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
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
worlde and that he will shewe by six differences which he will consider in order First no man succeedeth in that chayer by right of inheritance The like I may say of the Germane Emperour therefore this is no difference Secondly it is not obtayned by right of battaile inuasion or otherwise but by election So is the Emperour at this daye onely by election And if Maister Sanders be not to impudent he wil not deny but there hath bene bickering and intruding by force into that chayre and that is worse entering by symony murder treason and deuilish sorcery The thirde nether childe nor woman nor Infidell nor Catechumeni can be chosen Bishop of Rome No more can any suche be chosen Emperour by the golden bull and lawe of the election And yet seeing boyes are made Cardinalls which be electours of the Pope and elegible there is none impossibilitie but a boye may be chosen Pope as well as a woman hathe beene Pope Ione I meane Iohn the 23. was condemned in the councell of Constans for an Infidell which denied the immortalitie of the soule The fourth the election of the Bishop of Rome as of all other Bishops pertayneth onely to Ecclesiasticall persons a king may be chosen by the people without the Clergie To this I saye that the Bishop of Rome was wont to be chosen as well by the people as by the Clergie And so is the Emperour chosen by as many Bishops as ciuill Princes except in case of equalitie of voyces Nether is the Clergye euer excluded in any lawfull election of any kinge where he is made by election The fift to omit the Bishop of Romes temporall dominion which he confesseth to be but accessory to his Bishoprike in his Ecclesiasticall gouernment he vseth not that force and power which worldly Princes do He compelleth none no not y e Iewes in Rome to baptisme No more doth the Emperour But what meanes vseth he to depose kinges absolue their subiects from their othe of obedieÌ„ce where he iudgeth them for heretikes how maketh he warres and setteth all the worlde in an vprore to defend his vsurped dignitie false doctrine Doth he not by force compell Christians to his filthy Idolatrye or els cruelly murdereth and tormenteth them The 6. the Bishop of Rome as Bishop neuer punisheth them with the materiall sword which forsake his Church No but as Antichrist and a tyrant he imprisoneth them hangeth them drowneth them burneth them not as a Bishop sayth M. Sander but as a temporall Prince and Lorde as Moses being one of the Priestes of our Lord was also maister of ciuill gouernment Behold this deuisor of differeÌ„ces at length maketh him a ciuill Prince and temporall Lorde from whom he had labored by so many differences to distingush before But now lest you should espye his impudent conclusion he draweth into a new controuersie whether Moses were a Priest And first he will proue that Moses was a Priest by the Scripture Psal. 98. Where it is sayd Moses Aaron in sacerdotibus eius If he will not allowe the Hebrue worde Cohanim to signifie Princes as it doth in diuerse other places yet sayth not the Psalme that Moses and Aaron were both Priestes but that amonge his Priestes they were suche as called vpon his name and were hearde and Samuel who followâ—th in the same verse confessed nowe by Maister Sander to be a Leuit forgetting that before he made him highe Priest But farther to proue that Moses was a Priest he citeth Augustine Ieronym Gregor Naz. Dionys. and Philo but all to small purpose for his cause It must needes be confessed that Moses as all the Patriarkes before him in their families was a Priest before the distinction of the two offices was made when Aaron and his posteritie onely were choosen â—to bee Priestes After which tyme he was no longer a Priest nether did he any thing as a Priest but as a Prophet and as a Prince But admit he were both a Prince and a Priest yet he commaunded Aaron as a Prince and not as a Priest For Aaron was highe Priest and therefore coulde haue no Priest aboue him By which it is inferred that the office of a Prince is to commaunde the highe Priest and so was it alwayes practised by all godly Princes But Maister Sander returning to his last and least difference affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome neuer condemneth any man for herefie or schisme to corporall death in his owne person nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiasticall persons But who vnderstandeth not this mockerie for as well it may be sayde the Kinge neuer hangeth any man in his owne person therefore none are executed by his authoritie as the Pope neuer condemneth any to death in his owne person therefore he perswadeth not his religion with fire and sworde But will the Pope and the Bishoppe that are so mylde and gentle suffer them whome they condemne for heresie to escape their hands before they haue deliuered them to death O cruell and shameles hypocrites Neuertheles Maister Sander sayth they haue power ouer mens soules by that which our Sauiour sayd to Peter To the I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. which wordes are deryued to the Bishop of Rome by meanes of the chayre of S. Peter A straunge kinde of deriuation neuer touched in the Scripture to which words the sayde Bishop referreth all his power where as worldly Princes appeale to the lawe of the Gospell nether in getting nor gouerning nor establishing their dominion and power Marke well this English Anabaptist Is not this the lawe of the Gospell There is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordayned of God Rom. 13. 1. for getting of deminion and power And is not this the lawe of the Gospell for their gouerning that gouernours are sent of God for the punishment of euil doers and for the prayse of them that doe well 1. Pet. 2. vers 14. And for the establyshing of theyr dominion is not this the law of the Gospel giue vnto Caesar the thinges that belong to Caesar. Matthew 22. verse 21. And againe we muste be subiect of necessitie not onely for feare but euen for conscience Rom. 13. verse 5. As for the Popes pietie and lenitie wherewith hee ruleth when all the world seeth how proudely and tyrannicall yhe behaueth him selfe it were folly to spend many wordes about it As for his gentle tearmes of sonnes and brethren wherewith hee saluteth Princes and Byshops and the seruaunt of the seruants of God which he calleth him selfe be simple and shorte clokes to hide his horrible presumption and tyranny wherewith he not only most shaÌ„efully reuileth most Christian Princes as it appeareth in that trayterous Bul which came from him against our moste gracious soueraigne Lady but also taketh vpon him to depose them from their estate royall vsurping to him felfe the name of holynesse of heade of the
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
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
A RETENTIVE TO STAY GOOD CHRISTIANS IN TRVE FAITH and religion against the motiues of Richard Bristow ALSO A DISCOVERIE OF THE DAVNGEROVS ROCKE OF THE POPISH Church commended by Nicholas Sander D. of Diuinitie Done by VVilliam Fulke Doctor of diuinitie and Maister of Pembroke hall in Cambridge Imprinted at London by Thomas Vautroullier for George Bishop 1580. A CATALOGVE OF ALL SVCH POPISH BOOKES EITHER AVNSVVERED or to be aunswered which beeinge written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apologie of the English Church aunswered by M. Iewell Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewells challenge aunswered by M. Iewell 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edward Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell aunswered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruths answered by M. Iewel 6 Rastel against M. Iewels challenge aunswered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the Sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulke 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermoÌ„ aunswered by M. Gough and M. Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse aunswered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter incerto authore against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defence of Purgatory aunswered by W. Fulke 19 Heskins Parleament repealed by W. Fulke 20 An offer of a Catholickque to a learned Protestant answered by W. Fulke 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulke 22 Sanders rocke of the popish church vndermined by W. Fulke 23 Sanders defence of Images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhill answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes pearle aunswered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies aunswered by M. Bartlet 27 M. Euans aunswered by him selfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse aunswered by coniecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certaine assertions tending to maintayne the Church of Rome to be the true Catholique Church confuted by Iohn Knewstub 30 Bristowes motiues and demaunds aunswered by W. Fulke 31 Stapletons fortresse of the faith aunswered by W. Fulke These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in aunsvvering those vvhich are not by Gods assistance as time vvill serue shall receiue their seuerall replyes If the Papistes knovv any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lordes supper partly vnaunswered 2 Allens defence of Priestes authoritie to remitte sinnes and of the Churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 4 Rastells reply 5 Vaux his Catechisme 6 Canisius his Catechisme translated 7 Frarins oration translated 8 Iohn de Albynnes discourse against heresies enâ—â—â—hed with an offer of a Catholique to a learned Protestant which offer is aunswered vnder the name of Ristons articles by W. Fulke 9 Gregor Martins treatise of schisme 10 Poyntes of the Sacrament A REASONABLE REQVEST AND PROTESTATION OF W. Fulke to all learned Papists FOrasmuch as there is no ende of writing bookes as the wise man sayth and that the truth of argumentes is best discerned when it is brought vnto the iudgement of Logicke which is the arte of reasoning If any of the learned Papistes will reply against these and other mine aunsweres I require that as well for their owne ease as that I may haue time to peruse them and the readers no impediment but that they may clearely iudge of them they wil leaue of all vayne discourses and needelesse questions and only conclude the coÌ„trouersies of religion that are betwene vs in the strict forme of Logicall argumentes If to this reasonable request they refuse to yeelde I protest before God and the world that they shew them selues thereby to be enemies of the truth that they flie the light and dare not abide the triall Faultes escaped The first number signifieth the page the last the number of the lines Pag. 12. lin 1. Homousian r. Homousion 13. 10. last r. least 15. 8. Arrius r. AErius 15. 14. your r. there 15. 18. vvherefore r. vvhereof 15. 27. recited r. reuiued 20. 26. Iudaea r. India 27. 27. virtute r. vnitate 30. 24. coÌ„maunded r. commended 34. 32. other r. ether 36. 33. heare r. hovv 40. 14. circumstituantur r. circumstipantur 40. 37 audient r. audirent 42. 23. cere r. cura 44. 10. condemned r. conteÌ„ned 44. 36. caâ—c r. con 45. 18. true r. foure 48. 37. Marcellus r. Marcellinus 55. 19. Hovv r. Novv 58. 15. persvvadeth r. presupposeth 67. 38. r. in a maner depend 68. 11. resisting r. receiuing 68. 28. and r. an 73. 1â— quaeque r. quoque 79. 29. RipanuÌ„ r. Riparium 80. 35. Babicas r. Babilas 80. 38. for r. to 81. 7. troubles r. tombes 81. 16. Reg r. â— Reg. 13. 81. 17. lavves r. bones 82. 30. verity r. vnity 87. 10. contâ—et r. coÌ„teret 88. 2. sending r. studying 88. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 88. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 89. 14. v 11. r. 14. 90. 36. nor r. are 90. 38. r. vvere not better applied 92. 37. ber 2. r. ver 21. 25. learning r. hearing 95. 14. r. if by masse 95. 25. consecrated r. vnconsecrated 96. 34. that the churches of the Britans vvere of another forme then those of the Romanes 96. 35. Niua r. Ninia 99. 18. names r. nonus 100. 19. serueth r. seemeth 100. 30. austerity r. authority 103. 9. apostolicall r. apostaticall 107. 21. all our 111. 11. saue r. serue 112. 38. truly r. fondly 116. 7. shall r. should 117. 36. Bzia r. Bizari 120. 23. not r. out 127. 2. maÌ„ r. may 123. 5. rehearsed r. released 131. 23. do not vvell r. do vvell Out of the discouery of the rocke Pag. 140. Lin. 25. if read that 141. 28. or r. c. 144. 24. fuit r. sint 150. 14. receyued r. recited 20. r. these tvvo 155. l. vlt. Rhetianus r. Rhetitius 158. 2. controuersie r. conuersion 159. 5. many r. men 163. 31. vilant r. vigilant 165. 26. this r. these 167. 4 not r. as l. vlt. r. vvhich ma y. 173. 30. confirmed r. considered 176. 24. godlines r. lordlines 177. 34. that r. this true r. tvvo 189. 6. vvhen r. vvhom l. 12. put out prayse 204. 30. instituteth r. intituleth 208. 35. offered r. before made 228. 7. vnee r. ounce 232. 11. r that it l. 15. Caebastinus r. Caelestinus 233. 5. generally r. generall 236. 13. austerity r. authority 256. 1. and r. no. 250. 32. fostered r. fastened 247. 3. idio r. ideo 272.
dixit ille collegameus aut illi collegaemei aut illi Episcopi vel Clerici vel Laici nostri aut ideâ— verum est quia illa illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius aut quilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quia ille frater nofler aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilanâ— vidit veltale visum dormiens somniauit Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum velportenta fallacium spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae diâ—unâ—tr aut sihaereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt magis cauere debemus And let him so shew it that he say not it is true because I say this or because this sayd that companion of mine or those companions of mine or those our Bishops or Clerkes or laymen or therefore it is true because Donatus or Pontius or any other hath done these or those miracles or because men pray at the memories of our martyrs are hearde or because these are those things doe happen there or because that our brother or that ou rsister sawe such a vision waking or dreamed such a vision sleping Let these things be remoued which ether are the faynings of lying men or els the wonders of deceyuing spirites for either they are not true that are sayd to be or if any miracles are done by heretikes we ought the more to take heede of them And yet againe he writeth in the same booke and chapter Sed vtrumipsecclesiam teneant non nisi diumarum sâ—ripturarum Canontcis libris ostcudant quia nee nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quod in ecclesia Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus coâ—â—niendauit Mileuitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alij innumerabiles nostrae coÌ„munionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum concilijs ipsa predicata est aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora martyrum quod possunt à multis interrogantes audire Ambrosio fuerint reuelata ad ipsa corpora Caecus multâ—rum annorum ciuitati Mediolanensi notissiâ—nus oculos lumeÌ„que receperit aut quia ille SoÌ„nium vidit ille spiritu assumptus audiuit siue ne iniret in partem Donati sâ—ue vt recederet à parte Donati Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbaÌ„da quia in Catholica fiunt non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia hae in eafiunt Ipse Dominus Iesus cum resurrexisset à mortuis discipulorum oculis videndum manibusque tangendum corpus suum offerret nequid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur magis eos testimonijs Legis Prophetarum Psalmorum confirmandos esse iâ—dicauit ostendens ca de se impleta quae fuerant tanto ante praedicta Sic ecclesiam suam coÌ„mendauit dicens praedicari in nomine suo poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes inciptentibus ab Hierusalem Hoc in Lege Prophetis Psalmis esse sâ—riptum ipse testatus est hoc eius ore commendatum tenemus Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta haec fundamenta haec firmameÌ„ta But whether they holde the church or no let them shew none otherwise but by the Canonical books of the holy Scriptures Because that neither we do say that therefore men must beleue vs that we are in the Church of Christ because Optatus of Mileuitum or Ambrose of Millain or innumerable other Bishops of our communion haue commended this Church which we hold or because it is commaunded in the councels of our fellow Bishops or because that in the holy places which our comunion doth frequent throughout the worlde so gteat miracles are done either of hearing mens prayers or of healings so that the bodies of martyrs which haue bene hidden for so many yeres which which thing if they will aske they may heare of many were reuealed vnto Ambrose and that at the same bodies a man which had bene blind many yeres very well knowen to the city of Millain receiued his eyes sight or because this man sawe a dreame or that man being taken vp in spirite did heare either that he shoulde not enter into the faction of Donatus or that he should depart from Donatus side Whatsoeuer of such things are done in the Catholike church they are therefore to be approued because they are done in the Catholike church but the church is not therby proued Catholike because such things are done in it Our lord Iesus himselfe when he had risen from the dead offred his body to be seene with the eyes touched with the hands of his disciples yet least they should think they suffered any illusion he iudged that they were rather to be confirmed with the testimonies of the lawe the prophets the Psalmes shewing that those thinges were fulfilled of him which were so long before prophecied So also he coÌ„mended his church saying that repentance forgenenes of sinnes must be preached in his name throgh out all nations beginning at Hierusalem This he him selfe testifieth to be writteÌ„ in the lawe the prophetes the psalmes this we holde being commâ—nded to it by his owne mouth These be profes of our cause these be our foundations these be our strong argumentes These thinges I haue set downe more at large out of Augustine because they are not onely a stop vnto these motiues of miracles visions but in a manner to all the rest that followe The 8. motiue is the 4. demaunde Scriptures denied by the Protestantes what scriptures they deny praying for the dead confirmed by scripture pray or of saintes for vs fayth onely aganst the scripture Reall presence of Christ in the sacrament confirmed by scripture No scripture is against the Catholikes but all is for them VVhosoeuer haue taught doctrine saith Bristow so plainly repugnant to the holy Scriptures that for maintenaunce thereof they were faine to deny bookes of the holy Scriptures or to say the Scriptures to haue bene falsified and corrupted they were heretikes and such are the Protestantes therefore they are heretikes Howe proue you the Protestants to be suche Marie sayth Bristow first they deny the Canonicall most certayne Scripture of the Machabees for none other cause but that it is playne against their heresies maynteyning prayer for the dead and prayer of Sainctes for vs. This is a lowde lye for we shewe many causes why we reiect that prophane writing of Iasons abridger beside the auctoritie of the Iewish church before Christ and the primitiue church after Christ as I haue declared against the secoÌ„d booke of Allens defence cap. 3. But in defense of the booke of Machabees to be Canonical Bristow wilsay as S. Augustine sayd to certeyne that
Popish church neuer made any chauÌ„ge of religion Which is a shamelesse assertion although he say that none of his aduersaries is able to charge them with any alteration since Augustines time For to omitte the whole scope of doctrine cleane peruerted I will obserue only the practise of the church in Augustines time about the Lords supper In that time the lay people did receaue the communion in both kindes and one thousand yeres almost after which of late the Papistes haue altered In Augustines time the communion was geuen to infantes which the Papistes doe not obserue therefore they can not bragge of perpetuall practise and deny all chaunge in religion made by them But Bristow not content with this vayne bragge will go farther and shewe that whatsoeuer they haue vsed sithe S. Augustines time was obserued euen so in all that time that passed betwene S. Paule and S. Augustine Is not this a master of impudence to promise that which all the worlde of learned men doth know to be impossible to be performed and whereof the promiser himselfe can bring no profe at all but his bare worde For he beginneth with exorcisme and exsufflation which as it was vsed in Augustines time vnnecessarily so it appeareth by Cyprian that was long before him that it was vsed for the casting out of the deuill in them whose bodies he did sensibly possesse lib. 3. cap. 7. ad Magnum Of the sacrifice of the Masse worshipping of the Sacrament and oblation for the deade as Bristow referreth the reader to his fift and seuenth motiues so doe I to mine aunsweres vnto the same Concerning the vse of the altare howe truly he sayth I referre the reader to mine answere of D. Heskins lib. 3. cap. 31. The other fonde reason of the practise of the church that children were taught to beleue the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for which he citeth Aug. de Tim. lib. 3. cap. 10. which the poore man borowed out of Allens booke of Purgatory is discussed answered in my confutation of the same treatise lib. 2 cap. 9. Then followeth going on pilgrimage to holy places worshipping of reliques prayer vnto Sainctes vsed as he sayth in Augustines time For worshipping of reliques and praying to Sainctes he citeth Aug de câ—re pro mor. Who concludeth that to be buried at some memorie of the martyrs doth in this poynct only auayle the dead that the affection of supplication commending him also to the patronage of the martyr may be encreased That this was no perpetuall practise of the church to desire the intercession of Sainctes it is manifest by this that Augustine him selfe dare affirme nothing certeinly whether or how the Saincts may heare our prayers Affirming that this question passeth the power of his vnderstanding cap. 16. But by the name of memory Bristow will vnderstande relique because it is somtime so vsed which is no strong argument But admitte it were so how can he proue either that practise to haue bene continued from S. Paule to S. Augustine or the same opinion of reliques to haue ben in Augustines time which is mainteined in the Popish church that there was superstitious peregrinatioÌ„ vnto Ierusalem c. vsed in S. Hieroms time it is as true as that the same was reproued of him Ep. ad Paul If God shewed any miracles at the deade bodyes of the Martyrs to confirme that religion for which they suffred against the Gentiles it foloweth not that the reliques of dead Saints are to be worshiped kissed saught vnto by pilgrimage c but most absurd is it that Bristow would haue Hierome by ofteÌ„ entering into the Cryptos or vaultes of churches at Rome to signifie that he went a Pilgrimage Hierome was not so grose to accounte walking about the Citie to be a Preregrination But what is so leaden or blockishe which these doltish Papists will not auouch for the mainteinaunce of their trompery Last of all he chargeth the Protestantes with an impudent attempt in making such an vniuersall chaunge of the whole face of Religion which none of the olde Heretikes did before theÌ„ That we are like to none of the olde Heretikes we like our selues neuer the worse but as concerning the vniuersall chaunge it was necessary in reformation where there was an vniuersal Apostacie For any alteratioÌ„ that we haue made the Papistes dare not affirme for shame that wee haue brought any thing into the Church which ought not to be vsed by the worde of God neither are they able to proue that we haue omitted anything which by the holy scripture is necessaryly required To coÌ„clude you see that the practise of the church except it be perpetuall euen from the first beginning is no Motiue by Augustines iudgement and that Bristowe though hee hath bragged much thereof for some superstitions vsed of olde yet he hath brought nothing to proue that they haue beene from the beginning The 12. Motiue is the 28. demaunde Sea apostolike The communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians The Romain Church is the Catholike Church Saint Augustine of our religion Such as are condemned by the Sea Apâ—stolike are holden for Heretikes Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Emperours and other peeres of our Religion as also their first conuersion S. Theodoret Chrisostom and Hierome of our Religion Antichristes side against the Pope Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing VVhosoeuer sayth Bristow at any time were for their doing or teaching condemned by the definitiue sentence of the Sea Apostolike and stubbernly condemned the same they were Scismatikes or heretikes And contrariwise all Catholike men haue kept them selues in the vnitie of that sea and if for any cause they were out of it labouring to be reconciled againe or if they had beene but suspected neuer ceasing vntill they had made their purgation Moreouer he saith there can none example be alleadged to the contrary but innumerable for it It is not denyed but the Church and Sea of Rome while it continued in true catholike Religion was much reuerenced euery where so farre at least as the Romane empire did extende But when any Bishop of that sea went out of the way either in scisme or herefie they were not followed but resisted condemned For Example When Victor bishop of Rome like a proude scismatike did take vpon him to excommunicate all the Churches of the East for celebration of Easter they did not onely contemne his censure but many Bishops also did sharply rebuke him as Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons other Euse. li. 5. ca. 25. WheÌ„ Liberius bishop of Rome relented vnto the Arrians he was forsaken of the true Christians and accounted an Heretike Hier. in Catal. When Bonifacius Zosimus and Celestinus Bishops of Rome would chalenge appellations out of Africa contrary to the decrees out of the councels of Africa by counterfaiting a Canon of the Nicene councell they were resisted by all the Bishops of Africa and the trechery
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
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
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
continence so renounced the world that they possessed nothing in proper As testifieth Epiphanius and Augustine And Philaster affirmeth that they absteyned also from cating of flesh So that all thinges considered Aerius mainteyned the doctrine of the Papistes as much as of the Protestantes That our preachers in pulpits praise God for the founders of colledges and schooles of learning by name what maketh this for allowance of their religion God is to be praised for such benefits as he hath bestowed vpon his church or any members thereof euen by Turks and Heathen men Wherfore this is a very slow motiue vnto Popery For whether the founders were good or euill men and what intent soeuer they had their benefits are now vsed to the glory of God therefore God for them and their benefits is greatly to be praised The 37. motiue hath neuer a demaund that I can aptly referre vnto it The only knowne vndoubted mother of Christs children for a thousand yeares together The church is euerlasting and visible The Popish church hath not only bene y e only known church and vndoubted mother of Christes children for these thousand yeares First because it is not of so many yeares continuaunce the mysterie of iniquitie hauing not bene in highest degree of wickednesse before the councell of Constance where notwithstanding the institution of Christ and the practise of the primitiue church the communion of the Lordes bloud was taken from the people Secondly the Popish church was neuer acknowledged by all the true children of Christes church for their mother which was a steppemother and a persecuter of them Thirdly the Popish church was neuer y e only reputed church or mother of Christs children of all them that professe Christianitie for the churches of the East as great and as large as she was in the West woulde neuer so accompt the Popish steppedame of Rome but did separate them selues from her communion Fourthly the Catholike church of Christes members dispersed ouer all the world vnder the tyranny both of the Turke the Pope haue in all times protested that y e Romish Apostolical synagoge is the whore of Babylon and see of Antichrist The places of Mich. 4. and Esa 61. which he citeth to proue that the church must be alwayes visible you shall finde aunswered with many other in mine ouerthrow of Stapletons fortres lib. 1. cap. 13. And wheras Bristow confesseth that a mist may hide an hil that is neuer so high from some wicked sighted men that are without it but neuer from them that are within it no meruaâ—le if the spirituall church of Christ being lifted vp aboue the top of all hills not in worldly glory but euen vnto heauenly dignitie hath long remained hid from them that haue no spirituall eyes at all But Bristow thinketh it strauÌ„ge that a mist should continue a thousand yeres together Then I aske him what hath hindered the greatest parte of all the worlde seduced by Mahometistrie and Gentilitie that for these thousand yeres they haue not seene the height of the Popish church If he say not a mist about their church but a blindnesse in the others eyes to be the cause the same I aunswere for the Catholike dispersed church of Christ which the Papistes pretend that this thousand yeares they could not see Although as I haue often sayd Papistry is not halfe so olde in the greatest heresies and absurdities which now she maynteyneth The 38. motiue is the 24. demaund also the 48. and the 17. Celebration operation of Christes death The sacrifice of Bristow the masse Priestâ—oode VVhere Christ worketh Only faytâ— Exorcising of deuills In the Popish churchis no celebration but a derogation of the merite of Christs death by the blasphemous sacrifice of the masse But Bristow in the 24. demaunde asketh vs whether we be content to trie religion by the Priesthood that hath bene froÌ„ the beginning of Christs church I answere that we must first consent of the name of Priest and Priesthoode whereof also in the same demaunde he cauilleth that we haue chaunged the name therefore haue chaunged the order The name I say of Priesthood Priest must be coÌ„sidered either according to the Etymologie deriuation or els according to the present vse thereof And according to the deriuation we coÌ„fesse y t this word Priest coÌ„ming of the greeke word Presbyteros signifieth the same oâ—der which is instituted by God like as the word Bishop câ—mming of Episcopus for which if any man vse the name of Elder superintendent he varieth nothing in the worlde from the signification of Presbyter and Episcopus and much lesse setteth vp a new order as Bristow most vainly doth cauill For in that sence we abhorre not the name of Priest Bishop But when according to the present vse this word Priest is takeÌ„ for him which in greke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine Sacerdos that is one appointed to offer a special sacrifice for which our English tongue hath none other worde but Priest as Bristow doth well confesse In this sence we deny that we haue any speciall Priesthoode or Priestes among vs but the only Priesthoode and high Priest our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ and the generall Priesthoode that is common to all the Saynctes of God Apoc. 16. But in the former sence we haue the same office of Bishoppe Elder or Priest which being ordeyned by the holy Ghost hath continewed in the church vntill this time But this will Bristowe disproue by two reasons First that auncient Bishoppes and Priestes were made by Bishoppès and Priestes and not by Kinges and Queenes secondly they were made to offer sacrifice and euen for the deade Concerning the first it is true that the auncient Priestes were so ordeyned but it is a most impudent slaunder that we are made Bishoppes or Priests by Kinges or Queenes For the worlde knoweth we are ordeyned by the Bishoppes and Elders of the church and not by the Prince But that the auncient Bishoppes and Elders of the church since Christ were ordeyned to offer sacrifice for the quicke and the dead it is vtterly false For albeit the auncient writers vnproperly vsed the names of Priest and sacrifice yet did they neuer meane to set vp a newe Priesthoode or sacrifice to ouerthrowe the only true Priesthode and sacrifice of Christes death as in many places of their writinges most manifestly doth appeare but only they did continew a memory of the sacrifice of Christes death in the celebration of the Lordes supper Chris. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. and a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgeuing August De ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap 6. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam Sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia vbi ei demonstratur quod in ea oblatione quam offâ—rt ipsa offeratur This sayth Augustine speaking of the sacrifice of thankesgeuing is the
lyneall succession from Christ it is vnpossible for them to shewe But Bristow wil proue that we were neuer before this time For as for AErius he knoweth we are ashamed of him But he will proue that nether Hus nor Wicklefe were Protestants Because they held some opinions that we doe not By the same reason he may proue that the fathers of the councels of Constance and Basil were no Papists because they tooke vpon them to depose Popes and decreed that the councell was aboue the Pope which most Papistes at this day dare not affirme AEneas Syluius doth slaunder Wicklefe and Hus that for euery mortall sinne a Magistrate should lose his office for their Apologies are extant to be seene to the contrary But Luther sayth he denyeth that he was an Hussite affirming that Hus was not of his opiniō Although he had bene in all poyntes of his opinion as he was in the chiefe yet might Luther iustly deny the name of a man which is proper to sectaries as Franciscanes Dominicanes c not to Christians Yet Wicklefe sayth he is condemned by Melanthon How I pray you First that he found many errors in him by which iudgement might be made of his spirite If Wicklefe liuing in a time of so great blindnes and darkenes coulde not see the truth in all matters it was no maruell and that he had errors he sheweth that he was a man euen as the best writers of the Church since the Apostles tyme which might be deceyued But as we condemne not Augustine Hierom Chrysostom Cyprian and other auncient writers because we know rhey erred in some things no more haue we iust cause to cond emne Wicklefe for some errors which it is not vnlike but he did holde yea but Melanthon chargeth Wicklefe sayth he to be altogether ignoraunt of the righteousnes of faith which is the foundation of religion I will rather thinke that Melanthon was ignoraunt of Wicklefes opinion as one which had not seene but fewe of his workes In which as perhaps he might vse the tearmes of merit and deseruing then commonly vsed in his tyme yet that he had not the same meaning in them but did well vnderstand and holde the righteousnes which is of fayth I can playnely proue by his owne writings in diuerse places As vpon the Heb. 10. he sayth Sith Christ is God and man satisfaction for the sinne that he made thus freely is better then any other that man or Angell might make The same man in nowmber that sinned in Adam our first fadir the same man in nowmber made asseeth by the second Adam Christ. And sith he is more of vertue then the first Adam might be and his payne is much more then sinnefull lust of the first Adam who shoulde haue conscience here that ne this sinne is clansid all orst And sith our Iesu is very God that neuer man forfete this mede he is a sufficient medicine for all sinners that bene contrite for Christ is euer and euery where and in all such soules by grace and so he clanseth more cleanely then any bodye or figure may clense and herefore as Poule sayth Christ is mediator of the newe lawe c. Agayne vpon 2. Cor. 3. Seeth mans thinking amonge his werkes seemeth moste in his power and yet his thought mote come of God much more eche other werke of man c. Thus should we put of pride and wholly trusten in Iesu Christ for he that may not thinke of him selfe may doe nought of him selfe but all our sufficiencie is of God by the meane of Iesu Christ. Likewise vpon the 8. to the Romanes Sith God susteyneth man and moueth him and helpeth him for to trauell how had it not come of grace and thus reward of this trauell mote needes all come of grace These places and many other shewe that Wicklefe was not ignorant of the righteousnes of fayth It seemeth therefore that Melancthon had seene only the articles which his aduersaries had gathered against him and not his owne writings and discourses The prophecyes which Bristow boasteth to be for their religion be of Ieremye and Esay for the perpetuall continuance of the true Church of Christ but seing it is proued that the popish Church hath not bene from the beginning those prophecyes appertayne not vnto her How the Church is visible is shewed in the 37. motiue whereunto I adde that while the Papistes glory of a visible Church on earth Ierusalem that is aboue and therefore not subiect to the eyes of earthly men but of such whose conuetsation is in heauen is the mother of vs all Finally if Bristow coulde as truly proue as he doth boldly say that no Scripture is against them but all for them he shoulde haue no Protestants to be his aduersaries who more accept of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures then of all other motiues in the world The 46. motiue is the 39. demaund VVhere grewe the Protestants seede before our time The church hath rehearsed wednesday fast long sithence A Bishop is aboue a Priest The Saincts were of our religion Baptisme necessarie for saluation of children Anabaptists VVhy there be so many Atheistes in England Trinitaries Such seedes of our doctrine sayth Bristowe as haue growne before this time did alwayes growe in euell grounde namely in heretikes as denyall of prayer for the deade in Aerius who beside that errour was an Arrian He chargeth vs also with denying the ordinarie fast of the church but that is false For we hold that the fast which is appointed by the church ought to be obserued although we hold that no man is bounde to the blasphemous superstitious and counterfait fast of the Popish synagogue In that time in which Aerius liued there were other times of fasting appointed then such as the Popishe church obserueth But the wedsnesday fast sayth Bristowe the church hath released In what generall councell good Sir are you able to shewe likewise of other times of fast named in Epiphanius if you be not able to shew this where is either your vniuersalitie antiquitie or succession in doctrine and discipline without interruption More thē this sayth he Aerius did hold that a Bishop a Priest be equall which also the Protestāts do mainteyne In preaching the word and ministring the Sacramentes S. Hierom Euagrio is of the same opinion that they are equall likewise in Epistad Titum cap. 1. shewing that a Bishoppe is preferred before a Priest magis ecclesiae consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate rather by custome of the church to auoyde schismes then by truth of the Lordes disposition Furthermore one of the Protestantes seedes is that we must not pray to Saints but this was held of certayne heretikes in S. Bernardes time who were called Apostolici were also Anabaptistes denying the baptisme of infantes The conclusion is that these opinions can not be good because they are founde in some heretikes And the contrary opinion must needes be true
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
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
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
worde of God alloweth or the primitiue church acknowledgeth in the administration of the other they haue either altogether peruerted the institution as in the Lordes supper or shamefully corrupted it with superstition as in baptisme they are not the church of Christ but the church of Antichrist When we alledge the persecution of the Romish Antichrist to be the cause that our church hath not florished in outward peace to be a marke also of the truth of our congregation what maisters sayth D. Sanders Antichrists persecution shall dure but three yeres an halfe and is the Pope Antichrist who hath dured these 900. yeres But good M. Doctor determiner how proue you that Antichrists persecution shall dure but three an halfe of such yeares as the Pope hath dured 900. you quote Dan. 7. Apoc. 13. you might by as good reason say it shal dure but three dayes an halfe Apoc. 11. 9. will you take vpon you so precisely to determine of the mysticall nuÌ„ber which is somtime called 3. yeares an halfe somtime 42. moneths somtime 1260. daies somtime 3. daies an halfe somtime a time times halfe a time al which make halfe a Prophetical weeke signifie a time determined of God but not plainly reuealed to many SecoÌ„dly you aske how it could be the true church against w c Antichrist so loÌ„g preuailed that no man could tel whether any such were in y e earth wheÌ„ hel gates shal not preuaile against y e true church I answere if you can not put a difference betwene impugning preuailing you wil haue much to do to defend your Romish church to be the true church against the Turkes theÌ„ selues who haue possessed a great part of â—â—â—â— grouÌ„d w c you say perteined once to your church But herin appeareth the mark of the true church against w c the gates of hell haue not preuailed that although SataÌ„ was let loose the whore of Babylon dronken with the blood of her meÌ„bers her two witnesses slaine she her selfe driuen into the wildernes her seede persecuted wheresoeuer they were dispersed yet she is restored in the sight of the world her witnesses raised froÌ„ death to life the deuill is vanquished y e purple whore of Babylon is fallen Antechrist shall at length be throwne into the lake with the deuil and his Angels This is the Lordes worke it is maruelous in our eyes If either persecution or not failing in persecutioÌ„ be a marke of the church it is more in the Papists theÌ„ in the ProtestaÌ„ts for persecutioÌ„ he will proue that they be persecuted by vs as the mother by y e child which departeth from her obedience as Agar Ismael froÌ„ Sara But I answer we are departed froÌ„ Agar vnder whom we were in bondage to Sara by whom we are made children of the heaueÌ„ly Ierusalem euen as Agar departed froÌ„ Sara so did the synagoge of Rome froÌ„ the Catholike church of Christ. For not failing in persecutioÌ„ experieÌ„ce teacheth in all countries w c haue receaued the Gospell how small punishmeÌ„ty greatest nuÌ„ber of Papists wil abide for their Popish profession whereas so many thousands Goâ—s Saincts being most cruelly murdred by y e popish church the church of Christ is not diminished but encreased thereby euen as Cyprian saith the blood of the martyrs is the seede of church If antiquitie be a marke it is proued to be on the Papists side by this reason The church is all one the later part of the church for 900. yeares last past is on the Papistes side therefore the former parte also But this reason standing vpon a shamefull begging of that which is questioned is soone turned vpon your owneÌ„ necke The church is in all but one but the beginning of the church maketh not for you therefore that which you say is the later part of the church being contrary to that former is no part of the church so that by this reason you shal neither haue antiquitie or any parte of the church But if you appeale to particular examples sayth M. Sander I say the Christians in the primitiue church did communicate vnder one kinde at Emaus and at Ierusalem And I say M. Sander if he would burst him self with study shall neuer proue it He quoteth Aug. de consen Euang lib. 3. cap. 25. whose opinion was that Christ gaue the sacrameÌ„t at Emaus but of communion in one kind he neuer once dreamed He sayth the Christians did set vp images in the honor of Christ quoting Eus. lib. 7. cap. 14. whereas Eusebius speaketh of heathen men that of heathenish custome did set vp images and not of Christians Dionysius although he be auncient yet he wrote not in the tyme of Eusebius Hieronymus or Gennadius so was knowne for no writer in y e Church for 500. yeares after Christ Wherefore I wil not stand about his errors and ceremonyes which yet for the moste parte are as vnlike the popish ceremonyes as they are to ours Although wee haue no certaintie of the writinges of Ignatius which are extant yet is there nothing in them that fauoreth the Papists religion Hee nameth a a sacrifice which could not be offered without the Byshop that cannot be the Masse whiche euery hed geprieste may say ad Symrn. He would haue the Emperor obey the Byshop sayth M. Sand. ad Phil. But this proueth the Epistle to bee counterfaite for there was no Christian Emperour when Ignatius liued Although in deuine matters the Christian Emperour ought to obey the Bishop or rather Gods word which y e Bishop preacheth Also he speaketh of Virgins that had consecrated them selues to God who speaketh against them which hauing the gifte of continency doe keepe virginity In the same Epistle He affirmeth both Peter and Paule to haue bene maried and will not condemne the mariage of church ministers He commendeth the lent fast ad Antioch Choose M. Sander whether your decretals lye of Thelesphorus that inuented the lent fast or that this is a counterfait Epistle of Ignatius In the Epistle ad Phil. Where he commendeth the 40. daies fast the Wednesday the Friday fast he saith farther Quicunque dominicum aut sabbathum non ieiunauerit praetâ—r vnum sabbathum pasâ—ae ipse est Christi interfector Whosoeuer shall not fast the Lordes day or sabbat beside one sabbat of Easter he is a murtherer of Christ. If this be true antiquity why doth the church of Rome omit fast on Sunday if it be counterfait why is not M. Sander ashamed to alleage it Iustinus witnesseth that water was mingled with the wine Yea but it was to alay the strength of the wine not that it was necessary for the Sacrament though afterward it grew to a superstitious obseruation He saith further the Deacons caried the consecrated mysieries to them that were absent which Caluine reputeth for an abuse If they caried the bread the wine as the Sacrament it was an abuse not to
be warranted by Gods word But seeing the Deacons office was to minister to the poore I thinke rather they caried it as the almes of the church to suche as were needy What Pius decreed we finde in no writer of credit As for the Popes law it is no good euideÌ„ce hauing a busnel of drosse counterfait dregs to one graine of good and true antiquitie In deede Eusebius restisieth that Victor Bishop of Rome did excommunicate the Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter but he testifieth also that Victor was sharply rebuked by diuerse other godly Bishops namely by Irenaeus of Lyons and Polycrates of Ephesus for so doing Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25. Tertullian sayth all doctrine is false lying that agreeth not with some Apostolike church And such is the doctrine that the church of Rome holdeth which agreeth with no Apostolike church no not with the ancient Apostolike church of Rome But our doctrine agreeth with all the Apostolike churches that euer were planted in the earth and continued in the doctrine of the Apostles Tertullian a Montanist speaketh in deede of oblatioÌ„s for the deade but they were none other then suche as they offred for the birth daies that was thaÌ„kesgeuing He speaketh of praier for the deade which he receaued of Montanus the heretike The stations he speaketh of were no gaddings but standings The visitation of Ierusalem is denyed to no man that will take the paynes to go thither nether was it euer like to Popish pilgrimage which is to runne a whoring after Idolls We confesse with S. Cyprian that the breade in the Sacrament is chaunged not in shape but in nature to be the flesh of Christ vnderstanding nature for propertie and the flesh of Christ to be receaued spiritually In publike offences we woulde haue confession to be made publikely before the Elders of the church as Cyprian would them that fell in persecution but of Popish auricular confession he neuer spake one word We acknowledge the forgiuenes of sinnes by the ministers to be ratified by God not binding Gods iudgemeÌ„t to it but it to Gods iudgement We grauÌ„t that teÌ„poral punishmeÌ„t for satisfaction of the church ought to be appointed vnto publike offenders which may be released vpon their harty repeÌ„tance is no more like to Popish pardoÌ„s theÌ„ the stewes market of Rome is like the church of God The rest which he huddleth vp together I wil answer as briefly S. Iames his chaire was esteemed but as a monument of antiquity no holynes put in it Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 15. The soleÌ„ne dedicating of churches was no more like Popish hallowing of churches then Christian preaching praying is like to conâ—uration Euseb. lib. 9 â—a 10. The straight life of heremites was as like the Popish heremites that dwelt at euery good townes end where the other dwelled in the wildernes as the city the desolat wildernes are alike Ruff. li. 11. c. 4. Driuing of deuils by holy water was no ordinary ceremony but a miracle once wrought by the Bishop of Apamea who wheÌ„ the temple of Iupiter could not be burned with fire that was set vnto it after he had prayed caused water signed with the crosse to be sprinckled on the altar which being done the deuills being driuen away the temple was set on fire burned Theodor. lib. 5. c. 29. The auctority of vnwritten traditions is so defended by Basil de sp sanct 27. that he affirmeâ—h whatsoeuer is not of the holy Scriptures is sinne Mor. diff 80. Praier to Saincts as the dregges of that time I leaue to be sucked vp of the Papistes Repentance but no Popish sacrament of penance is coÌ„mended by S. Ambrose The name of the masse is not in Ambrose Ep. 33. for missaÌ„ facere signifieth to let go or let passe not to say masse y e name of sacrifice signifieth a sacrifice of thaÌ„kesgiuing The Canon of the Popish masse is not in Ambrose but the forme of celebration of the communion in his time de Sacr. li. 4. ca. 5. 6. Chrysostom reciteth the text of S. Iames onely to proue that God forgiueth sinnes at the praiers of the Elders not speaking of the ceremony of extreame vnction vsed by the Papists de Sacer. li. 3. Hyeronym ad Vilant alloweth not the superstitious vse of burning candells in the day time That he will not allow Bishops to beget children it sheweth his errors coÌ„demned by the Nicene councell by the perswasion of Paphnutius Socr. li. 1. cap. 11. Hieronyme speaketh not of a certeine number of prayers to confirme the vse of your beades but of a certeine nuÌ„ber of the verses of the holy Scripture to be learned as a talke to the Lord. ad Furtan That he which hath had two wiues coulde not be a Priest in Hieronymus time y t was a litle of that chaffe w c afterward ouerwhelmed y e good corne in the church of Rome Hierom affirmeth that he as helper vnto the writing of Damasus Bishop of the city of Rome did answere the synodicall consultation that came from the East the West What is this to any purpose of the Papistes Not only the Bishop of Rome was consulted nor he alwaies except the matter concerned the whole church when no member should be lefte vnconsulted and not made priuye Finally that Augustine sayeth that the fier by which some shalbe saued after this life is more greeuous then any paine of this life Psal. 37 he sayth the contrary de fide ad Laurent cap 68 where he denieth that text of scripture to be vnderstode of punishment after this life and saveth the whole matter of purgatory may be enquired of as a matter vncertaine The like De octo Dulcity quest 91. cont Pelag. Hypog lib. 5. he knoweth heaueÌ„ hell and vtterlye dâ—nyeth the third place to be found in the scriptures By which it appeareth that this error of purgatory was but very young in Augustines time And now you see what antiquity he can boast of for when he hath wrested wrong all that he can scarce two or thre errors haue any shadow of antiquity those not in the greatest matters wheras the whole substance of the doctrine of fayth in God iustification by Christ the true worship of God the vertue of Christes death the infirmity of man the right vse of the sacramentes the auctority of the holy scriptures a nuÌ„ber more of such principall heades of Christian learning in which we differ from them he is as silent as a stone The 17. marke is the name of Catholikes which M. Iewel confesseth to haue bene of late geuen to the Papistes which among other thinges stayed S. August in the right fayth as he confesseth Cont. epist. Manich. lib. 4. But seing the name of Catholikes was falsly geuen to you which arè nowe ryghtlye called by the name of your archeheretike the pope papistes the onely name of Catholikes which was geuen to you by
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
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
me dicitis Statim loci non immemor sui Primatum egit Primatum confessionis vtique non honoris primatum fidei non ordinis This Peter I say when he hearde but what doe you say that I am immediatly not forgetting his place executed his primacie Verely the primacie of confession not of honor the primacie of faith not of degree By these places of Ambrose it appeareth what gouernment and primacie was graunted to Peter and how he exercised the same The fift differeÌ„ce is that the other Euangelists say absolutely let him be a minister a seruauâ—â—t in S. Luke it is said with a great moderation let him be made as the younger and as he that ministreth If this be a good argument to proue that the ministery is more truly a greatnesse then a ministerie the Arrians may deny by the like that Christ is more truely a man then the sonne of God because Sainct Iohn sayeth we sawe his glorie as the glorie of the onely begotten sonne of God O beastly absurdity and yet he sayeth if any man say that there was not one certeyne man greater amonge the Apostles who might be as the younger it is playne contradiction to Christ and he is Antechrist But where on Gods name sayeth Christ that there is one certeyne man greater among the Apostles The last the least difference is that the greater man is euidently named a litle after when Christ saâ—th to S. Peter Simon Simon beholde Satan hath desired to sift you as it were wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith shall not faile And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Maister Sander asketh what other thing it is for Peter to confirme his brethren but to practise and exercise his greatnesse ouer them for euerie one that confirmeth is greater then they which are confirmed Who euer did reade such impudent assertions Peters faith was confirmed by Marie Magdalen therefore she was greater then Peter Paule was confirmed by Ananias therefore he was greater then Paule Aquila Priscilla confirmed Apollo therfore they were greater then he To conclude if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luk. 22. do necessarily proue that there was one certeine man among them greatest theÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 9. of Luk. 48. doth proue that there was one least among them He that is least among you al saith our Sauiour Christ euen he shalbe the greatest And least M. Sander should renue his differeÌ„ce of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may please him to vnderstand that the contention was among the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be the greater or greatest of them Which question our Sauiour Christ doth not decide if M. Sanders difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place may stande Wherefore hitherto Peter hath found no supremacie and muche lesse the Pope by prerogatiue of his chaire who can not be sayd to sit in Peters chaire except he taught Peters doctrine which if he did teach as he doth y e contrarie yet Peters auctority could no more be deriued to him then the auctority of Moses to euery one of y e Scribes Pharizees w c did sit in Moses chaire He citeth Ambrose to proue that there is a prelacie or preferrement in the church because he forbiddeth contention thereabout as though there could not be a prelacy or preferremeÌ„t of euery Bishop ouer his church but there must be one Bishop ouer all the church The like he alleageth out of Bede which speaketh expressely of al the teachers of the church not of one Pope ouer all The conclusion of his disputation is that the ecclesiastical primacy doth in al points resemble as much as it possible may the primacy of Christ therefore he that denyeth the primacie among the Apostles to be a true primacy in his kinde is blasphemous against Christ him selfe Nay rather he that communicateth with any man that which is peculiar to our Sauiour Christ that he only shoulde be as S. Paule speaketh of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himselfe the primate in al things Col. 1. 18. which is y e head of his body which is the church is fouÌ„d a manifest blasphemer of our Sauiour Christ. But that they w c excel among y e Apostles their successors the Bishops may be humble and yet great after the example of our Sauiour Christ is no question at all But that any hath suche greatnes in auctoritie as our Sauiour Christ hath cuer his whole Churche is the thinge we denye If Gregorie affirme that Peter by Gods commission had the primacie of the holy church and was growne in power aboue the rest it is no maruel seeing he was so nere to the open manifestation of Antechrist which succeeded him the next saue one whose tyranny beganne to encrease longe before Gregories time yet was he in his pretended primacie more modest then any that followed him to this day Vtterly refusing and condemning as prophane proude blasphemous against Christ the title of vniuersall Bishoppe which Ihon of Constantinople did vsurpe and other Bishoppes would haue geuen to him And whereas M. Sander frameth an obiection of our part that no man can be both a minister a gouernour therfore no ecclesiasticall minister can be a gouernour he playeth with his owne shadow For we deny not but a minister of the church which is a seruaunt is also a gouernour But we affirme that his gouernmeÌ„t is spiritual not worldly vnlike to the earthly gouernment of this worlde euen as the kingdome of Christ is not of this worlde But it followeth not because that euery Bishop shepherd is a gouernour therefore there must be one Bishop and shepherd gouernour of them all other then our Sauiour Christ the arch or head shepherd Bishop of our soules 1. Pet. 5. 4. 1. Pet. 2. 25 M. Sander coÌ„mendeth y e saying of Leo B. of Rome to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica Qui se c. He that knoweth him seife to be set ouer some men let him not disdaine to haue some man preferred before him But he proceedeth sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat But such obedience as he requireth of other let him yeeld himselfe By this saying it appeareth that although Leo take much vpoÌ„ him as to heare the coÌ„trouersies y e can not be determined by the Metropolitans yet he acknowledgeth that in equitie he was bâ—â—â—â—d to yeelde that obedience to others which he required of others if he him selfe were in fault But M. Sander maketh an other obiection for vs on this maner The Princes of the Gentiles doe also serue their subiectes in conseruing peace keeping out their enemies c. but the clergie must be altogether vnlike to temporal gouernours therfore there must be no primacie or gouernment among them although it be ioyned with seruice Once againe I say we make no such obiection but we answere the Anabaptists that
Apostles had I aunswer the kinges supremacie is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had For although he haue authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall according to Gods word yet is he no Ecclesiasticall officer but a ciuill Magistrate hauing chiefe authoritie in all causes not absolute to doe what he will but onely what God commaundeth him namely to prouide by lawes that God may be truely worshipped and all offences against his religion may be punished And whereas M. Sander inferreth that an Ethnike Prince or Turke may be supreame heade of our Church we vtterly denye to any such the name of an head which can not be a member but euen an Ethnicke Prince or a Turke may be chiefe Magistrate ouer the faithfull and make lawes for the mayntenance of Christian religion as an hypocrite Christian may They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God Nabuchadnezer Darius Cyrus Artaxerxes which were heathen Princes made godly lawes for the true worship of God furtherance of his people as in the prophecie of Daniel the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah it is manifest S Paule appealed to Nero the Emperor Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24 that the Christians in a matter of a Bishopps election and for a Bishops house were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperour And this notwithstanding the Church is alwayes vnder the soueraigne authoritie of Christ and the spirituall gouernment of her seuerall pastors and teachers when Christ ascending into heauen ordayned for her edification and vnitie and not one Pope ouer all Eph. 4. 13. But now he will enter one degree farther and suppose that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortall man to be or as any Bishop and Priest is yet he can nether baptize consecrate forgiue sinnes praise excommunicate blesse nor be Iudge of doctrine by his kingly authoritie If he can doe none of those he can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes I denye this argument For his supremacie is not to doe those thinges or any of them but to prouide and commaund that they may be doon as they ought to be But he riseth vp againe and sayth that whosoeuer hath soueraigne authoritie either in ciuill matters or Ecclesiasticall he may in his owne person execute any of those thinges which any of his inferiours may do So he saith the king if he wil may be Iudge in VVestminster hall shrieue and constable yea he may play the tayler maister Carpenter or tanner It is maruell he sayth not that he may be both a king and subiect Likewise the primate he might as wel say the Pope may helpe a Priest to Masse cary the crosse in procession digge a graue c. I deny this rule to hold in all thinges For there are some thinges that the Prince may not doe for lacke of knowledge and some thinges for lacke of calling and yet he may commaund both to be done For controuersies of lawe he may not decyde except he haue knowledge of the law nor minister Phisick except he haue knowledge in phisicke yet he may command both Lawyers Phisitions to doe according to their knowledge likewise to preache baptize c. he may not because he lacketh calling for none may doe those thinges lawfully but he that hath a speciall calling but he may commaund those thinges to be done to be well done according to Gods lawe whereof he ought not to be ignorant and for that purpose is especially commaunded to study in the booke of Gods lawe that not onely in matters concerning his owne person but in matters concerning Gods honor he may cause all men to doe their duetie Deut. 17. 18. So did Dauid Salomon Iehosaphat Ezechias Iosias commaund the Priestes to offer vp the sacrifices and to doe their duetie which it was not lawfull for their kinges to execute And is it so straunge a matter that a popish king may not commaund his Chaplayne to saye Masse or to saye his Masse reuerently and orderly as the lawes of popery doe require if he may commaund ouer tho e matters which yet he may not doe him selfe let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth that whosoeuer hath authoritie in any matters may doe all thinges him selfe which any of his inferiours may doe or which he may commaund to be done whereupon he concludeth that the king hath no right or supreame power at all in Ecclesiasticall causes vnlesse it be committed to him from the Bishop so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary may doe that by M. Sanders exception w c nether by commaundement of God nor his kingly power he hath auctoritie to doe Another argument he bringeth as good as this that the lesser authoritie doth not comprehend the greater and therefore M Horne must aunswer him whether to preache baptize forgiue sinnes c. be greater or lesser ministerie then the kinges authoritie If it be greater then it can not be comprehended in the kinges authoritie which is lesser What that reuerend father the Bishop of Winchester hath aunswered it may be seene in his booke against M. Feckenham But to talke with you M. Sander what if I graunt that the Ecclesiasticall ministery is not comprehended in the kinges authoritie will you thereupon inferre that the kinges authoritie is not to commaund the ministers of the Church in these matters to doe their dueties according to the worde of God In deede you conclude so but your argument is naught For the king is Gods Lieuetenant to see both the Church and the common wealth to be wel ordered And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diuers respectes As in authoritie of commaunding the king is greater then the Phisition in knowledge practise of phisicke the king is lesse then the Phisition So in authority of coÌ„maunding the prince is greater then the minister but in authoritie of ministration he is lesse and no inconuenience in the world to the dignitie of other estate or calling The Bishop of Winchesters examples M. Sander saith are euil applyed For they only shew what was done and not what ought to haue bene done and so for many circumstaÌ„ces are subiect to much wrangling 1. For either he was no good Prince which medled with disposing of holy matters 2. or in that deede he was not good 3. or he did it by coÌ„mission from a Prophet or an high Priest 4. or he was deceiued by flatterers 5. or he was inforced by necessitie But all these quarells notwithstanding the examples of Scripture are so many and so playne that M. Sanders â—â—angling can not obscure them Dauid a good Prince did well in appoynting the Leuits and Priestes to their seuerall offices and forbidding the Leuits to cary the arke and the vessells thereof without any coÌ„mission from Priest or Prophet but onely by the word of God not deceyued by flatterers nor enforced by necessitie 1. Chron. 23.
25. Salomon did the like about the temple He deposed Abiathar the high Priest set Zadoc in his roome 1. Reg. 2. 27. 35. And such are y e examples of all the godly kinges of Iuda which being coÌ„mended in the Scripture are not vncertayne deceitful or vnknown in their circumstances but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters then this text w c he citeth Feede my sheepe to forbid them But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no I answer by propriety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is Neuerthelesse admit Peter to be a sheepeheard and the king to be his sheepe what then forsooth it is against the lawe of nature for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard and the other a sheepe But I aske of him is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard if he doubt Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe If he deny it let the Apostles speake for them selues let euery soule be subiect c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes You may then see what a wise argumeÌ„t he hath made that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor as in other respect he is vnder him M. Sander will goe forward for all this putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required he would not yeeld vnto what could the Emperour doe to him He coulde not excommunicate him And if he imprisoned him or put him to death he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing I might put the like case of his holinesse What if a Christian man should come to him c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe hee might imprison him as Annas did the Apostles hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy and Ananias Paule c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde haue come to the Emperour had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie he being found an heretike to haue condemned him therefore In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius and Donatus and not as Nero with Peter and Paule But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures or the auncient times who can deny but that in a cause of faith in a cause I saye of fayth Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours not Emperours of Bishops And who sayth the contrarye but that in causes of faith the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops and not the Bishops of the Emperour Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religion to doe what he will when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde the knowledge whereof especially in difficult matters he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law although he be bownd to see iustice executed But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop I aunswer if his cryme be apparant euen as Salomon deposed Abiather if it be doubtfull by order of iudgement and tryall according of ciuill Iudges if it be a ciuill cryme and Ecclesiasticall if it be heresie that he is accused of if he can not be condemned vpon iust tryall he is to be absolued if this will not satisfie the king he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy and if he proceede further he exerciseth tyranny And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the importunitie of the Donatists which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops deputed by the Emperour they would neuer be satisfied but still appealed to the Emperour accused the Bishops that were appoynted their Iudges before the earthly king M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently that he calleth Constantine an earthly king and yet he is so blinde that he will not see that the same earthly kinge which assigned those Bishops to be Iudges was still acknowledged of all partes to be the supreame gouernour Ep. 48. But omittinge the wordes of men he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of euery degree of men according to their dignitie And first beginneth with the highe Priest next whom is the whole people thirde the Prince and last of all euery priuate man There is no doubt but the highe Priest as he was an image and figure of Christ was chiefe in dignitie Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince as Aaron was to Moses Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon The like is confessed of euery minister of the Gospell and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt might haue bene spared And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince Abiathar in the temple at the altar in the holiest place and sacrificing was greater then Salomon yet was he iustly deposed by SalomoÌ„ for his treason Maister Sander chargeth vs to affiâ—me that the euill life of a Bishop taketh away his authoritie w c he denieth to be so as long as the Church doth tollerate and permitte them in their places whereupon he concludeth that though the Bishop of Rome haue neuer so much abused his office yet he can not leese his primacye In deede the abuse of the man taketh not away the authoritie of the office but if the office be peruerted from the right vse and degenerated into an heathenish tyrannye as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene many hundreth yeares the name of a Bishop onely and that scarsely remayning we iustly affirme that such dignitie as that sea had by consent of men it hath cleane lost by abuse of their authoritie Moreouer he sayth it hath no coullour of truth that we affirme the Pope to gouerne not as a Pastor but to beare a soueraintie as Princes of the
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
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
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
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.
persons as went ouer sea caried false tales Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matriceÌ„ radiâ—em agnoscerent tenerent that they woulde acknowledg holde the mother and roote of the Catholike Church by which wordes they disswaded them from ioygninge with schismatikes who being condemned in one Church would gad vp and downe for absolution in an other The 7. did not S. Cyp. confesse Cornelius to haue receiued the appellation of Rasilides lawfully out of Spaineâ— li. 1 Ep. 4 There is no word of any such confession or appellation in that epistle But rather if you suppose an appellation a restitution by the Byshop of Rome Cyprian 36. bishops with him determine the same restitution to be voide of none effect Neque rescindere ordinationem iâ—re perfectam potest quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta conscientiam propria confessione nudatam Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit vt ambiret reponi se miustè in episcopatum de quo fucrat iustè depositus Haec eò pertinent vt Basilidis non tam abolita sint quam cumulata delicta vt ad superiora peccata eius etiam fallaciae circumuentionis crimen accesseris Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptuÌ„ quam hic execraÌ„dus qui fraudulenter obrepsit Obrepere auteÌ„ hominibus Basilides potuit Deo noÌ„ potest cuÌ„ scriptâ— sit Deus non irridetur Neither can it make frustrate the ordination lawfully made y Basilides after his crimes were detected his coÌ„scieÌ„ce opened by his owne confession going to Rome hath deceiued our fellow bishop Stephan being farre of ignoraÌ„t of â— matter of â— truth â— he might aÌ„bitiously seeke to be vniustlye restored into his bishoprick froÌ„ wÌ„ he was iustly deposed These things tend to this ende that the offences of Basilides are not so much abolished as increased so that to his former sinnes the cryme of deceifulnesse and circumuention is added For neither is he so much to be blamed who was negligently deceiued as he is to bee abhorred which did craftely deceiue him But if Basilides could deceiue men he coulde not deceiue God seeing it is written God is not mocked Heere is no lawefull appellation spoken of but the Bishope of Romes sentence pronounced voyde and he blamed for his negligence and rashnesse to medle with matters whereof he coulde haue no knowledge by meanes of distance of place But if M. San. reply that he is not reproued for taking such appellations he must heare what Cyprian sayth of such appellations which began to be vsed in his daies vnto Cornelius B. of Rome immediatly after the woordes cyted by him lib. 1 epi. 3. of those schismatikes that were so bolde as to sayle to Rome and carry letters as aboue Quae autem causa veniendi pseudoepiscopum contra episcopos factum nunciandi Aut enim placet illis quod fecerunt in suo scelere perseuerant aut si displicet recedunt sciunt quo reuertantur Nam cum statutuÌ„ sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter iustuÌ„ vt vniusâ—uiusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat vnusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet vtique eos quibus presumus non circumcâ—rsare nec episcoporum concordiam coherentem sua subdola fallaci â—emeritate collidere Sed agere illic causam suam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint nisi paucit desperatis perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum qui iam de illis iudicauerunt eorum conscientiam multis delictorum laqueis vinctaÌ„ iudicij sui nuper grauitate damnaruÌ„t But what cause had they to come and to report that a false Byshop was made against the Byshops For either that which they haue done pleaseth them they continew in their wickednesse or if it displease theÌ„ and they goe back from it they knowe whether they shoulde returne For wheras it is decreed of vs all is also meete and right that euery mans cause should be hard there where the crime was committed and a portion of the flocke is committo euery Pastor which euery one ought to rule and gouerne as he that shall yeelde an account of his doings to the Lord verily it behoueth them ouer whome wee haue rule not to runne about neither by their craftie deceitful rashnes to crase the concord of Byshops agreing togither but there to plead their matter wher they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crime except the authoryty of the Byshops ordeined in Africa seemeth to a few desperate and wicked fellowes to bee lesse which haue already iudged of them and condemned their consciences bounde with the waight of their iudgement in many cordes of their offences This place of Cyprian declareth not onely that the Byshopps of Africa had decreede against such appellations but also that they thought theyr authoritie nothing inferior to the Byshops of Italy nor to the byshop of Rome him self The 8. note out of Cyprian is That he required Stephanus the Pope to depose Marcianus the Byshop of Arles in Fraunce which to dee in an other prouince is a signe that the Pope of Rome is aboue other Bishops If it were true that M. Sander sheweth it might proue the Bishop of Rome to be a Primate or Metropolitane it coulde not proue him to be a Byshop ouer all the world But it is vtterly false that he saith Cyprian required the Pope Stephan to depose him for he was deposed by the iudgement of all the Byshops of the Weste Churche Ab vâ—iuersis sacerdotibus iudicatus condemned of all the Priestes onely hee exhorteth Stephan of Rome which was negligeÌ„t in this behalfe to ioyne with the reste of the Byshoppes of Fraunce in ordering of another Byshopp in his steade who long since hath beene excommunicated and deposed from his place for taking parte with Nouatiane the Heretike And lest you should think the whole mâ—tter to be referred to the Byshop of Rome these are is words in the same Epistle li 3. Ep. 13. Id circo enim frater charissime copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutine atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresâ—m facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentauerit subueniant caeteri quasi pastores vtiles misericordes oues dominicas in gregem colâ—igant For therfore most welbeloued brother the bodie or fellowshippe of priestes is plentifull beeing coupled togither by the Glewe of mutuall concorde and the bande of Amitie so that if any of our company shall assay to make an heresie or to rente or waste the flocke of Christ the reste should giue ayde and as profitable and mercifull shepheards
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
Arbitramur c. VVe think these men that haue so pernitious and froward opinions will giue plaâ—e more easily to the authority of your holines beeing taken out of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our lord Iesus Christ which â—ouchâ—â—feth to rule you when you consult to heare you wheÌ„ you pray by these words they shew that they hope y e here tikes being reproued by the B. of Rome out of the woâ—d of God wil the rather giue place w t out imagining that the B. of Romes authoritie is so stablished by the scriptures that whatsoeuer he decre coÌ„trary to thescriptures the same should be imbraced But a farther confirmatioÌ„ of the epistle of Innoce he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith Pope Innocent did write an answere to the Bishops in althings as it became the prelate of the Apostolike sea But these words neither proue that epistle to be written by Innocent nor if it were do allowe his pretended auth ority because that was no matter whereof they required his answere But to put it out of dout Both these Councels haue decreed against the vsurpation of the Romish sea As the councel Mileuitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa vnder paine of excommunication The laste authoritie cited out of Augustine is Epistle 162. speaking of the Churche of Rome In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus In which alwayes the principalitie of the Apostolike chaire hath flourished A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine aduanced the Church in wealth dignitie esteemed the church of Rome as the principall Sea in dignitie but not in absolute authoritie such as in processe of time the Byshops of Rome claymed and vsurped For euen the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yeelde to the Bishop of Rome clayming by a counterfaire Canon of the Councell of Nice to haue authortie to receaue appeales out of Africa Epi. con Aphr. ad Bonifac whiche they couâ—pte an intollerable pride and presumption and in Epist. cont Aphri ad Coelestiâ—â—m fumosum typum seculi A smokey pride of the worlde which the Pope claymed and an absurde authoritie that one maÌ„ should be better able to examine such causes then so many Byshops of the prouince where the controuersie began and by the olde Cannons shoulde be ended To Augustine he ioyneth Prosper Bishop of RhegiuÌ„ in Italie which affirmeth in lib de ingrat that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius which Rome being made head vnto the worlde of pastorall honor holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it doth not possesse by warre And againe Rome through the primacie of the Apostolike Priesthoode is made greater by the castell of religion then by the throne of power First how vntruly he boasteth that the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the heresie of Pelagius you may ease y see by that the councel of Africa did before condemne it had somwhat a doe to perswade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it Whereby you see that Prosper was ouer partiall to the see of Rome to whome yet he ascribeth a principallity or primacy of honor not of power or auctority The testimonies of Leo Gregory Bâ—shops of Rome as alwaies so now I deeme to be vnmeete to be heard in their owne cause though otherwise they were not the worst men yet great furtherers of the auctoritie of Antichrist which soone after their dayes tooke possessioÌ„ of the chaire which they had helped to prepare for him The last testimonie out of Beda which liued vnder the tyranny of Antichrist I will not stande vpon M. Sander may haue great store of such late writers to affirme the Popes supremacie The 16. Chapter THat the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke theÌ„ selues to be the supreame heads of the church in spirituall causes but gaue that honor to Bishops Priests most specially to the sea of Rome for S. Peters sake as well before as after the time of Phocas A Priest is aboue the Emperour in Ecclesiastical causes The othe of the royal supremacy is intollerable Constantine was baptised at Rome Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches COncerning the supremacy of our soueraigne which this traiterous Papist doth so maliciously disdaine although it be expounded sufficiently by her Maiestie in her iniunction not to be suche as he most slaunderously doth deforme it yet I will here as I haue done diuerse times before in aunswere to these Papistes professe that we ascribe no supremacie to our Prince but such as the worde of God alloweth in the godly Kinges of the old Testament and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperours and Princes vnder the new Testament First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power in any Ecclesiasticall causes suche as the Pope challengeth but subiect vnto the rules of Gods worde Secondly we ascribe no supremacie of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince but affirme that she is to learne of the Bishops and teachers of the church both in matters of faith and of the gouernment of the church Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings that the Prince should presume to preach to minister the Sacramentes to excommunicate c. which perteine not to her office But the supremacie we admit in Ecclesiasticall causes is auctoritie ouer all persons to coÌ„maund and by lawes to prouide that all matters Ecclesiasticall may be ordered and executed according to the word of God And such is the true meaning of the othe that he calleth blasphemous and intollerable And as for examples of honor geuen to the Bishoppes by Christian Princes which he bringeth forth they deny not this supremacy nor make any thing against it The first is of the Emperour Philippus counted of some for the first Christian Emperor although it be not like to be true yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so This Prince without due repentance offered him selfe to receaue the holy misteries being refused by the Bishop of the place tooke it pacieÌ„tly submitted him selfe to the discipline order of y e church I answer this example toucheth not the auctority he had in ecclesiasticall causes For in receauing of the Sacramentes the Prince differeth not from a priuate person But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument called a dilemma If the Priest in these causes be superior to y t Emperor other causes be greater or lesser then these If they be greater the Emperour which is not supreame gouernor ouer the lesser causes can not be in the greater if they be lesser then the Priest w c gouerneth the Emperor in greater causes must nedes gouern him in lesser causes These hornes are easily auoyded not by distinctioÌ„ of the causes but of the gouernments The gouernment of
cap. 16. But whereas Rome is the citie builded vpon seuen hills spoken of in the Apocalypse cap 17. M. Sander couÌ„teth it a childiâ—he argument to proue the see of Antichrist to be there for that the citie is nowe gone from the hills and standeth in the playne of Campus Martius and the Pope sitteth on the other side of the riuer vpon the hill Vatican harde by Saint Peters Churche by whome he holdeth his chayre not at all deriuing his power from the seuen hills c. But if the Pope sitte now in an other Rome then Peter the Apostle satte howe will Maister Sander perswade vs that he fitteth in the chayre of Peter For that Rome where Peter satte was buylded vpon seuen Hilles and not gone downe into the plaine of Campus Martins nor ouer the Riuer Beside this it is plaine that although the people haue remoued their habitations from the hilles yet the Pope hath not for on them be still to this day his Churches Monasteryes courtes For on the Mounte Caelius be the monastery of Sainte Gregory the church of Iohn and Paule the Hospitall of our Sauiour the rounde Church the great Minster of Laterane in which are sayde to be the heades of the Aposiles Peter and Paule and the goodlyest buildings in the worlde where the Byshops of Rome dwelled vntill the time of Nicolas the seconde which was almost eleuen hundreth yeeres after Christe The Mount Auentinus hath three Monastetyes of Sabina Bonifacius and Alexius The Mount Exquilinus hath the Church of Saincte Peter himselfe surnamed Ad vincula The Mounte Viminalis hath the Church of S. Laurence in Palisperna and S. Potentiana The Mount Tarpeius or Capitoline hath an house of Fryers Minors called Ara Coeli And there did Boniface the ninth builde a fayre house of Bricke for keeping of Courtes The Mount Palatinus is a place called the great Pallace and hath an olde Church of S. Nicolas and of S. Andrewe The Mounte Quirinalis is not altogither voide of habitation to which appertaineth the Churche of S. Maria de populo The citie with 7. hils is stil the see of Antichrist described by S. Iohn at such time as those 7 hills were most of alinhabited garnished with sumptuous buildings But M. S. to darken the prophesie saith Those 7. hilles be the fulnes of pride in secular princes to whome the Protestantes commit the supreme gouernment of the church I will not speake of this contumely that hee bloweth out against christian Princes neither wil I' staÌ„d to proue that 7. hills in that place are taken literally which is an easy matter because 7. hilles are the exposition of 7. heads of y e beast but how wil M. S or all the Papists in the world deny the citie of Rome to be that Babylon and see of Antichrist When the Angel in the last verse of the chapter sayth And the woman which thou sawest is that great citie which hath dominioÌ„ ouer the Kings of the earth which if any man say was any other Citie then Rome all learning and learned men wil cry out against him The see beeing found it is easy to finde the person by S. Paules description and this note especially that excludeth the heathen tyrants he shal sit in the temple of God which when when we see to be fulfilled in the Pope although none of the eldest fathers could see it because it was performed after their death we nothing doubt to say affirme stil that the Pope is that man of sinne Sonne of perdttion the aduersary that lifteth vp himselfe aboue all that is called God and shalbe destroyed by the spirit of the Lords mouth by the glory of his coÌ„ming The 18. Chapter NOT the Pope of Rome but the Protestants them selues are the members of Antichriste by forsaking the Catholike Church by setting vppe a newe Church and by teaching salse doctrine against the Gospell of Iesus Christe Heretikes departe from the Catholike Churche Heretikes beeing once departed out of the Church haue newe names VVhy among the Catholikes some are called Franciscanes Dominicanes c. Heretikes can neuer agree The short raigne of Heretikes Heretikes preach without commission Heretikes do preferre the temporall raigne or swoorde before the spirituall They are the members of Antichrist who withstande the externall and publke sacrifice of Christes Church Heretikes depriue Christe of his glorious inheritaunce in many nations togither The intollerable pride of Heretikes in making them selues onely Iudges of the righte sence of Gods word The Protestants teach the same doctrine which the olde Heretikes did The Protestants are the right members of Antichriste in that they spoâ—le Godes Church of very many giftes graces articles of the faith HE maketh 11. markes of an Antichristian The 1. is They departe from the church as all herâ—tiâ—s doe I aunswere the Protestantes haue not departâ—d from the Church of Christ but are gone out oâ— the Church of Antechrist according as they are commâ—unded by the holy Ghost â—poc 18. 4. are returned to thâ—â—hâ—â—ch of Christ which by the Pope the dâ—uill was driuen into the wildernes Apoc. 22. 6. But M Sand would haue the place named where they dwelt from whom the Pope departed as though the place were mateâ—iall when his depaâ—ture from the doctrine of Christ is manifest And Saint Paule prophesâ—ed of the greate Apostasie and departing from Christ which Antechrist shoulde make 2 â—hess 2. to him selfe his owne doctrine as Irenaeus doeth expound it â—â—b 5. Basi. Ep. 71. which all nations peoples tongues should embrace Apâ—â— 18. 3. therefore it were no maruaile if no place could be named altogeather voide of the insection of Antâ—christ especially seeing the Church her selfe was driuen into the desert that is out of the sight of men yet there is no donbt but God preserued his Church though in small numbers both in the East in the West And namely one parte of the Church of God was in Britaine both in Wales and Scotland not subiect to the Pope nor acknowledging his auctority at such time as Augustine the monke came from Pope Gregory so conâ—nued longe after the reuelation of Antechrist Bed Hist. lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 25. And no doubt but the like was in many corners of the world The 2. marke of an Antechristian he maketh to haue newe names after they be gone out of the Church as Lutherans Zwinglians c. whereas they haue none but Catholikes yes verely the name of the Popish Church Papistes is as auncient as the name of Luther Lutheâ—ans more aunciente to M. Sand. sayth we geue them these names of spight eyght or nyne hundreth yeâ—res since the papacy Began The lyke I say of them who call vs Lutherans c. of mere malice when we are nothing but Christians wherefore the tryall must be in the doctrine which either sorte professe and not in names The Christians of the Arians were called
doctrine but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. 17. c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham that the ciuil Magistrate may visit correct reforme and depose any Bishop in their owne realme Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche then the power of a Bishop And what inconuenience is this in thinges perteining to his office seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching ministring c. is confessed to be aboue the King Hereby we make the body aboue the soule saith M. Sander the tēporal reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen Not a whit no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome Onely this we say that M. Sander dissembleth The cause must be iust for which ◠King shoulde depose a Bishop or pastor for thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop the poorest Priest from his benefice This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vpon iust cause Now if the cause be iust it must be either manifest or doubtfull If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther treason adulterie c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe as in all other mens causes may proceede against a Bishop If the cause be doubtfull it is either for life or doctrine The triall of the Bishops life ought to be as all other mens are with due cōsideration of his accusers The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling if he be culpable and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place from his life also if his offence deserue it But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y e Bishops pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde haue them ruled none of vs did euer affirme for that were tyranny not Christian gouernment And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperour doth Athanasius complaine In Episi ad sol vit agent and shew the iudgement aunsweres of the Christian Bishops Paulinus Lucifer Eusebius Dionysius Liberius Hosius vnto him when he would haue enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius for defending the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ. But yet the same Athanasius appealed him selfe to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses as any mortall mā may be deceiued as Dauid was about Mephibosheth gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before threatned to depose him if he were disobediēt he neuer repined but acknowledged his auctority Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat If I shall know sayth the Emperour that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement remoue thy place Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes according to the truth M. Sander fearing we would obiect against him that Constantinus Martianus other godly Emperors vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops replieth that it was only to kepe peace wheras they did not only kepe peace but also prescribe commaūd the Bishops to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell Euangelici enim c. The bookes of the Gospells of the Apostles the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs in the vnderstanding of God Therfore setting all hateful discord aside let vs take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite the explication of the questions They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie like as they called the councells together to make their decrees But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeares of discretion will be able to consider what maner a Bishop he is who layeth the Priestly right vnder the lay mens feete By which saith M. Sander you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellowes be w c geue the most proude intollerable title of supreame head gouernor to lay Princes I answere in geuing this title they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie cōfesse with Augustine that there is no greater then a Priest in his office although Moses after the distinction was no Priest but a ciuil Magistrate in his calling aboue Aaron that was high Priest And although M. Sander say this is the diuinity of England only to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor he sayeth most vntruly for all learned men of all countries doe acknowledge the same in such sorte as we do in England and not as he in Flanders either dreameth or slaundereth vs to do For we confesse with Valentinian the good Emperour that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis c. They which studie by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells knowe to submit them selues to publike offices according to the lawes they speake not against the Emperors power but they keepe the commaundementes of a sincere and great Emperour and the commaundementes of God and are subiect to our lawes but you are found disobedient Finally we neuer ment to geue the Prince by flatteriē auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bishops alone neither would we haue a confusion of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius doth any thing at all touch vs who limit the supremacie of Princes within the compase of Gods worde and Christian religion against which neither Prince nor Priest hath any auctoritie to commaund The seuenth marke of Antichrist is the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse Nay rather it is a setting vp of a new altare sacrifice propitiatorie against the only