctority ouer his brethren 1 He was first in order of nombring of the twelue Apostles 2 He was promised to be called Cephas before the twelue were chosen 3. He was named Peter at the time of the choise ergo he hadde the Popes auctoritie ouer them Who would graunt the consequence of these arguments Let vs see what the other be 4 It was sayd to him alone thou art Peter vppon this rocke I will build my Church I deny that it was said to him alone for all the Apostles were likewise rockes vppon which he would build his Church The like I say of the 5. that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were promised to him alone for euery one of the Apostles receiued thē aswel as he being or dained with equal power of binding losing of remit ing retayning sinnes Mat. 18. 18 Ioan. 20. 23. Notwithstanding the wordes at one time were spoken to Peter alone yet did they giue him no singular auctority The 6 Christ payed tribute for Peter as vnder head of his family ergo he was greater then the rest A fond argument This Didrachma was payd for euery man in the City where he dwelt because Peter had a house and a family in the Cytie Christ payed for him with whom he lodged and him selse But if you drawe it into an allegorie These absurdities will follow First that Christ maketh his Church and splrituall kingedome subiect to tribute yea to Moses lawe by which that kind of tribute was due Secondly you deuide Christes church into two householdes Didrachma was to be payde for the heade or firste borne of euery house And you shewe your ignoraunce in referring this payment to Num. 3. which was only for the firste borne wheras this was for all men And for the firste borne was dewe fiue siccles whereof euery one was halfe an Vnee of Siluer at the leaste whereas Didrachma contayning but two Drachmaes whereof euery one was equall with the Romane pennie coulde be but xvj pence at the moste of our monie It is a strong argument that the payment of trybute which argueth subiection should make Peter so greate a Lorde that he should be out of all subiection which if Chrysostome had considered hee woulde not haue grounded Peters primacie vppon so friuolus an Argument The seuenth Christe preached out of Saincte Peters Bote to shew that in his Chaire his doctrine should alwayes be stedfastly professed An Argument to be answeared either with laughing or hissing The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted yet Peters Fayth alone is prayed for This is vtterly false for Christe prayed for all his Apostles fayth Ioh. 17. if specially for Peter it was in respecte of his greater daunger and not in respect of his greater dignitie The 9. Peter firste entred into the Sepulchre ergo he was made pope He entred for farther confirmation of his Fayth concerning Christes resurrection this maye be imputed to diligence but not to dignitie 10 The Angell sayth Tel his Disciples and Peter naming him seuerally because of his shamefull fall he had more neede of comforte The 11. Ambrese thinketh Peter was the first man that saw him Nay rather the Souldiors which kept the graue saw him before Peter the women also which would geue them dignity aboue Peter if firste seeing were a matter to argue dignity or auctority of the seer The 12. onely S. Peter walked on the Sea that signifieth the worlde to be his iurisdiction As he walked by Fayth so by weakenesse of fayth he beganne to sinke And the Sea that he walked on was but a lake or meere therfore cannot well signifie the whole worlde beside the argument is as sure as if it were bound with a strawe 13 S. Peter is shewed to haue loued Christe more then the reste and is alone commaunded to feede his sheepe He had good cause to loue him more because greater sinnes were forgiuen him but it is false that he onely was commaunded to feed Christes sheepe for all the Apostles were likewise commaunded 14 It is saido to Peter thou shalte stretch foorth thy hands and followe thou mee by which a particular kinde of death on the crosse is prophecied A violent death but no particular kinde of death is shewed by these wordes And although it were yet Peter in beeing Crucifyed was made no greater then Andrewe who was crucifyed also if the storyes of both be true 15 Peter aunsweared alwayes for the Apostles ergo hee was chiefe No more then the foreman of the Iewrye although it is not true that he alwayes aunsweared for the rest for sometime Thomas sometime Philip sometime Iudas aunsweared Iohn 14. 16 Peter pronounced Iudas Iscariot deposed That was by speciall instinct
to the former doctrine of Peters primacie namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade because they were not in dauÌ„ger of error the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring hath continued in Peters successors more then in the successors of all the Apostles Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle that he might confirme his brethren I haue often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter was proper to Peters person therefore can not be drawne to his successors And what madnes is it to defend that the Pope can not erre when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant. But M. Sander concludeth to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship but by the appoyntment and will of Christ Peter was heade to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest is one as a kingdom one by hauing one king in it Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ ouer all his Church to make it one in the holy Scriptures when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely then was not Peter his superiour in any respect That Paule reprehended Peter M. Sander sayth he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship If that be so why may not euery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike If you graunt they may then haue you so many Canones against you as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession But this fault you say with Tertullian was of conuersation not of preaching that Peter might not seeme to haue erred in doctrine Neuertheles it can not be excused but Peter also erred in doctrine Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe or of Christian libertie but of bearing too much with the Iewes in preiudice of the Gentils whom he compelled to Iudaisme in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine which dissimulation he entred not into for any worldely respect but because he was dâ—ceyued in opinion thinking that in that case he ought so to haue done before he being reprehended by Paule sawe the inconuenience and then myldely yelded to the correction But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles seeing Christ had sayde he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser In deedâ— he shewed herein such greatnes as Christ commendeth but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren Cyprian ad Quintum sayth he did not iudge this reprouing of Peter to be an argument against his supremacie but a witnes of his humilitie but he giueth vs this much to vnderstande that if he had chalenged primacie he had taken vpon him arrogantly his wordes are these Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For nether did Peter whome our Lorde chose the first and vpon whome he builded his Church when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward chalenge any thinge insolently or take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the primacie and that he ought rather to haue bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers nether did he despise Paule for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche but he did admitte the counsell of truth The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye De bap cont Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis c. VVe haue learned in the holy Scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence when he vsed to dâ—e otherwise then the truth required about circumâ—sion was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order not of dignitie and authoritie But Gregory much later then Augustiue graunteth to Peter not onely a primacie bâ—t also a maioritie in Ezech. Hâ—m 18. Quatenus c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship should be chiefe also in humilitie And agayne Eâ—ce à minore c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser and he disdayneth not to be reproued Nether doth he call to minde that he first was called to the Apostleship These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise then that he was first called to the Apostleship which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther Zwinglius Caluine c. and their bitter dissentions shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles It is not to be doubted that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues if they come not nearer to them then the Pope and his pompous Clergye let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vpon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized he aunswereth that proueth no more their equalitie then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop to go about busines of the chapter it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the CanoÌ„s But by his fauor where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines to be inferior to the whole chapiter as Peter Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles though the Bishop or Deane in other respects be superior to the Canons and Peter and Iohn were equall to euery one of the Apostles Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vpon a false supposition that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles if they had fallen as Iudas did therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right but by concession election or vsurpation The 12. chapter THat S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the other Apostles is most manifestly seenâ— by his chiefe Bishoply power Howe Christ loued Peter aboue others M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter superior to the Apostles not in their Apostleship but in his Byshoply degree doth yet againe distinguish the order and office of a Byshop from the authoritie and iurisdiction of the
The church which is one was founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one which receaued the keyes thereof And againe de simplicitat praelat Quamsis c. Although Christ after his resurrection geueth equall power to all his Apostles and sayth as my father sent me so do I send you receaue the holy Ghost If you remit to any man his sinnes they shal be remitted And if you râ—teine them they shal be reteined yet that he might shew the vnitie he disposed by his auctoritie the originall of that vnitie beginning of one But Cyprian proceedeth Hoc erant c. Vere by the rest of the Apostles were the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowshippe both of honor and of power but the beginning proceedeth from vnitie that the church might be shewed to be one These wordes are playne to declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth no inequalitie of the Apostles in respect of any auctoritie they had Also that the building of the church vpon one and the receauing of the keyes of one was not an ordinarie office to discende by succession but a singular priuiledge for that one tyme to shewe the beginning and not the continuaunce of the power to proceede from one but to be helde alwayes of one which is Iesus Christ without any shadowes of one Bishoppe on earth to signifie the same when Christ is reuealed with open face vnto vs nowe sitting in heauen 2. Cor. 3. 18. The like thing teacheth Optatus lib. 2. de schism Vt in â—na c. That in one chaire in which Peter sate vnity might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles shoulde euerie one challenge a chaire to him selfe so that he shoulde nowe be a schismatike and a sinner that agaynst a singular chaire should place an other Therfore in that one chaire which is chiefe in giftes Peter sate first His meaning is to defende the vnitie of the churche against the Donatistes but of the auctoritie of Peters chaire ouer all other Bishoppes chaires if he had spoken any thing M. Sander would not haue concealed it which doth vs great wrong to thinke that we can not distinguishe a chaire of vnitie from a chaire of auctoritie The place of Hierom cont Iouin lib. 1. hath bene aunswered once or twise shewing that among the Apostles which were equall Peter was chosen to be primate to auoide contention which was a primacy of order and not of auctority As for the collection of Lco Bishoppe of Rome that Peters primacy was a platforme for other Bishops to vnderstaÌ„d that they must haue a Bishop ouer them if the very Apostles had an head among them sauoreth of the ambition incident to that see which was appoynted to be the seate of Antichrist Although neither Leo him selfe challeÌ„ged so much as the Pope doth nowe neither the Bishops of his time would yeeld vnto him in so muche as he challenged For beside the whole generall councel of Chalcedon that concluded against him about the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople wherein they made him equall with the Bishoppe of Rome the title of seniority onely reserued it appeareth by his Epistles that many Bishops acknowledged not such primacy ouer them as he claimed whereof he complameth in diuerse of his Epistles The place of Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 3. that heresies haue sprong because one Iudge is not acknowledged in steâ—de of Christ for the time to whom the whole brotherhood might obey He can not deny but it is ment of Cyprian of one Iudge in euery diocesse But he reasoneth a fortiori that there ought to be much rather one Iudge ouer all the world Howbeit I haue shewed the in consequence of this argument by example of one Phisitian one Schoolemaister one Iudge in temporall matters ouer the whole worlde to whom it is as impossible to discharge suche an office ouer all as it is profitable for one suche to be in euerie towne He sayth that particular flockes are voluntarie and likewise particular pastors but one flocke and one pastor is of absolute necessitie on earth In deede the limites of particular flockes and the persons of particular pastors are left to the appoyntment and choise of the church But that there should be particular flockes and pastors it is of Gods ordination though God by his Apostles appoynted it to be so yet is it of as absolute necessity while the church is dispersed in diuerse places of the world as that there is one flocke and one shepheard ouer all Iesus Christ and yet he is not ashamed to challenge vs pag. 298. Let the text be named where Christ did institute many parishes Whereas he him selfe pag. 294. quoteth Tit. 1. Act. 14. which places proue that Christ did institute many parishes except he will say the Apostles did it without the institution of Christ which he confesseth they did not without the speciall inspiration of the holy Ghost or else will say that the inspiration of the holy Ghost in the ordinaunce of many parishes differeth from the institution of Christ. But he that wrangleth thus impudently and vnreasonably agaâ—nst the playne institution of many parishes by Christ bringeth a playne text where it is sayd Feede me sheepe to one pastor Hath this man any foreheade thinke you that calleth this a playne text to proue that there shoulde be one sheepehearde vpon earth ouer all the flocke because Christ vpon speciall occasion exhorted one man to feede his flocke Are all thinges that were spoken to him singular vnto him Christ sayd to him and to none other of the Apostles come after me Satan thou art an offense to me for thou sauerest not the thinges that are of God but of men Christ sayed to Peter and to none other put vp thy sworde into thy scaberd Christ sayed to Peter and to none other thou wilt denye me thrise O paynted rocke of the Popishe Churche that hathe no better grounde then this saying feede my sheepe when he that challengeth auctoritie hereby of all other feedeth least and poysoneth most But let vs returne and see what auctoritie of olde fathers he hath to proue one pastorall preheminence ouer all the churche Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 8. Deus vnus est Christus vnus vna ecclesia Cathedra vna super petram Domini voce fundata There is one God and one Christ and one churche and one chaire founded vpon Peter by our Lordes voyce Heare I say first of all that he doth falsifie Sainct Cyprians wordes turning peâ—ram into petrum so that his saying is There is one chaire by our Lordes voyce founded on the rocke An other altar or a new Priesthoode can not be appointed beside one altar and one Priesthoode Whosoeuer gathereth elsewhere scattereth abroad c. But if the worde were petrum and not petram yet the whole discourse of that Epistle sheweth that Cyptian meaneth by these wordes to set forth not the past orall preheminence of one man ouer the whole church but one
gather againe the Lords sheepe into his folde The 9. note is That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptised by hereâ—kes yet hee denyed not his prerogatiue but kept still the vnitie of the militant Church in acknowledging the visible head thereof He quoteth his ep Contra Stephan wherin is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogatiue but contrary wise euery childe may see that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinon froÌ„ the B. of Rome wrote against him he helde no such prerogatiue of that sea as the Papists now maintaine that the bishop of Rome cannot erre In deede Cyprian professeth that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion yet he would not deparâ—e from the vnitie of the Church but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head wherof M. S. speaketh much but Cyprian neuer a word neither in that place nor in any of all his workes The next authoritie is Hippolitus whose words Prud rehearseth Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite c. Hâ—s aunsvvere vvas O flee the sâ—smes of cursed Nouates lâ—re And to the Catholike fâ—lke and stocke your selues againe restore Let onely one faith rule and raâ—gne kept in the Church of olde VVhich faith both Paule doth sâ—l retaine Peters chair doth holdâ— No dout this was a good exhortation so longe as the temple of Peter aâ—d Paule at Rome did holde the olde catholike faith from which seeing the Pope is now fled we may not honor the emptie chaire of Peter to think there is his faith where his doctrine is not After Hippolitus followeth Sozomenus who reporteth that Athanasius and certaine other Byshops of the Greeke Church came to Rome to Iulius the byshopp there to complaine that they were vniustly deposed by the Arians Wherevpon the Byshop of Rome finding them vpon examination to agree with the Nicene couÌ„cel did reâ—eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all for the worthynes of his owne See and did restore to euery of them their owne Churches c. Heere M. Sander hath his 9 obseruations he delighteth much in that number But it shall not neede to stand vpon them it is coÌ„fessed that in Sozomenus time the writer of this story who iudgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lyued the sea of Rome was growne into great estimation and counted the first See or principall in dignitie of all Byshops Seas in the worlde Yea it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he sayeth That long before his time the Byshops Sea of Rome aswel as of Alexandria was growne beyonde the bands of Prâ—esthood into a forraine Lordship dominion Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the recordes of the very time in which Iulius lyued we shall not finde that the dignitie of his Sea was such as that he hadde such authoritie as Sozomenus aseribeth to him and much lesse such as M. Sander imagineth of him In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus which beside that he called him his fellow minister acknowledgeth no such dignitie of his Sea lib. 3. to 1. And Sozomenus himselfe testifyeth that the Bishops of the East derided contemned his commandementes lib. 3. Cap. 8. cap. 11. they were as bolde to depose him with the byshops of the West as he was to check them that they called not him to their councel Wherein as I confesse they did euell yet thereby they shewed euidently that the Christian worlde in those dayes did not acknowledge the vsurpation of the bishop of Rome as M. Sander saith they did Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him if it had beene a Catholike doctrine receiued in the Church that the Byshopp of Rome is head of the Church Byshop of all Byshops Iudge of all causes and one which cannot erre As for Athanasius Paulus c. and other Byshops beeing tossed to and fro by their enemyes no maruaile if they were glad to finde any comfort at the Byshop of Romes hands hauing first sought to the Emperors for refuge of whome sometime they were holpeÌ„ sometime they wer hindred as informatioÌ„ was giuen either for them or against theÌ„ But Arnobius he sayeth giueth a maruailous witnes for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto c Peter wandering in the desert of this worlde vntill he came to Rome preached the baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floods are blessed from Peter vnto this day He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst so that he which shall goe forth of the Church of Peter shal perish for thirst It is a maruelous witte of M. Sander that can find such maruelous prerogatiue of Peter in this place which Arnobius would haue in the example of Peter to be vnderstoode of all men Quid est ascendunt Disce in Petro vt quod in ipso inueneris in omnibus cernas Ascendit Petrus c. What meaneth this they goe vp as highe as heauen Learne in Peter to thend that y t which thou shalt find in Peter thou mayst see in all men Peter went vp as high as heauen when he sayd Although I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee c. and so applying the vnderstanding of the Psalme to Peter and in him to all ChristiaÌ„s he coÌ„meth to that maruelous testimony of the church of Rome which M. Sander reporteth shewing how after his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floodes are blessed from Peter to this day Where M. Sander vseth a false translation saying the floodes are blessed of Peter and expoundeth the floodes to be the churches whereas Arnobius speaketh of all waters which in Christ are sanctified to the vse of baptisme from the Apostles time vntill this day But it is a Catholike argument that whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Peter goeth out of the Church of Christe therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the heade thereof Euen lyke this whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Paule or of any of the Apostles wheresoeuer they planted it doth perish therefore Corinth and Paule or any other Citie the Apostle that preached there may be taken for the head and Pastor and mother Church of all other yet is this with M. Sander a meruailous testimony Optatus succeeded Arnobius Cont. Pamen de nat lib. 2. Negare nonpotes c. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishops chaire was giuen in the citie of Rome in which Peter the head of al the apostles hath sit wherofhe was also called Cephas in which chair vnitie might be kept of al men so that he should be a scismatike w c should place any other chaire against the singular chaire Vnto Peter succeeded Linus vnto Linus succeded Clemens so nameth all the Byshops vntil Siricius which liued in
nothinge els but an impudent and vnskillfull quarelling against Beza wheras you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cuppe the practise of the primitiue Church the communion in one kind of bread onely Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21. The tenth marke of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist which are heretikes To agree with them in heresie is a poynt of Antichristianisme I confesse but not to agree with them in any thing For euery heresy affirmeth things that are true But let vs see in what points of heresie he chargeth vs to agree with the olde heretikes First Eunomius sayde that no sinne should hurt him if he were partaker of the faith which he taught so the Protestants saye of their faith Yea sir but their faith is not Eunomius faith yet they say not that no sinne shall hurt them but no sinne shall condemne them so say you Papistes of your popish faith Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed that mortall sinnes committed after baptisme might not be forgiueÌ„ of the Priest but of God alone The Protestants deny the Priest to haue any right to forgiue sinnes This is a lowd lye false sclaunder for we hold that the minister of God hath authoritie to forgiue all sinnes that God will forgiue according to the power giuen to them Ioan. 20 But you Papistes agree with the heretike in this poynt that you deny the Priest to forgiue all sinnes according to the power giuen but haue your casus Episcopales Papales by which you abridge the power giuen by Christ. Thirdly the Messalians denyed that baptisme doth plucke vp the roote of sinnes the same is the opinioÌ„ of the ProtestaÌ„ts The Protestants haue none opinion common with the Messalians who affirmed that our owne merits satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking vp the roote of sinnes whereas we affirme that baptisme saueth vs according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiuenes of our sinnes whereby euen the roote of sinne is plucked vp although coÌ„cupiscense remayne after the acte of baptisme which you Papistes also confesse to remayne to be the roote of sinne although you graunt it not to be sinne But we limit not the effect of baptisme to the time passed before y e acte of baptisme onely as you doe but extend it to our aeternall saluation he that beleueth is baptised shall be saued Marke 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this in your coÌ„tinual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeyes agree with the Messalians Fourthly AErius taught that we must not pray for the dead nor keepe the accustomed fastings that there is no difference betwene a Priest a Bishop The superstition of praying for the dead was iustly reproued by AErius so was the fast of custom and decree rather then of consideration for the first that praied for the dead were heretikes Montanists as Tertullian his sect the first that made prescript lawes of fasting was Montanus the heretike also as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Hierom Euagrio affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God Fifthly Iouinian iudged virginitie equall with mariage so doe the Protestants I haue shewed before howe it is equall and how it is superior Sixtly S. Hierom reproueth Vigilantius of heresie for denying prayer to Sainctes and giuing honour to reliques For praying to Sainctes there is no mention in S Hierom the immoderate honoring of reliques was iustly reproued and yet it was not then the one halfe of that it hath bene since Hieronym although he rather rayle then reason against Vigilantius as â—rasmus hath noted yet he desendeth not the adoratioâ— or worshipping but the reuerent estimation of reliques Seuenthly the Arrians would not beleue the consubstantiality of the same because that word was not written in the Scripture So do the Protestants deny many thinges vpon the like pretence This is a meere sclaunder for we stande vpon the sence of the Scripture and not the wordes onely Eightly Eusebius noteth it for an haynous impietie in Nouatus that he was not consummate with crisme which the Protestants call greasing In deede Cornelius Bishop of Rome reporteth that Nouatus was baptised in tyme of necessitie being very like to dye Iacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit nec reliqua in eo quâ— baptismum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit vnde nec spiritum sanctum vnquam potuerit promereri Lying in his bed according to the necessitie he was baptised nether were the other things that are wont to follow baptisme solemnly fullfilled nether was he consummate with y e seale of Chrisme wherby he could neuer obtayne the holy Ghost First I saye this is noted as no impietie in Nouatus but as a defect of necessitie Secondly that the Chrisme which Cornelius speaketh of was ether a seale of the extraordinarye gifts of the holy Ghost which in some remayned in the Church vntill that tyme or els he magnifieth that ceremony intollerably to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not being none of the institution of Christ and contrary to that the Papistes them selues hold at this day Ninethly Lucius the Arrian persecuted holy Monkes so doe the Protestants Nay they punish none but filthy idle Idolaters and hypocrites Tenthly the Montanists and Luciferians sayd there was a stewes made of the Church They sayde so falsly when the Churche was chaste but Esaye say de truely how is the faithfull citie become an whore when the Church of Israell was so in deede Eleuenthly the Donatists sayd the Church was lost from all the world preserued only in Africa So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all partes of the world and raysed vp againe in Germany The Protestants say not so For the Churche hath bene scattered ouer the face of the earth since the first preaching of the Apostles vnto this day But the Papistes saye that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserued only in a part of Europe when of all partes in the world onely a part of Europe which is the least part of the world was subiect to the Church of Rome Tweluethly the Seuâ—rians vsed the law and the Prophets but they peruerted the sense of the Scriptures by a certayne peculiar interpretation of their owne So doe the Protestants Nay so do the Papistes that submitte all vnderstanding of the Scripture be it neuer so playne to the interpretation of their Pope and popish Church as the commaundement of Images forbidden and the cuppe to be receyued of all doe most manifestly declare Lastly it hath alwayes bene a tricke of Iewes and heretikes to be still in hande with translating holy Scriptures that by chaunging they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side as Theodotion Aquila Symmachus So doe the ProtestaÌ„ts now Hieronym was no heretike yet did he