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
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
Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word Which because the Papists dare not atteÌ„pt Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation priuiledge of the sayd libell to shew a bad shift better then none at all why they wil not answere it For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing we require no approbation nor priuiledge dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it haue approbation priuiledge The 29. motiue Protestantes them selues take thinges vpon our churches credit The churches auctority S. Augustines motiue VVhat Sor. pture the Protestants deny Although we did receaue such things as he reherseth vpon their churches credit it followeth not that theirs is the true church for we receaue nothing from them without dew exammation The Scriptures we receaue not vpon the only credit of the Popish church but vpon the credit of y e vniuersall church of Christ. The creedes articles of doctrine tearmes of person trinitie consubstantiality Sacraments c. we receaue because they be consonant to the Scriptures not because the church of Rome tellâ—th â—s they be true As for the auctoritie of the church which he sayth was S. Augustines motiue to beleue the Gospell was not a single or sole motiue but a commotiue or an argument that with other argumeÌ„ts did moue him for the sayth not moueret but commoueret and so it is with vs. Prouided alwayes that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholike or vniuersall church VVhat then sayth Bristow was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine ment or can you hold laughter when the question is asked No verily for when the Protestants church that it is now so called in this age like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustines time is a member of the Catholike vniuersall church of Christ and so proued by the holy Scriptures it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an hereticall assembly departed from the vniuersall church long since Augustines departure out of this life But Bristow will proue that the church at whose commanndement Augustine beleued the Gospell was not the ProtestaÌ„ts church because that church commaunded him to beleue the bookes of Toby Iudith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees to be canonicallscripture which the church of Protestantes doth denye But what it Augustine were deceiued to thinke he hearde the voice of the Catholike church when he did not shall the Protestantes churche be condemned S. Hierome who if the church of Rome were the Catholike church was more like to heare her voice because he was a Priest of the church of Rome telleth vs a cleane contrary tale For thus he writeth In praefat in Prouerbia Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam Therfore as the Church in deade readeth the bookes of Iudith and Tobias and of the Macchabees but yet she receiueth them not among the Canonicall scriptures so she may reade these two Bookes speaking of the booke of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the common people but not for confirming the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall doctrine Doth the Church of Protestants iudge otherwise of these Bookes then that Church which thus instructed Hierome What then I must say as Bristowe doth S. Hierome and the Catholike Church in his time of our Religion The Church of Rome now is of an other iudgement then the Church of Rome was then ergo it is not now that it was then But whereas Bristowe chargeth vs to to deny or at least to leaue indifferent the Canticles of Salomon The Epistle to the Hebrues The Epistles of Saint Iames S Peter S. Iohn Sainct Iude with the Apocalips it is a diuelish slaunder as God knoweth and the woâ—ld can beare vs witnesse The 30. Motiue is the 36. and 37. demaÅd Storehouse of the Scriptures Tht Iewes Religion chaunged into ours by Christ. The Churches learning and wisdome The Church store S. Irenaeus motiue Bristowe demaundeth whether the Popish Church receiuing the Scriptures of the olde and newe Testament from Christ hath not kept them faithfully without adding minishing or corrupting I aunswere no for the Popish church receiueth none of Christ but the catholike church of Christ. Againe the popish Church hath added whole bokes to the canon which the chuch of the Iewes neuer receiued nor the vniuersall Church of Christ. But those Bokes saith Bristow hath the Protestants church robbed vs of w c are allowed by approued Councels You heard in the last motiue Hieromes iudgement of those bookes whervnto agreeth the couÌ„cel of Laodiâ—ea cap. 59. Augustine receiueth the boks of Macchabees but with condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Augâ— consec â—pist Gaudent cap. 13. Last of al the popish church either of fraud or negligence hath corrupted an exceeding great number of textes of the scripture in her vulgar latine translation w c she receueth as only authentical The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied For wheras the trueth is Ipsum contret caput â—â—â—â— the same seede shall broose thine head the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman Gen 3. Wheras he saith the Protestants church for this 100. yeeres as we coÌ„fesse our selues occupyed no bible nor had any thing to do with the scriptures he lieth out of al measure for the church of Christ hath alwaies had the scriptures in euery nation where it was it had theÌ„ in their mother toung How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchmeÌ„t 3 or 4. hundreth yeeres past in the English toung beside other in the Saxon language The like are to be proued to haue ben in al places where the Churches were gathered as in France Italy Bohemia c. Finally whatsoeuer he bableth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures trueth the like may be said of the greke Church which they coÌ„demne as schismaticall hereticall therefore this storehouse is no Motiue to proue the Romish Sinagogue to be the church of God In the 37. demaund he asketh whether as wel Protestants as other doe not condemne the old writers errors other heresies of Heretiks which made great shew of scriptures by the rule of y e popish churchs faith I answere the Protestants out of the scriptures do can disproue such shew of scriptures made by maisters of error are no more moued by the popish churches authoritie then the Apostles were moued by authoritie of the Iewish Synagogue to reproue all the grosse Idolatrie and snperstition of the Gentiles Therfore the popish Church is not Depositorium Diues that rich storehouse of trueth which was S. Ireneus motiue The 31. motiue is the 41. demaund Sending and teaching of all diuine
to the former doctrine of Peters primacie namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade because they were not in dauÌ„ger of error the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring hath continued in Peters successors more then in the successors of all the Apostles Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle that he might confirme his brethren I haue often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter was proper to Peters person therefore can not be drawne to his successors And what madnes is it to defend that the Pope can not erre when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant. But M. Sander concludeth to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship but by the appoyntment and will of Christ Peter was heade to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest is one as a kingdom one by hauing one king in it Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ ouer all his Church to make it one in the holy Scriptures when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely then was not Peter his superiour in any respect That Paule reprehended Peter M. Sander sayth he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship If that be so why may not euery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike If you graunt they may then haue you so many Canones against you as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession But this fault you say with Tertullian was of conuersation not of preaching that Peter might not seeme to haue erred in doctrine Neuertheles it can not be excused but Peter also erred in doctrine Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe or of Christian libertie but of bearing too much with the Iewes in preiudice of the Gentils whom he compelled to Iudaisme in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine which dissimulation he entred not into for any worldely respect but because he was dâ—ceyued in opinion thinking that in that case he ought so to haue done before he being reprehended by Paule sawe the inconuenience and then myldely yelded to the correction But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles seeing Christ had sayde he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser In deedâ— he shewed herein such greatnes as Christ commendeth but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren Cyprian ad Quintum sayth he did not iudge this reprouing of Peter to be an argument against his supremacie but a witnes of his humilitie but he giueth vs this much to vnderstande that if he had chalenged primacie he had taken vpon him arrogantly his wordes are these Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For nether did Peter whome our Lorde chose the first and vpon whome he builded his Church when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward chalenge any thinge insolently or take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the primacie and that he ought rather to haue bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers nether did he despise Paule for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche but he did admitte the counsell of truth The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye De bap cont Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis c. VVe haue learned in the holy Scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence when he vsed to dâ—e otherwise then the truth required about circumâ—sion was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order not of dignitie and authoritie But Gregory much later then Augustiue graunteth to Peter not onely a primacie bâ—t also a maioritie in Ezech. Hâ—m 18. Quatenus c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship should be chiefe also in humilitie And agayne Eâ—ce à minore c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser and he disdayneth not to be reproued Nether doth he call to minde that he first was called to the Apostleship These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise then that he was first called to the Apostleship which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther Zwinglius Caluine c. and their bitter dissentions shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles It is not to be doubted that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues if they come not nearer to them then the Pope and his pompous Clergye let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vpon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized he aunswereth that proueth no more their equalitie then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop to go about busines of the chapter it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the CanoÌ„s But by his fauor where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines to be inferior to the whole chapiter as Peter Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles though the Bishop or Deane in other respects be superior to the Canons and Peter and Iohn were equall to euery one of the Apostles Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vpon a false supposition that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles if they had fallen as Iudas did therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right but by concession election or vsurpation The 12. chapter THat S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the other Apostles is most manifestly seenâ— by his chiefe Bishoply power Howe Christ loued Peter aboue others M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter superior to the Apostles not in their Apostleship but in his Byshoply degree doth yet againe distinguish the order and office of a Byshop from the authoritie and iurisdiction of the
the Prince is one of the Priest an other this spiritual the other external therefore no contrariety betwene them For put the case that Philippus had seene the Bishop prophane the sacrament in ministring to infidels or otherwise vncertainly behauing him selfe in his office might he not iustly haue punished him as supreame gouernour ouer the Bishoppe euen in those matters I say not to doe them but to see that they be well done and to punishe the offendors Neither is the meaning of the othe any other And according to this meaning M. Nowell M. Horne and M. Iewel dare warrant the King to be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes although it please M. Sander to say the contrarie of them Whose trayterous quarelling vpon the wordes of the othe ought not to trouble any mans coÌ„science when the meaning is publikelie testified both by the Prince and by the whole consent of the church The next exaÌ„ple is of Constantinus the great which in the Synode of Nice when the Bishops had offered vnto him bills of complaint one against an other without disclosing the contentes of them he sayd as Ruffinus reporteth lib. 10. cap. 2. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes c. God hath made you Priestes and hath giuen you power to iudge of vs also and therfore we are rigtly iudged of you but ye can not be iudged of mÌ„e For which cause expect ye the iudgement of God alone among ye Here M. Sander noteth first that he calleth them Priestes whereby he woulde proue they had power to offer externall sacrifice which is a simple reason for then all Christian men women within the Scripture are called Priestes haue the same power Secondly he coÌ„fesseth they haue power to iudge the Emperour for none can be greater then a Priest In their challenge and spirituall gouernment the Emperour meaneth and not as the Popish church practised to dispose the Emperour Thirdly that Priestes can not be iudged of meÌ„ If this be so one Priest can not be iudged of an other and where is then the Popes supremacie but he aunswereth if one Priest iudge an other it is Gods iudgement and not the iudgement of men because God hath set one Priest aboue another O blockish aunswere as though God hath not set one Prince aboue all his subiectes You see howe Popish Priestes aduaunce them selues to the honor of God and withdraw their obedience from Gods Lieutenaunts on earth An vndoubted note of Antichristians You will aske me then what sence these wordes haue you can not be iudged of men I aunswere either they are ment as Sainct Paule speaketh of the vprightnes of his conscience in doing of his office which is not subiect to the iudgement of men or else Ruffinus as he was a bolde reporter frameth the Emperours wordes accordâ—ng to that estimation which he woulde haue men to haue of the clergie For it is certeyne by recordes of Constantinus time that he did iudge Bishoppes and tooke vpon him as supreame gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes Maister Sander confesseth he iudged certeyne Priests or ecclesiasticall causes but he did it as Augustine sayeth Epist. 162. as one that would afterward aske pardon of the holy Bishops at the importunitie of the Donatists And as Optatus recordeth he sayd Deschis lib. 1. Petitis à me c. Ye aske of me iudgement in the world whereas I my selfe looke for Christes iudgement And Augustine reproueth the Donatistes that they would haue an earthly King to be iudge of their cause In deede the importunitie of the Donatistes was wicked who would so referre the matter to the Emperour y t without knowledge of ecclesiasticall persons who were only meete iudges in respect of knowledge in that case they would haue y e cause decided But the Emperour acknowledging his auctoririe appointed iudges ecclesiastical persons first the Bishop of Rome Melchiades whom he commauÌ„ded with other Bishops to heare the cause of Caecilianus as Eusebius who â—ued in his time writeth li. 10. ca. 5. And wheÌ„ the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Rome his coÌ„panions iudgement he appointed other delegates as Augustine also witnesseth Ep. 162. But to leaue this cause of the Donatistes Eusebius in his life libr. 1. sayeth of him Quoniam nonnulli variis locis inter se discrepabant quasi communis quidem Episcopus à Deo constitutus ministrorum Dei synodos conuocauit neâ— dedignatus est adesse considere in illorum medio Because some of them in diuerse places were at variance among them selues he as a certeine generall Bishop appointed of God called together the synodes of the ministers of God and disdayned not to be present and to sit in the middest of them And in lib. 3. He sheweth howe he gathered the vniuersall synode of Nice as it were leading foorth the armie of God to battell To this Emperour did Athanasius the great Bishoppe of Alexandria appeale from the synode of Tyre where he was iniuriously handled as both Socrates testifieth lib. 1. and the verie Epistle of Constantine him selfe vnto that synode commaunding all the Bishoppes to come vnto his presence and there to shewe before him quem syncerum esse Dei ministrum neque vos sanè negabitis whome you can not deny to be a syncere minister of God how sincerely they had iudged in that councell Finally in the end of the epistle he protesteth that he wil execute his supremacie in causes ecclesiastical Omni virtute conabor agâ—re quatenâ—s quae in lege Dei sunt ea praecipuè sine aliquâ— titubatione seruentur quibus vtique neque vituperatio neque malâ— superstitio poteris implicari dispersis vtique ac palam contritis penitus exterminatis sacratissimae legis inimicis qui sub schemate sancti nominis blasphemas varias ad diuersos inijciant I will endeuour with all my might to bringe to passe that those thinges that are in the lawe of God those chiefly without any staggering may be obserued which by no reproofe or euill superstition can be intangled when all the enemyes of the moste holye lawâ— which vnder a shape of an holy name doe cast out diuerse blasphemies vnto sondry persons are dispersed openly troden downe and vtterly rooted out Let this suffice to shewe what supremacie Constantinus did exercise in causes Ecclesiasticall Nowe Maister Sander draweth vs to see what honour he gaue to the see of Rome First he taketh it for most certayne that Constantine was baptised by Syluester which is an impudent lye and forged fable as is manifest by Eusebius who liued in his tyme and after him who knewe him familiarly and affirmeth that he was baptised in his iorney towardes Iordane where he had purposed to haue bene baptised if God had spared him life But this manifest testimonye of Eusebius Maister Sander refuseth becauâ—e he was suspected for affection to the Arrian heresiâ— Beside that he was vniustly suspected what reason is it to discredit his story who wrote at such