religion Exorcisme exufflation in baptisme Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Baptisme necessary for saluation of children ChauÌ„ge of religion neuer made by us Altares prayer for the dead used alwayes Reall presence of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t Pilgrimage reliques of Saints S. Hierom of our religioÌ„ Miracles for reliques Churches coÌ„firmed by miracles VVhat an impudeÌ„t atteÌ„pt is chauÌ„ge of religioÌ„ Of the churches practise custome I say euen as of the churches iudgement that how much soeuer it be to be esteemed yet is not the Popish church the Catholike church of Christ but an apostasie schisme from it Neither is it sufficieÌ„t for Bristow to say y e Popish church practiseth many things that the auÌ„cieÌ„t church of Christ practised therfore it is the true church of Christ except he can proue that the Popish churchteacheth practiseth all nothing els but that which the ancieÌ„t church of Christ did teach practise In stede whereof Bristow can allege nothing but certeine spots wrinkles of the elder church which the Popish church doth embrace hauing almost nothing els like vnto it But let vs see how substantially he proueth out of S. Paule S. Augustine that the churches custome and practise is an infallible rule of truth First S. Paule saith he 1. Cor. 11. after many reasons for the vncomelines of womeÌ„s going bareheaded recoyleth to this inuincible forte Si quis c. But if any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome for women to pray vncouered nor the church of God See how this impudent asse to stablish his ground of custome is not ashamed to falsifie the wordes of holy Scripture S. Paul saith if any man seme to be desirous of contention we haue no such custome nor the churches of God whereby he meaneth plainly that it is not the custome of the Apostles nor of the church of God to be contentious about such small matters of external behauiour May we herof inferre that whatsoeuer the church at any time hath vsed is allowable to be vsed alwaies S. Aug. Ep. 118. Ian. is cited by Bristow but corruptly Si quid tota per orbeÌ„ frequentat ecclesia hoc quia it a â—acienduÌ„ sit disputare insoleÌ„tissimae insaniae est If y e whole church do vse any thing only to call it in question whether that thing should be so don is a poinct of most prowd or most straÌ„ge madnes But Augustine is not so generall for his words are siquid horuÌ„ if any of these things speaking of ceremonial obseruations as of receiuing the coÌ„munion fasting c. be vniuersally vsed of all the church when it is not coÌ„trary to the word of God it were madnes to striue about it For in the first place Augustine setteth the auctority of Gods word secoÌ„dly the custome of the vniuersal church being not contrary to Gods word last of all the customs of particular churches which are varied according to the diuersities of coÌ„tries natioÌ„s Now for these matters in coÌ„trouersy betwene vs I answer as Augustine doth to the questioÌ„ of Ianuarius immediatly after the words cited by Bristow Sed neque hoc neque illud est in eo quod tu queris But neither is this nor that in the question that thou propoundest that is neither the practise of the vniuersall church nor the auctority of the Scriptures serueth to decide this question but it is the third kind So say I to Bristow nether the auctority of the holy Scriptures nor the practise of the vniuersall church can be shewed for these things which thou defeÌ„dest but they are of a third kind that is contrary to the word of God and the practise of the most auncient Primitiue church But Augustine sayth Bristow proueth that infants are borne in sinne against the Pelagians which are reuiued in ProtestaÌ„ts by the customes practise of the church which was to baptise theÌ„ for remission of sinnes And this practise he called the waight of truth a most plaine bignes of truth The slauÌ„der that PelagiaÌ„s are aliue in ProtestaÌ„ts by denying children to be borne in sinne I wil no more esteme then the barking of a dogge against the moone But where he sayth that Augustine by the only practise of the church coÌ„uinceth the Pelagians calling the practise poÌ„dus veritatis c it is a shameles lye for his words are in the same Epist. 105. Circunstiâ—antur enim diâ—inarum auctoritate lectionuÌ„ antiquitus tradito retcÌ„to firmo Ecclesiae ritu in baptismate paruulorum For they are compassed about both by the auctoritie of the diuine readings also by the stedfast practise of the church deliuered of old reteined in the baptisme of infants But he vrgeth them with exorcisme and exsufflation which were there vsed in the church I confesse but their meaning by exufflatioÌ„ exorcisme he defendeth out of the Scriptures And who can blame Augustine if after he haue mightely confuted the Pelagians out of the Scriptures to shew the nouelty of their heresie he alleaged the perpetuall practise of the church which she alwaies had alwaies shall haue in praying for the conuersion of infidels for the perseueraÌ„ce of the faithful in goodnes This is all one saith Bristow as if we should reason against these heretikes out of priuate mens beades out of the publike prayers which are in the portuse or Breuiary or in the missall and such like bokes The deuill it is except Bristow can proue that such beades and prayers were euer vsed in the church For Augustine sayth de bono perseuer ca. 22 Atque vtinam tardi corde infirmi qui non possunt velnon dum possunt Scriptur as vel earum expositiones intelligere sic audrient vel non audirent in hac quaestione disputationes nostras vt magis intuer entur orationes suas quas semper habuit habebit ecclesia ab exordijs suis donec finiatur hoc seculum And I would they that are dull of hart weake which can not or as yet can not vnderstand the Scriptures or the expositions of them would so heare or not heare our disputations in this question that they would rather consider their owne prayers which the church alwaies hath had shall haue from her beginning vntil this world be ended You see plainly that Augustine ioyneth to the auctority of the holy Scriptures the perpetuall practise of the church which hath continued from the beginning and shall remayne vnto the ende Which seeing it can not be shewed for Poperie the argument of the practise of the church serueth not for Popery Bristowe proceedeth and passeth ouer the example of Christian women which killed them selues rather then they would haue their bodies abused yet notwithstanding by the churches iudgement were honored as martyrs To which I aunswere the church considered their minde which was good not the fact which was euell At last he commeth to affirme that the
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
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word Which because the Papists dare not atteÌ„pt Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation priuiledge of the sayd libell to shew a bad shift better then none at all why they wil not answere it For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing we require no approbation nor priuiledge dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it haue approbation priuiledge The 29. motiue Protestantes them selues take thinges vpon our churches credit The churches auctority S. Augustines motiue VVhat Sor. pture the Protestants deny Although we did receaue such things as he reherseth vpon their churches credit it followeth not that theirs is the true church for we receaue nothing from them without dew exammation The Scriptures we receaue not vpon the only credit of the Popish church but vpon the credit of y e vniuersall church of Christ. The creedes articles of doctrine tearmes of person trinitie consubstantiality Sacraments c. we receaue because they be consonant to the Scriptures not because the church of Rome tellâ—th â—s they be true As for the auctoritie of the church which he sayth was S. Augustines motiue to beleue the Gospell was not a single or sole motiue but a commotiue or an argument that with other argumeÌ„ts did moue him for the sayth not moueret but commoueret and so it is with vs. Prouided alwayes that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholike or vniuersall church VVhat then sayth Bristow was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine ment or can you hold laughter when the question is asked No verily for when the Protestants church that it is now so called in this age like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustines time is a member of the Catholike vniuersall church of Christ and so proued by the holy Scriptures it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an hereticall assembly departed from the vniuersall church long since Augustines departure out of this life But Bristow will proue that the church at whose commanndement Augustine beleued the Gospell was not the ProtestaÌ„ts church because that church commaunded him to beleue the bookes of Toby Iudith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees to be canonicallscripture which the church of Protestantes doth denye But what it Augustine were deceiued to thinke he hearde the voice of the Catholike church when he did not shall the Protestantes churche be condemned S. Hierome who if the church of Rome were the Catholike church was more like to heare her voice because he was a Priest of the church of Rome telleth vs a cleane contrary tale For thus he writeth In praefat in Prouerbia Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam Therfore as the Church in deade readeth the bookes of Iudith and Tobias and of the Macchabees but yet she receiueth them not among the Canonicall scriptures so she may reade these two Bookes speaking of the booke of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the common people but not for confirming the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall doctrine Doth the Church of Protestants iudge otherwise of these Bookes then that Church which thus instructed Hierome What then I must say as Bristowe doth S. Hierome and the Catholike Church in his time of our Religion The Church of Rome now is of an other iudgement then the Church of Rome was then ergo it is not now that it was then But whereas Bristowe chargeth vs to to deny or at least to leaue indifferent the Canticles of Salomon The Epistle to the Hebrues The Epistles of Saint Iames S Peter S. Iohn Sainct Iude with the Apocalips it is a diuelish slaunder as God knoweth and the woâ—ld can beare vs witnesse The 30. Motiue is the 36. and 37. demaÅd Storehouse of the Scriptures Tht Iewes Religion chaunged into ours by Christ. The Churches learning and wisdome The Church store S. Irenaeus motiue Bristowe demaundeth whether the Popish Church receiuing the Scriptures of the olde and newe Testament from Christ hath not kept them faithfully without adding minishing or corrupting I aunswere no for the Popish church receiueth none of Christ but the catholike church of Christ. Againe the popish Church hath added whole bokes to the canon which the chuch of the Iewes neuer receiued nor the vniuersall Church of Christ. But those Bokes saith Bristow hath the Protestants church robbed vs of w c are allowed by approued Councels You heard in the last motiue Hieromes iudgement of those bookes whervnto agreeth the couÌ„cel of Laodiâ—ea cap. 59. Augustine receiueth the boks of Macchabees but with condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Augâ— consec â—pist Gaudent cap. 13. Last of al the popish church either of fraud or negligence hath corrupted an exceeding great number of textes of the scripture in her vulgar latine translation w c she receueth as only authentical The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied For wheras the trueth is Ipsum contret caput â—â—â—â— the same seede shall broose thine head the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman Gen 3. Wheras he saith the Protestants church for this 100. yeeres as we coÌ„fesse our selues occupyed no bible nor had any thing to do with the scriptures he lieth out of al measure for the church of Christ hath alwaies had the scriptures in euery nation where it was it had theÌ„ in their mother toung How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchmeÌ„t 3 or 4. hundreth yeeres past in the English toung beside other in the Saxon language The like are to be proued to haue ben in al places where the Churches were gathered as in France Italy Bohemia c. Finally whatsoeuer he bableth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures trueth the like may be said of the greke Church which they coÌ„demne as schismaticall hereticall therefore this storehouse is no Motiue to proue the Romish Sinagogue to be the church of God In the 37. demaund he asketh whether as wel Protestants as other doe not condemne the old writers errors other heresies of Heretiks which made great shew of scriptures by the rule of y e popish churchs faith I answere the Protestants out of the scriptures do can disproue such shew of scriptures made by maisters of error are no more moued by the popish churches authoritie then the Apostles were moued by authoritie of the Iewish Synagogue to reproue all the grosse Idolatrie and snperstition of the Gentiles Therfore the popish Church is not Depositorium Diues that rich storehouse of trueth which was S. Ireneus motiue The 31. motiue is the 41. demaund Sending and teaching of all diuine
particularly to euerie one of them sheweing whether it be a true and proper note of the church and if it be that it belongeth to vs and not to them Although Bristow say that this way we know full well that they shall haue the victorie flying therefore euermore to our weake false castle of only Scripture That the scripture onely is our castle we do gladly admitte but that the same is a most strong true impugnable castle none but a blasphemous heretike will deny But you must saith Bristow still labour to get them if you can with their consent out of the castle into the plaine fieldes aforesayde to make them graunt expressely that there in your handes they can not stande Nay Bristow you must beate vs from our castell if you can for we will neuer consent to goe out of it for defense except it be to offer you the aduauntage not in the playne fieldes as you cal it but among your pettie piles and small holdes And so we haue done often So did that reuerende father the Bishoppe of Salisburie in that noble challenge wherein you were shamefullie foyled in your owne grounde and many of your fortes beaten about your eares But you doe not well to teach your schollers to seeke a gentle aduersarie to fight withall which must first of all be willing to laye downe his sworde and shielde and then you are good enough for him with your manlie motiues with which when you haue treandled him about like a tenis ball you sende him backe agayne to his castell of onely Scripture to see whether they will beare him out in his opinions For example is not this Scripture manifest inough on your side and agaynst vs This is my body This is my blood Mat. 26. Verily euen as plaine as this They did all eate the same spirituall meate They all dronke of the rocke that followed theÌ„ y e rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10. They are both one maner of speaking and both of one matter Therefore they haue both one meaning The second exaÌ„ple is By works a man is iustified not by faith only Iac. 2. And this is also Scripture knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Lawe but by faith of Iesus Christ Gâ—lat 2. And agayne by grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast The later being in maner of speaking contrarie to the former text doe playnly shewe that these two Apostles speake not both of one kinde of faith or iustification But that Iames speaketh of a dead faith as his wordes are playne Vers. 17. and of iustification before men Paule of a liuing faith and of iustification in the sight of God The third example is out of Iames 5. Where I must first note that Bristow in translation doth manifestly corrupt falsefie the Scripture The Latine is Infirmatur quis in vobis If any amongest you be daungerously sicke let him send for the Priests of the church and they to pray ouer him anealing him with oyle in the name of our Lord c. First Bristow addeth this word daungerously of his owne heade which is neither in the Greeke nor vulgare Latine text to draw the text of Iames violently to their popish greasing which they vse only when a man is desperatly sicke and past hope of recouerie in theiâ— iudgement Whereas Iames speaketh generally of any kinde of sickenes wherewith any of the faithfull were molested Secondly Bristowe leaueth out the wordes following which are these and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke person and the Lord shall restore him or raise him vp the Latine is alleâ—iabit shall ease him which wordes declare that the Apostle speaketh not of a perpeâ—uall Sacrament of the church but of a ceremonie vsed by them that had a speciall gift of healing the sicke in the primitiue Churche whiche ceremonie must needes cease with the gift except it be among apes that practise outward gesture and actions without effect The other two examples out of the 2. of Machabees the one of praying for the deade the other of Ieremie praying for the people are no partes of the castell of Canonicall Scripture and therefore with other errours in the same bookes I omit them The last exaÌ„ple is out of Genesis 48. The saying of Iacob the Patriarke of Iosephs two childreÌ„ God who hath fed me from my youth euen to this day The Angell who hath deliuered me out of all aduersities blesse these children which is sayth Bristow as if one would say God and our Ladie blesse them Nay rather God by Iesus Christ blesse them for what other Angell but Christ the Angell of the great councell was the deliuerer of Iacob which when he wrestled with him in a vision and mystery Gen. 32. he doubted not to call God Euen the same Angell which led the children of Israel through the wildernes whoÌ„ S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth Christ who was not an Angel by nature but by office in that as the Mediator he was sent to deliuer the people before he came in the flesh But if we should vnderstand the Angell of whom Iacob speaketh for soÌ„e priuate Angel appointed of God to protect him yet is it not as if one would say now God our Lady blesse theÌ„ For that God vseth the ministery of Angels to defend prosper his seruaunts but not the ministery of Saincts in heaueÌ„ for any such purpose that we can learne by the holy Scriptures Iacob might therfore pray y t God would send his Angell to protect those children euen as he had done for him As for that vaine brag that all Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalipse is for theÌ„ against vs is nothing els but a false alarme as though he woulde on all sides assalt our castel of only Scriptures wheras he purposeth nothing lesse But this can not be borne that he sayeth some places of Scripture be so playne against vs that we can not aunswere them but by plucking the pen of the holy Ghost out of his hand that wrote theÌ„ meaning that we deny the auctority of such books as be not Canonicall the Machabees especially But this he sayth can not be For either they are proued muâ—ncibly to be of the holy Ghostes indighting or no Scripture at all is proued to be suche as you may remember the common saying of S. Augustine Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I shoulde not beleue the Gospell it selfe vnlesse the Catholike Churches auctoritie did compell What shall I say to this impudent blasphemer that alloweth none other tryall of holy Scripture but the authoritie of the Church because Augustine supposing that hee were an Heathen Againe sayth he would not beleeue the Gospell except the authoritie of the Church with other thinges did moue him his woorde is Commoueret whiche Bristowe not so ignorauntly as
impudently translateth did compâ—l mec But the Catholike Church saith Bristow hath receiued these bookes of equall authoritie with the rest Indeede the Synagogue of Antichrist in the Tridentine councell hath so decreede But the Catholike Church of Christ did neuer receiue them as I haue shewed out of Hicronime praef in Prouerb and others whereto I may adde the iudgement of Origine out of Eusebhist lib. 6. cap. 18. tran Russ. with the councell o Laodicea Can. 59. Marke the plainenesse of this demonstration when the question coÌ„trouersie is whether they or we be the chuch All scriptur is for them against vs because the church that is they haue thus thus decrede No meruail therfore if Bristow appeale to the iudgmeÌ„t of indifferent meÌ„ that al our prating of y e scriptures is nothing else but as S. Peter saith of S. Paules Epistles our wresting and writhing of them by our owne vnlearnednes vnstablenes from the Catholike Churches vnitie and vniuersalitie to the scisme and peece of Luther from theÌ„ce to Caluine c For the Church is the setled and vnmoueable rock against which ther is no scripture no trueth but all for it This is good a demonstratioÌ„ as if a man should say to a vessel tossed in the brode sea with wind waues that in the hauen there is great rest securitie but not shew what course they should keepe to come thither We by the only true lodestone Pharos and heauenly Cynosura of the holy scriptures we praise his holy name therfore haue founde the moste happy hauen of the holy Catholick Church of Christ by his helpe haue caste out the Anchor of Faith so surely fixed not in the sand but in the Hauen it selfe that all the Cables of popishe motiues or blasts of Diuelish doctrines shal not be able to stirre our ship from thence which course God grauÌ„t them to keepe who labouring in the sea of doubtfulnes ride not wilfully among the rocks of Romish pride nor be obstinately set on the sands of mens traditions but seeke trueth in humilitie to Gods glory their safetie Besids these motiues there are two demands which I cannot aptely reduce to any of the Motiues namely the seconde which he termeth the building of the Church and the laste which hee calleth Apostasie In the former demaund he asketh vs whether we haue not read this argument vsed by Chrisostome againste the Painims and Iewes that Christe is God because his Church hauing but a small beginning many stronge enemyes to withstand the building thereof yet could or can neuer be suppressed but contrariwise of a litle spark hath set all the world on fire c. I answere we haue read this argument and allowe of it Then sayth Bristowe How hath it beene these many hundreth yeeres quite suppressed yea and in Chrisostomes time no Church at all I answere that since it was first set vp it was neuer for one houre quite suppressed although by Antichriste these many hundred yeeres it hath beene greatly oppressed And in Chrysostomes time the Church did openly florishe although infected with some errors yet holding strongly the only tradition Iesus Christ which church was a member of the same vniuersall Church whereof our Church at this day is a parte with which Church in Chrysostoms time the popish church in that it disseÌ„teth from vs hath nothing coÌ„mon except one or two errors hauing the whole substance of doctrine contrary vnto it wherefore that argument staÌ„ding the popish church is nothing vnderpropped thereby which though it had a small beginning as the sect of Mahomet yet grew it by sufferance of God without great withstanding of strong enemies yea God sending the effecacy of error that it might preuaile and yet hath not increased ouer all â—he world but is for the most part contained in one parte of Europa deminishing where it is punished as in Germany Sauoy Denmarke Swetia and Englande growing onely where it is either mayntained by tyranny or tollerated by lenitie And now to the laste demaund of Apostasie wherwith he chargeth vs. Firste for chaunging the Priesthoode wherevpon must insue a chaunge of the law so this I aunswere we haue chaunged no priesthoode instituted by God but retaine that eldership and ministery ordayned by our Sauiour Christe Contrarywise the Pope hath changed Sacerdotium which Bristowe confesseth to be no other thing then presbiteratum which is the ministration of the Gospel yet commonly called both of him and vs Priesthood that Sacrificing priesthood I say w c the Apostle He. 7. affirmâ—th to be euerlasting and proper to the person of our Sauiour Christe hath the Pope translated vnto his shaueli gs and sette them vp to offer that Sacrifice which Christ only could offer and by once offering found eternall redemption yea the Priesthood of Melchisedech which the Lord by an othe confirmed only to our sauiour Christ. Psal. 100. Hee hath made common to all his Massemongers Therfore the Pope hath manifestly made an Apostacy from the lawe of Christ. The second argument by which Bristow would charge vs with Apostasie is for receiuing not one or two but so many olde heresies besides as he is bolde to say a thousand more of their owne inuention This beeing affirmed without all shew of proofe It shall suffice to deny and turne ouer vnto him and his fellowes The third argument is for taking from Christian men so many arguments of Christes diuinitie as the inuincible continuaunce and authoritie of his Church The honor and vertue of crosses and reliques miracles exorcismes vnitie Sacrifice c. I aunswere so many of these as are good and sufficient argumentes wee holde still the vnsufficient arguments doe rather disfornish then arme the Christians faith which we haue so strongly fortified with arguments out of the holy scriptures that all the power of darkenesse cannot preuaile against it The fourth argument is for leauing nothing vndenyed not Fathers not Councels not Traditions not Scriptures nor the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures the Churches institution and departing from the Fathers of all ages since Christes time agreeing with no Christian time nor none with them For denying of canonicall Scriptures it is an impudent slaunder as for Fathers Councelles Traditions Churches authoritie we affirme or deny as they agree or dissagree with the trueth of the holye scriptures the onely certaine witnesse of the will of God reuealed vnto men which we thinke more reasonable then the Papistes doe whiche denie fathers Councels Traditions yea the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and submit all vnto the iâ—dgement of their Church now when then the controuersie is whether they be the Church of God or of the Deuill whereas the Scriptures are of bothe partes confessed to be the worde of God in generall termes although in comparison of the authoritie of their Church Piggius calleth the holy Scripture a nose of Wax and a dumbe iudge Eccius tearmeth the written gospel a black Gospel and an inkish
diuinitie Hosius sayth that this commaundement of Christe Drinke ye all of this beeing vnderstoode doth appertaine vnto laye men contrary to their Churches determination is the expresse worde of the Deuill And for departing from the faith of the Fathers c. I aunswere it is false there is but one true Faith of all true Christians in al times from which wee will neuer departe although wee haue departed from some erroneous opinions of some fathers which because they are contrary to the woorde of God by hearing whereof Faith commeth they deserue not the name of Faith Finally whereas hee sayth the authoritie of the Church is the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures it is vntrue For although he should meane not the popish Sinagogue butthe true catholike church of Christ yet is it not the onely witnesse of the Scriptures For euen the Iewish Synagogue is witnesse of the olde testament and many sectes of heresies of all the scripture beside that the spirit of God is the chiefe and principall witnes of all which speaketh so euidently in allthe canonical scripture that if all mē on earth should refuse to giue credite vnto them yet his maiestie alone is sufficient to get credite vnto them especially with all those whome he teacheth inwardly in heart as he speaketh sensibly to their eares The last argument is That in place of all Religion and goodnes which they haue remoued deuising a new Gospel of their foresaid onely vaine fayth which teacheth all sinnes all heresies to presume of saluation What can bee more impudent or false then this slaunder seeing God and the worlde knoweth that wee teach none other Faith but the fayth of the Gospell which worketh by loue and promiseth remission of sinnes and saluation to none but such as earnestly repent and are willing to remoue all heresie and to imbrace all true Christian Religion and goodnesse God be praysed A DISCOVERY OF THE DAVNGEROVS ROCKE OF THE POPISH CHVRCH lately commended by Nicholas Sanders D. in diuinitie at which the Catholike Church of Christ hath bene in perill of shipwracke these many hundreth yeares By W. Fulke D. in diuinitie THE eternal rocke of the vniuersal Church Christ was the rocke an other foundation no man is able to put 1. Cor. 3. 10. The temporall rocke of the Militant Church Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will build my Church Mat. 16. SPaule speaketh manifestly 1. Cor. 3. of building of the Church Militant and Christ Mat. 16. speaketh of an eternall rocke against the which the gates of hell shall not preuayle Therefore your distinction of eternall and temporall vniuersall and militant which is the foundation of all your rotten rocke is an impudent and blasphemous falshood Of the continuance of your temporall rocke it is in vaine to contende when your rocke is nothing els but an heape of sande and dunge whereon your popishe Church is builded To the right worshipfull M. Doctor Parker bearing the Saunder name of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to all other Protestants in the Realme of England Nicolas Sander wisheth perfect faith and charitie in our Lorde declaring in this preface that the Catholikes whome they call Papistes doe passe the Protestants in all maner of signes or markes of Christes true Church Concerning the omission of titles accustomed to be giuen to the Archbishop of Canterbury for which you excuse your selfe I thinke M. D. Parker while he liued did not much esteeme them giuen to him by any man and least of all looked to receyue them at suche mens handes as you are but touching the religion church whereof he was a minister I will aunswer you in his behalfe and of all other ministers and members thereof that no excuse will serue you vpon so slender reasons as you bringe to condemne the same of schisme and heresie nor to defend that Synagogue of Satan wherof you professe your selfe to be a Champion to be the vndefiled Church and spouse of Christ. For thinke you M. Sanders that we wil more mislike the Church of Christ persecuted by the hypocriticall crueltie of Antichrist for the space of 5. or 6. hundreth yeares before our age then we do the same persecuted by the furious rage of Heathenish tyrantes for 300. yeares after the first planting of the same amonge the Gentills And thinke you if we are now to learne that all that glory and bright shining of Christes Church promised by the Prophets is spirituall and not carnall heauenly and not earthly eternal not transitory Or that we know not your synagogue to be the very contrary kingdome and sea of Antichrist euen by that outward glory and glistering pompe of open shewe that you boast of according to the prophecy of Christ in the reuelation Apoc. 13. 17. And as for the citie built vpon an hill whereof you haue neuer doone babling by the playne context of the Gospel is not the whole Church but euery true pastor and minister thereof who are also the light of the worlde the salt of the earth and a candle set on a candlesticke to giue light not hiden vnder a bushell to be vnprofitable Mat. 5. And Christ hath alwayes bene with his Church although the Church of Rome be departed from him and he both liueth raigneth for euer ouer the house of Iacob though he be persecuted in his mēbers by the whore of Babylon and his name is great amonge the Gentilles from the Sunne rising to the going downe thereof notwithstanding that all nations haue dronke of the cuppe of her fornications The prophecyes of Gods spirit doe not one of them ouerthrow the other but the one sheweth how the other is to be vnderstanded And whereas you say our Church hath bene vnder a bushell before these fiftie yeares because no historie maketh mention of any congregation professing our faith in any townes or places of diuers cōtryes at once I aunswer this is as true as all your doctrine beside For all auncient histories that write of the state of the primitiue Church make mention of the same faith which we professe And although towarde the reuelation of Antichrist the puritie of the faith beganne to be polluted yet the substance thereof continued vntill by Antichrist that great defection apostasie was made wherof the Apostle prophecyeth 2. Thess. 2. 3. And yet euen in the tyme of that a postasie many histories make mention of the continuance of our faith and Church in diuers contryes in Europe namely England Fraunce Italy or although vnder cruell persecution and tyranny beside great nations of the East which neuer submitted them selues to the Church of Rome and yet retayned the substance of Christian faith and profession though not without particular errors and superstition Wherefore although they that were blind or farre of from the Church of Christ could not see her glory although she had bene set vpon neuer so high an hill no more then a citie built vpon the Alpes can
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
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.
propitiatory sacrifice of Christes death once offred by which one oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Heb. 10. The auctor of this sacrifice which is the Pope he is in deede Antichrist the sonne of perdition But Maister Sander for proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse alleageth the prophecie of Malachie cap. 1. with 16. fonde comparisons of the defectes of the Iewes and the perfection of the Gentiles which he affirmeth to be the vniforme interpretation of the auncient fathers of whom no one denyeth the body and blood of Christ to be here ment albeit some of them expoundeth this prophecy of prayers and inwarde righteousnes which are alwayes ioyned with the vnbloody sacrifice I aunswer no one of the auncient fathers vnderstandeth this prophecy of the sacrifice of Christes body and blood otherwise then of a sacrifice of prayse and thankes giuing for proofe whereof I must referre the reader to myne aunswer to M. Heskins lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. 35. 36. where he shall finde the places of the Doctors set downe which are by M. Sander in place onely quoted But one other straunge reason of M. Sander to proue the sacrament of the Lords supper to be a sacrifice propitiatory I may not omit because I remember not that I haue reade it before Euery publike and externall facte which is made by Gods authoritie to put vs in minde of that greaâ— sacrifice once fulfilled on the crosse mâ—sâ—e also be partaker of the nature of that Sacrifice whereof it is a remembraunce As if the killing of a Calfe which signifyed the death of Christe was an externall sacrifice how infinitely more shall the body and blood of Christ beeing made of bread and wine to signifie his owne death be a publike and external sacrifice This reason M. Sander maketh no small account of But how beastly an absurditie his principle is you shall easily perceiue if you consider that Baptisme is a publike and externall fact made by Gods authoritie to put vs in minde of the death and bloodshedding of Christ yet no man was euer so mad to say baptisme is a sacrifice Againe the Calfe that was killed was by Gods appointment a sacrifice of the only singular sacrifice of Christes death not by vertue of the signification for the Iewes had other ceremonies then sacrifices which did signifie the death of Christ But the Lords supper is not by Gods appointment a sacrifice therefore the signification cannot make it so The 8. mark of the false prophets of Antichrist is to spoyle Christ of his inheritance which God gaue him in all nations as the Protestants doe VVhich for 8. or 9. huÌ„dreth yeres can not shew any nation town or village church or chappel in the wide worlde where they had publike prayer I answere seeing the spirit speaketh expressely of a generall Apostacy and of the flying of the Church into the desert it is no more derogation to the inheritaunce of Christ that his Church among many nations was in persecution vnder Antichrist for 7. or 8. huÌ„dreth yeeres then that the same was in persecutioÌ„ vnder the heathen Emperors for 300. yeeres and more For the nations were then the inheritance of Christ in as glorious wise as when the Church flourished in outward peace vnder the ChristiaÌ„ Emperours Yet was there townes countryes not only in Fraunce Italie and Germany but also in the east parte of the worlde great nations among w c Christ had a visible Church which were neuer subiecte to the church of Rome If M. S. reply that they held some errors which we deny as prayer for the dead c. I answere holding the onely foundation Iesus Christe they might be true Christians although they were infected with some such errors as these The 9. Mark of Antichrist is intollerable pride to make him selfe iudge of the sence of Gods word and of the text also I allowe this marke it agreeth to none that euer was so aptly as to the Pope whom the Papistes affirme that he caÌ„ not erre in the sence of the Scripture who affirme that he hath auctoritie to receaue reiect what bookes of Scripture he wil. But M. SaÌ„der saith this note agreeth to vs and that we make our selues iudges of the sense of Gods word and of the text But we vtterly deny that for we make the spirit of God in his worde iudge of the interpretation No sayth M. Sander bringeth an exaÌ„ple of these word's of S. Paul He that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doth well and he that ioyneth her not doth better Here vpon saith he we grounde this doctrine Virginitie is a better state and more acceptable to God then the state of mariage This we graunt in some respect as the Apostle speaketh but not simpyl The question is of these words he doth better what is ment thereby M. Sander chargeth vs to say that S. Paule meaneth he doth better in the sight of the worlde which is an impudentlye and therefore al his foolish dialogisme is a fighting with his owne shadow Beza expouÌ„deth he doth better that is more commodiously not in respect of the worlde but in respect of godlines for the reasons before alleaged by S. Paul S. Paul him selfe is auctor of this interpretatioÌ„ verse 35. of that 7. chap. 1. Cor. This I say for your commodity when he exhorteth to virginity And that his purpose was not absolutely and simply to preferr virginity aboue mariage as a thing of it selfe more acceptable to God it is plaine by these words First he saith of virgines I haue no commaundement of the Lorde But he hath a commaundement to preferre those things that are most acceptable to the Lord. Secondly he sayth I suppose this to be good for the present necessity by which words he doth emply that it is not alwaies absolutly better but at somtimes in some respectes for them that haue the gift of continence and for none other So we holde virginity to be better then mariage according to the meaning of the best auncient writers whereof some were too great extollers of virginitie yet not like the Papistes But M. Sander sayeth the Protestantes make them selues Iudges not only of the meaning of Gods worde but also of the bookes them selues For they reiect not only the book of wisdom Tobie the Machabees with other such bookes but also the Epistle of S. Iames. Nay rather the Pope is Antichrist for receauing these books of Wisedom Tobie Machabees w c were neuer receaued of the church of the Israelits nor of the vniuersalchurch of Christ for Canonicall Scripture as I haue often shewed And as touching y e Epistle of S. Iames it is a shamelesse slaunder of him to say that the Protestantes reiect it but we must heare his reason First Luther calleth it a strawen Epistle So Luther called the Pope supreame heade of the church and the Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie if Protestantes be charged to holde
nothinge els but an impudent and vnskillfull quarelling against Beza wheras you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cuppe the practise of the primitiue Church the communion in one kind of bread onely Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21. The tenth marke of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist which are heretikes To agree with them in heresie is a poynt of Antichristianisme I confesse but not to agree with them in any thing For euery heresy affirmeth things that are true But let vs see in what points of heresie he chargeth vs to agree with the olde heretikes First Eunomius sayde that no sinne should hurt him if he were partaker of the faith which he taught so the Protestants saye of their faith Yea sir but their faith is not Eunomius faith yet they say not that no sinne shall hurt them but no sinne shall condemne them so say you Papistes of your popish faith Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed that mortall sinnes committed after baptisme might not be forgiueÌ„ of the Priest but of God alone The Protestants deny the Priest to haue any right to forgiue sinnes This is a lowd lye false sclaunder for we hold that the minister of God hath authoritie to forgiue all sinnes that God will forgiue according to the power giuen to them Ioan. 20 But you Papistes agree with the heretike in this poynt that you deny the Priest to forgiue all sinnes according to the power giuen but haue your casus Episcopales Papales by which you abridge the power giuen by Christ. Thirdly the Messalians denyed that baptisme doth plucke vp the roote of sinnes the same is the opinioÌ„ of the ProtestaÌ„ts The Protestants haue none opinion common with the Messalians who affirmed that our owne merits satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking vp the roote of sinnes whereas we affirme that baptisme saueth vs according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiuenes of our sinnes whereby euen the roote of sinne is plucked vp although coÌ„cupiscense remayne after the acte of baptisme which you Papistes also confesse to remayne to be the roote of sinne although you graunt it not to be sinne But we limit not the effect of baptisme to the time passed before y e acte of baptisme onely as you doe but extend it to our aeternall saluation he that beleueth is baptised shall be saued Marke 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this in your coÌ„tinual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeyes agree with the Messalians Fourthly AErius taught that we must not pray for the dead nor keepe the accustomed fastings that there is no difference betwene a Priest a Bishop The superstition of praying for the dead was iustly reproued by AErius so was the fast of custom and decree rather then of consideration for the first that praied for the dead were heretikes Montanists as Tertullian his sect the first that made prescript lawes of fasting was Montanus the heretike also as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Hierom Euagrio affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God Fifthly Iouinian iudged virginitie equall with mariage so doe the Protestants I haue shewed before howe it is equall and how it is superior Sixtly S. Hierom reproueth Vigilantius of heresie for denying prayer to Sainctes and giuing honour to reliques For praying to Sainctes there is no mention in S Hierom the immoderate honoring of reliques was iustly reproued and yet it was not then the one halfe of that it hath bene since Hieronym although he rather rayle then reason against Vigilantius as â—rasmus hath noted yet he desendeth not the adoratioâ— or worshipping but the reuerent estimation of reliques Seuenthly the Arrians would not beleue the consubstantiality of the same because that word was not written in the Scripture So do the Protestants deny many thinges vpon the like pretence This is a meere sclaunder for we stande vpon the sence of the Scripture and not the wordes onely Eightly Eusebius noteth it for an haynous impietie in Nouatus that he was not consummate with crisme which the Protestants call greasing In deede Cornelius Bishop of Rome reporteth that Nouatus was baptised in tyme of necessitie being very like to dye Iacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit nec reliqua in eo quâ— baptismum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit vnde nec spiritum sanctum vnquam potuerit promereri Lying in his bed according to the necessitie he was baptised nether were the other things that are wont to follow baptisme solemnly fullfilled nether was he consummate with y e seale of Chrisme wherby he could neuer obtayne the holy Ghost First I saye this is noted as no impietie in Nouatus but as a defect of necessitie Secondly that the Chrisme which Cornelius speaketh of was ether a seale of the extraordinarye gifts of the holy Ghost which in some remayned in the Church vntill that tyme or els he magnifieth that ceremony intollerably to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not being none of the institution of Christ and contrary to that the Papistes them selues hold at this day Ninethly Lucius the Arrian persecuted holy Monkes so doe the Protestants Nay they punish none but filthy idle Idolaters and hypocrites Tenthly the Montanists and Luciferians sayd there was a stewes made of the Church They sayde so falsly when the Churche was chaste but Esaye say de truely how is the faithfull citie become an whore when the Church of Israell was so in deede Eleuenthly the Donatists sayd the Church was lost from all the world preserued only in Africa So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all partes of the world and raysed vp againe in Germany The Protestants say not so For the Churche hath bene scattered ouer the face of the earth since the first preaching of the Apostles vnto this day But the Papistes saye that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserued only in a part of Europe when of all partes in the world onely a part of Europe which is the least part of the world was subiect to the Church of Rome Tweluethly the Seuâ—rians vsed the law and the Prophets but they peruerted the sense of the Scriptures by a certayne peculiar interpretation of their owne So doe the Protestants Nay so do the Papistes that submitte all vnderstanding of the Scripture be it neuer so playne to the interpretation of their Pope and popish Church as the commaundement of Images forbidden and the cuppe to be receyued of all doe most manifestly declare Lastly it hath alwayes bene a tricke of Iewes and heretikes to be still in hande with translating holy Scriptures that by chaunging they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side as Theodotion Aquila Symmachus So doe the ProtestaÌ„ts now Hieronym was no heretike yet did he
Caecilianistes as the Papistes call vs. Heretiques Protestants Lutherans c. but these were but dilatorie deuises of Heretiques to auoyd the true trial which as the Catholikes in the forenamed conference confessed was onely by y e Scriptures The 4. motiue is the 38. demaund Olde heresies Arrians againe aliue in Protestantes Protistants be Pelagians in denying Baptisme to be necessarie for the saluation of Infants Her etiques are not Christians Whatsoeuer was heresie in times past saith Bristow is heresie now also some opinions holden by the Protestants were heresie in times past Ergo they be heresies now also so Protestants be Heretiques and no Christian but almost Apostataes But I deny that any opinion holden by vs was euer Heresie Yes saith Bristow the denying of prayer and oblation for the dead was accounted heresie in Aâ—rius both by Epiphanius and Augustinus True it is they both following the errour of their times account it for an errour in Aâ—rius but it doth not followe that bicause they accounted it so that it was so in deed seing neither of them both doth proue it to be an errour by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures but by the corrupt vsage of their Churches which had turned thankesgiuing for the dead into prayers and oblation for the dead And yet the same Epiphanius denyeth fasting and almes to bee profitable to the dead wherefore the Papistes do now hold the contrarie Contra Melchisedec sumus Haer. 53. Hee accounteth the hauing of the images of Christ and the Apostles one of the heresies of the Gnostikes Haer. 27. many such like things which the Papistes defend for Catholike The like doth Augustine wherefore let Bristow aduise him selfe whether it be a good argument Epiphanius and Augustine accounted prayer for the dead to be an errour Ergo it was an heresie in deede For an other example of old heresies by vs recyted he bringeth in That cruell heresie of theirs against the necessitie of childrens baptisme wherin they agree with the Pelagians through which they suffer many thousand poore soules to perish which can not helpe them selues while they promise them both life euerlasting and the kingdome of heauen without baptisme whereas the Pelagians promised life euerlasting only Who would thinke that this slaunderous heretique had liued so long in England as hee did before he became fugitiue which lyeth so impudeÌ„tly without all colour or shewe of trueth Was there euer any of vs heard to preach of baptisme as not necessarie for infaÌ„ts if they might obteine it according to the institution of Christ. But contrariwise that it is a cruell errour of the Papists which condeÌ„neth infants who being preuented by death can not obteyne the outward Sacrament yet hath this error Augustine and Cypriane to vpholde it But if Augustine and Cypriane neuer erred no not about the doctrine of the Sacramentes then let their authoritie defend the Papists But when Cypriane denyed the Baptisme of Heretikes to be any thing auayleable how many thousand soules both of yong and olde dyd he condemne And wheÌ„ Augustine with Pope Innocent holdeth the communion to be as necessarie for the saluation of Infants as Baptisme how many huÌ„dred thousand soules doth he condemne or the Papistes destroy which denye the communioÌ„ vnto them Cyprian lib. 1. Epi. 6. Magno Augustin Contra duas Epist. Pelagi lib. 2. Cap. 4. where he accuseth the Pelagians as well for affirming the Communion not to be necessarie for Infants as for houlding that Baptisme was not needefull for them In the 38. Demaunde he chargeth vs with denying prescript fasting dayes which is falle when they be prescribed by the Churche of God and not vsurped of superstition and opinion of merite He chargeth vs further with denying of Free Will and quoteth in the margent August Tom. 6. De fide coÌ„tra Manichaeus Cap. 9 10. where in deede Augustine against the Manichees affirmeth the Free Will of man but in his retractations he sheweth that euen then hee vnderstoode it of the state of Man before his fall and therefore the Pelagians whiche were maynteyners of Free Will to remayne in man since the fall of Adam did slaunderouslie vsurp those his sayings against him and the truth euen as the Papists do now Cùm autem de libera voluntate rectè faciendi loquimur de illa scilicet in quae homo factus est loquimur Ecce tam longè antequam Pelagiana haeresis extitisseâ—â—sic disputanimus velut iam contra illos disputaremus Whensoeuer we speake of the Free Will of man to do well we speake of that Will in whiche man was made Behold so long before the Pelagian heresie arose we haue disputed eueÌ„ so as though we had disputed against them Retract lib. 1. cap. 9. Now iudge whether if Papistes or we be more like to the Pelagians He chargeth vs moreouer to hold against the merite of single life quoting Aug. haer 82. with Iouiaian which is false for as Augustine vnderstandeth by merite worthines or excellency we acknowledge that the state of virginitie is more excellent then of matrimony in such respects as the Apostle preferreth it 1. Cor. 7. Last of all he chargeth vs with holding against the vowe of single life quoting Aug. Retract lib. 2. c. 22. where there is no word of any vowe and much lesse of vowing a single life in them that can not liue an honest chast life without mariage There is mention of certaine sanctimoniales holy and deuout women of whose chastity was no suspition which leauing their purpose of virginitie were perswaded by Iouinian to marie Not we therefore haue reuiued any old heresie but the Papists haue continued many old errors reuiued many old heresies of the Pharises Pâ—â—â—gians Anthropomorphites added many new of their owne such as were neuer heâ—â—d of in the primitiue Church for six hundred yeares after Christ as hath often bene shewed at large The 4. and 5. motiues are included in the 10. demaund Miracles dogmaticaâ—â— a marke of true doctrine for the sacrifice of the Masse for purgatory Deuills expelled with a Masse by a Priest of S. Augustines who was of our religion S. Bede of our religion Masse sayd for the dead oftentimes to redemption both of body and soule The saerament of the altare sticked by the Iewes bleedeth Mâ—rkes and mâ—nasteries Visions for our religion An Englishe woman miraculously cured of late by the blessed sacrament Holy water Masse confirmed by miracles in Afrike Englande and Brabant Bristow diuideth miracles into dogmaticall and personall Of the first sort he setteth this conclusion VVhosoeuer haue at any time set them selues against any doctrine confirmed by miracle they haue bene against the truth There can to this no instans be giuen our doctrine which they resist hath bene confirmed by miracles therefore plaine it is that they are enemies of the truth Doe you heare this shameles beast say there can be no instans giuen against his proposition When y e Lord
himselfe giueth an expresse law against a false prophet which sheweth signes or miracles Deut. 13. Did not Iannes and Iambres whâ—ch resisted moses worke miracles doth not our Sauiour Christ prophecy that many false christes and false prophets should arise and worke such great signes and miracles as if it were possible the very elect should be deceiued Matth. 24. Doth not S. Paule prophecy that the comming of Antichrist shalbe according to the working of Satan in all power and lying signes and miracles and therefore no maruel if Bristow bragge that he can fill whole volumes with them But miracles are not the triall but the confirmation of doctrine which must be tried onely by the Scriptures of God without the authoritie whereof no miracles ought to moue vs to giue credit and much lesse any miracles may moue vs to beleue any doctrine which is against it But yet let vs consider of such miracles as Bristow rehearseth First for the sacrifice of the Masse and for purgatory August de ciuit Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. writeth that in a Ferme house of one Hesperius was great hurt and trouble by euill spirits which at the prayers of a certaine Priest or elder of Augustines Chutch was staied ceased There is no word of deuills expelled with a Masse or with the sacrifice of y e Masse That which in Bristowes eare soundeth that way is Perre â—it vnus c. One went thether he offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ praying with all his power that the same vexation might ceasse But Augustine by offring the sacrifice of Christes body meaneth nothing but ministring of the communion as that holy action was then figuratiuely called but yet nether the Masse nor the sacrifice thereof was at that time inuented as I haue often plentifully shewed els where and namely against Heskins lib. â— cap. 22. That he nameth the sacrifice of the body of Christ it is not sufficient to proue him of Bristowes religion greater cause haue we to chalenge him to be of our religion when he calleth the sacrament the signe of the body of Christ and sayth that Christ will not giue vs that body which was borne of the virgine and crucified c. contra Adimant In Ioann tract â—0 cap. 12. From Augustine he passeth to a tale reported in Bedes historie of a captiue whose chaines were loosed at such time as his brother which was a Monke and Priest sayd masse for him by which reporte Bede sayth many were moued to pray giue almes or offer the sacrifice of the holy oblation for the deliuerie of their frendes which were departed out of this world a sorie motiue without the autoritie of Gods word which albeit it was credited of Bede as diuerse other fables were yet may we doubt of the truth of it and although it were true that such a feate was wrought yet it can not establish a doctrine contrarie to the holy Scriptures And notwithstanding that Bede liuing in a corrupttime holdeth many errors of Papistrie yet I haue shewed against Stapletons sortresse that he holdeth not all not many of the chiefest After this miracle of Bede he beginneth the storie of our countrye woman which hauinge plaied the harlot in London and running ouer into Flanders to seeke the knaue that got her with childe was made lame with childbearing so that one legge was shorter then an other by more then halfe a foote sayth Bristow But after often shrift and other holy exercises of Poperie in time of a masse she was restored to health by the sacrament of miracle I doubt not but the masters of Bridewell neere which place she dwelled sometime which haue done as great cures as that coulde haue healed her of her lamenes without the sacrament of miracle In rehearsall of this doggetricke miracle he interlaceth an other as monstruous a lye as this That the pixe being stollen by a Iew the cakes sticked in despight among the Iewes did bleede aboundantly that a druncken woman a Iew borne and christned being admonished by an Angell in a vision restored that pixe with three hostes in it to her gostly father from whom they were translated to S. Gudulaes church in Bruxells where they are kept vntill this day from the yere of our Lord 1369. which is moe then 200. yeares agoe The like fable they haue at the Monasterie of Billets in Paris where they haue a cruse full of the miraculous blood which issued out of the masse cake so sticked by the Iewes which are euen as great miracles as the blood of Haâ—les was in England For if the Papists durst for their credit coÌ„mit those miraculous hostes and blood vnto indifferent vewe and custodie where no fraude might be vsed I durst aduenture my life which is almost all that I haue to leese that within lesse then two yeares they shall either be founde to consist of a counterfait matter that is perdurable or els they shall putrefie and rotteâ— which they woulde beare vs in hande haue continued more then two hundreth yeares In the demaund and in the next motiue mâ—Ì„tioÌ„ is made of miracles wrought in Indâ—a and by Pius quintus the Pope at Rome which either are lyes or iuggling casts of counterfeating coseners But if they or their Pope haue any such power as they bragge of why come they not in the face of their aduersaâ—â—es challenge them as Helias did the Priests of Baal and in open sight of their enemies shewe their mightie miracles and not prate of wonders done in the Indes of which they may lye where there is none to controlle them or wrought among them selues where we can â—udge nothing of them but counterfeating and cosening with which practises they haue bene taken tâ—ied too often to gaine any credit with any that haue any wisedom in them The 6. motiue Miracles personall a marke of true Doctors S. Barnarde of our religion with what miracles he confirmed images churches the reall presence transubste â—atiâ—n sacrifice of the masse praying for the dead praying to Sainâ—tes and manâ— other articles Miracles for by holy bread for the signe of the crosse The signe of the crosse worketh miracles Excommunication of Pius v to be feared who by his prayers signing of the crosse did cast deuills out of fiue women Bristowes principle against which there can be no instance is this VVhatsoeuer persons at any time since Christes ascention haue had the grace of miracles they were the ministers of Christ I say not alwayes iust and holy but alwayes preachers of his truth and consequently whosoeuer set themselues against such persons they were against Christ against the truth In the last chapter before I haue brought instance both out of the Law and the Gospell of salse Prophets and false Christes which should worke great miracles and yet preach against God Christ. Wherefore this conclusion is vtterly false Bristow replieth they are lying signes such as were wrought by
denyed a testimony of the booke of wisedom de praedest Non debuit They should not reiect the saying of the booke of wisedom which in the church of Christ hath deserued so long a rew of yeares to be recited in the steppe of the readers of the church of Christ and with worship of diuine auctoritie to be heard of all Christians from the Bishops to the lowest sorte of lay men c. And againe Et Etiam temporibus c. Euen the notable interpreters that were next to the Apostles times when they brought forth that booke for witnes beleued that they brought nothing but a diuine testimonie Touching this defense first I aske of Bristow how he can proue that the booke of Machabees hath had such continuaunce of credit Secondly howe this saying of Augustine coÌ„cerning the booke of wisedom can be true when Hierome plainly reiecteth it as not Canonicall praefat in Prouerb Thirdly I demaunde how Bristow can defend his maior if we admitte this saying of Augustine to be true for not Pelagius as Allen sayth expressely nor any Pelagians as Bristow seemeth to meane but such as defended the Catholike faith against Pelagius reiected this saying of the booke of Wisedome which booke also we refuse although not for that saying and what one article of our doctrine doth that booke impugne nay rather there is testimonies therein manifest agaâ—â—st Images against Purgatory and merites yet can not we therefore allow the writings of Phâ—lo a â—ew since Christes time for the canonicall Scripture of Salomon whose title it salâ—ly beareth But to proceede Luther denyeth the Epistic of S. Iames because it is against his heresie of instfication by faith onely We allowe not Luther neither did he allow him self therein for he retracteth it afterward Yet is not Eusebius counted an heretike which vtterly reiecteth that Epistle Lib. 2. cap. 23. But to goe on Beza doth say that S. Lukes Gospell is falsified because it mainteyneth the reall presence of Christ in the sacramet where he sayth Hic est calix this is the chalice which is shed for you This is an impudent slaunder which I haue aunswered against SauÌ„ders rocke of the church in his ninthe marke of an AntichristiaÌ„ where it is handled at large and thether I referre the Reader To conclude Bristow saith no Scriptures is against the Catholikes but all for them because they must obediently receiue and beleue all Scriptures canonicall But what obedience and beliefe they attribute to the canonicall Scriptures it is plaine by this that they dare not abide the triall by them but flie from them to traditions as Bristow doth euen in the next motiue as though the Scriptures inspired of God were not sufficient both to teache all truth and to confute all errors In the demaund this motiâ—e is handled somewhat otherwise for there we are examined whether in the coÌ„ference of Carthage Augustine and his fellowes did not proue by Scripture that a visible Church should beginne at Hierusalem which shoulde continue visibly to the ende of the world I aunswer they proued sufficiently that the preaching of the gospell beginning at Hierusalem should gather the Church out of all partes of the world and therefore the faction of Donatus which begonne in Africa was not to be found but in a corner of Africa could not be the Church of Christ. But of a visible Church to continue visibly in manner as Bristow demaundeth there was no controuersie in that conference and therefore no proofe thereof brought out of the Scriptures The 9. motiue is the 29 demaund Traditions most certaine The Apostles were of our religion S. Augustine S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Cypriane fasting daies lent masse for the dead prayer for the dead confirmed by the Apostles traditions water mingling mith the wine in the chalice The Masse made by S. Paule S. Paule of our religioÌ„ The true Church sayth Bristow hath alwayes had traditions beside the Scripture and what company soeuer was faine to crye for only Scriptures to deny most certeyne traditions of the Apostles their doctrine was heresie and they heretikes To proue that the church had alwayes traditions beside Scripture he bringeth in the sayings of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. 2. Thess. 3. before the Scripture was all written when it was necessary for the Church to haue much of the doctrine deliuered onely by preaching yet had they no doctrine of faith but such as was coÌ„firmed by scriptures of the olde testament as is manifest 2. Pet. â— But for the certaintye of popishe traditions what proofe hath he First Basil de sp sancto cap. 27. sayth Dogmata c. Matters of doctrine which are kept and preached in the church we haue partly by doctrine committed to writing partly by tradition of the Apostles which are of like force vnto godlines c. But the same Basil writeth contrary to him selfe and agreeable to the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture in that it is not of faith is sinne And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he requireth euen newe planted Christians to be instructed in the holy Scriptures both for their full perswasioÌ„ in godlines also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be not acquainted with mens traditions Furthermore sayth Bristow Augustine Epiphanius the Protestants them selues condemne Heluidius for an heretike for denying the perpetuall virginitie of Marye the mother of Christ contrary to the Churches tradition Nay rather for troubling y e church with contention about that in which he hath no grouÌ„d out of the Scriptures Now let vs see how they are proued to be heretikes that refuse traditions of the Apostles are fayne to cry for onely Scriptures First that Maximinus the Arrian did so ergo whosoeuer doth so is an heretike according to Bristowes logike And yet he belyeth Maximinus for he refused not traditions of the Apostles but such wordes as were beside the Scripture meaning Homousion such like termes which were theÌ„ newly vsed but yet conteyned no newe doctrine but euen that which alwayes was approued according to the Scriptures The same thing did the decree of the heretical Emperour Constantius forbid not traditions of the Apostles of which was no controuersie betwene the true Christians the Arrians But that the Scriptures onely are of sufficient authoritie to confute heresies Augustine declareth euen against the same Maximinus lib. 3. cap. 14. Sed nunâ— nec ego Niccnum c. But now must not I bring forth the councel of Nice nor thou the couÌ„cel of Ariminum to make any preiudice but by the authoritie of Scriptures not being proper to ether but coÌ„mon witnesses to vs both let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason Likewise he and his fellow Bishops sayd vnto the Donatists in the conference of Carthage Si tantummodo id qu. crerctur quâ— vel rbi esset Ecclesia nihil se acturos publicis gestis sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo
in Protestants Because Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth of the fathers Quâ—d credunt credo c. That which they beleue I beleue also I holde that they holde I teache that they teach I preach that they preach and lib. 2. quos oporâ—ct c. Christian people ought to prefeâ—re the auncient holy truth before your profane nouelties and chose rather to sticke to them then to you And are Pelagians aliue in Protestants because Augustine recâ—iueth the olde writers that were agreeable to the scriptures Did not the Pelagians alledge the authority of the old writers also Lâ—b cont Iul cap. 2. 3 But what should I contend about that which is so cleare in Augustine De baptism câ—nt Dâ—natâ—si cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat â—anctam scripturam canonicam tam râ—t ris quam noui testaâ—â—â—â— â—ertis sâ—is terminis contineri camque omnibus postericribus Episcopâ—rum literis it a praeponi vt de ill a omnino dubitari d. s epâ—ari non pâ—ssâ—t vtrum verum vel vtrum rectuÌ„sâ— quiâ—quâ—â— in ea sâ—riptum esse constiterit Ep sâ—â—porum autem literas que post confiâ—matum canâ—nem vel scriptâ—e sunt vel sâ—riâ—untur per sermâ—nem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in care periti râ—s per alioruâ—n Episâ—â—porum grauiorem auctoritatem doctâ—orumque prudentiam per conâ—ilia liâ—ere reprehâ—ndi si quid in â—is forte à veritate deuiatum est iâ—sa concilia c. Who knoweth not that the holy canonical scripture both of the old and new testament is conteyned in their certeine bands and that the same is so preferred before all later writings of Bishops that of it there can be no doubt or question at all whether that be true or right whatsoeuer is knowen to be written therein But as for the writings of Bishops which since the canon is confirmed haue bene written or bâ— nowe in writing that by some speach perhaps more wise of any man that is more skillfull in that matter and by the more graue authoritie of other Bishops and wisedom of them that are better learned and by councells they may be reprehended if any thinge perhaps in them is gone a straye from the truth and that euâ—n those councells which are helde in euery region and prouince without all controuersie doe giue place to the authoritie of generall councels which are made out of all the Christian worlde and that euen the generall councells are often tymes corrected the former by the later c. as in the 13. motiue By which saying you may playnly see howe the olde fathers were S. Augustines motiue euen none otherwise then they are our retentiue to staye vs in Christian truthe which they write agreeable to the holye Scriptures and therefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristowe bothe where he saythe that in our preachinge and writinge we thinke it not necessary to alledge the tâ—stimonies of tâ—e olde fathers and also that in familiar talke amonge our selues we are not afearde plainely to confesse that the fathers all were Papistes As vayne a cauill it is that the Protestantes are ashamed of their fathers When we acknowledge no fathers vnto whose iudgement we will stande absolutely in all controuersies but the Prophetes and the Apostles and God him selfe by whose spirite they did write As for Simon Magus Eunomus and suche olde heretikes we detest more then the Papistes doe But AErius Vigilantius and Iouinian were playnely of our opinion and of them we are ashamed And doe you Papistes beleeue nothinge common with AErius Vigilantius Iouinian Doe you in no poynte holde that which Arius Macedonius Eutyches did holde Doe you mayntayne no opinion which was taught by Mahomet him selfe you will aunswer that there neuer was heresie but it hâ—lde and taught many articles of truthe which if you holde as they did you are not therefore their children in suche articles wherin they were heretikes Euen so we aunswere you of AErius Vigilantius Iouinian we are not ashamed to beleue any truth which they helde their errours we leaue vnto them selues But I know you will replye that among the errours of AErius the denyall of prayers to profit the deade was one accompted by Epiphanius and Augustine Then it is your parte to shewe what argumentes out of the holy Scripture they bring to proue this opinion to be an errour Otherwise their auctoritie alone is not sufficient to make it a truth Vigigilantius is baighted only by Hierome of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man and a learned As for Iouinian we take not his parte if in all respects he made mariage equall with virginitie which in some respect the Apostle preferreth But we must see of what religion and auctoritie the fathers were First sayth Bristow you may perceaue by Iewells challenge that for Purgatorie prayer for the dead and to Saincts merite of good workes c. there is somthing conteined in the olde fathers which liued within 600. yeares after Christ because he durst not make his challenge of these articles but of the Masse the Pope the eucharistie c. But I pray you Bristow are not these greater matters among you then the other If therefore you be not able to proue your greatest mysteries of antiquitie out of any one father for so many ages what great matter is it if you haue them fauourable in a fewe articles of lesse moment But Bristow with wayght of reason will beare vs downe that all the fathers are on their side wholly and against vs in all poynctes of our controuersie And this is his reason who are driuen to mayteyne the fathers credit and auctoritie Papistes or Protestantes Not Protestantes verily but Papistes ergo the fathers be all for Papistes and against Protestantes A mightie reason of mayne force Dioscorus and Eutyches in the councell of Chalcedon boasted of the auctoritie of the holie fathers and stoode much in defense of their creditte therefore the fathers were whollie on their side But let vs heare L. Humfreys opinion out of his booke of B. Iewells life of Iewells challenge of the fathers and of the Saincts in the calender Nay rather let vs heare Bristow yelping like a little curre agaynst so great a lyon First he snatcheth peeces of his sentences gnawne from the rest and then squeleth out as though he had hearde some maruelous straunge soundes D. Humfrey sayth Iewell gaue the Papistes too large a scope when not content to haue beaten them downe with the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures he made his challenge vpon the testimonie of the fathers and that so many hundreth yeares after Christ. And herein he was iniurious to him selfe that refusing that meane by which he might more easely more straightly haue maynteyned his cause after a maner he spoyled him selfe and the church This is his opinion of Maister Iewells challenge Howe followeth his opinion of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the calender
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
councels the contrarie But admitting they did erre yet sayth he they erred not in such matters as the Protestantes doe now charge the Pope Romaines withall Whereto I answer that against that blasphemous principle of theirs that the Pope can not erre we first bring in those examples of Popes that were heretikes for their time altered religion like heretikes in such matteâ—s as we both confesse to be errors Then this being obteyned that the Pope is not priuiledged from error the matters in controuersie wherewith we charge the Pope are to be examined only by the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures and thereby to be decided The 25. motiue is the 9. demaunde The conuersion of Heathen nations Caluines Legates in India The discorde of Protestantes Iesuites Fryers preaching in India Miracles for our whole religion The Apostles were of our religion The church is euerlasting and visible All nations that were at the first coÌ„uerted to the true faith of Christ were conuerted by the Apostles whose faith and doctrine we hold and will proue by their writings that we holde none other As for the argument of â—ryers preaching in India miracles wrought so fa. re hence with such great conuersion of the Indians vnto Popery if it were true yet proueth it no more then the preaching and miracles of the false Apostles Phil. 1. and the conuersion of the Gothes and Vandalls Crepides c. by the Arrians and other nations by Nestorius c. doth proue those false Apostles to be true Apostles or the heresies of the Arrians c. to be true doctrine Wherefore not the Papistes but the Apostles of Christ were his witnesses vnto the vttermost places of the earth But of this matter of câ—nuersion and all thinges conteyned you may reade somewhat more at large in mine aunswere to Stapletons fortresse where the same is handled part 1. cap. 16. 17. The 26. Motiue is the 18. 13. and 14. demaund By what religion hath Idolatrie bene destroyed Prophecies for our religion Protestantes be possessed with deuills Churches confirmed by miracles Deuills expelled by reliques Deuills are in heretikes S. Hierome of our religion The martyrs of our religion Vigilantius aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine Chrysostome of our religion The honor and vertue of Sainctes reliques S. Augustines motiue for which Christ is to be beleued Our religion an inuincible motiue to forsake idolls and beleue in Christ who is to be beleued for the vertue of the signe of his crosse which working miracles was the motiue of Lactantius The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament The crosse and the masse confirmed by S. Bernard in Italy S. Cyprian of our religion The Iewes religion chaunged into ours by Christ c. In this motiue is much babling but no matter at all The summe of that he would proue is this That Popery is not idolatrie as we charge it because by Popery Idolatrie hath bene destroyed Although this argument is naught because one kinde of Idolatrie may destroy an other yet it is falsely affirmed that Poperie hath destroyed all idolatry That Popery hath destroyed idolatry Bristow wil proue by three examples the one of the reliques of Sainctes and the honor of them the other of the signe of the crosse and the honorthereof and the last by the reall presence in the Sacrament which he calleth his Lord and his God But our Lord and God is in heauen according to the Psalm 115. The destruction of idolatrie by Christ in deede was prophecied therefore the Pope setting vp and mainteyning as grosse idolatrie almost as euer was any of the Paganes sheweth him selfe to be a verie Antichrist But to the purpose Hierom lib. 28. in Isa. cap. 65. sayth that the heretikes in Fraunce were possessed with the deuill which could not abide the might and whips of the holy ashes If he spake this against VigilaÌ„tius other godly men which reproued the immoderate honoring of reliques and other superstitions he spake of his owne iudgement and not of the iudgement of the church For he only of all writers of his time counted Vigilantius an heretike as he did Ruffinus also which yet is takeÌ„ for as good a Catholike as he It is knowne how he taunteth and scoffeth at Augustine Wherefore his censure is not sufficient to make Vigilantius opinion heresie nor them heretikes which were of his iudgemeÌ„t But admit this iudgement of Hierom to be sounde yet was not the honor and estimation of reliques which he defendeth against Vigilantius the same which is in Poperie but much differing there froÌ„ For thus he writeth ad Râ—panum contr Vigilant Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias sed ne solem quidem â—unam non Angelos non Archangelos non Cherubin non Seraphim omne nomen quod nominatur in prâ—esenti saeculo in futuro colimus adoramus ne seruiamus potius creaturae quaÌ„ creatori qui est benedictus in saecula But we worship and adore I say not the reliques of the martyrs but not the sunne the moone not the Angells not Archangels not Cherubin not Seraphim euery name that is named both in this world and in the world to come least we should serue the creaturerather then the creator which is blessed for euer By this you may see that the honor they gaue to reliques was but a reuerent estimatioÌ„ of them for Christs sake whose seruaunts the Martyrs were and a lesse honor then they gaue to the Sunne and the Moone as is manifest by his gradation and consequently no religious worship As the Papistes vse and mayntayne of the reliques not of Saynctes but oftentymes of deuills incarnate of beasts and all manner of fayned bables Nether is there any thing more monstrous in popery then their shameles fayning of infinite reliques That Augustine writeth that deuils were tormented and expelled at the memories or burialls of the martyrs where somtimes idolls were worshipped it proueth that idols were destroyed by Poperie For if God wrought miracles at such places where the bodies of his Martyrs slept to coÌ„firme the faith for which they died doth this make any thing for Popery But the same Augustine to the Maudaurenses that were Pagans and other heathen men vseth the argument of the greater honor and reuerence doone by Kings and Emperours at the tombes and memories of the Saintes and Martyrs and of miracles wrought at the same places to shew the power of Christe to the confusion of idolatrie This wee graunt but how doth Popery ouerthrowe Idolatrie There reuerence although in soÌ„e respects superstitious was far from popish Idolatrie of worshipping of Saints Images bones c as wee haue shewed euen now out of Hierom the most eger defender of those vses and abuses in his time The miracles approued none other doctrine then the maâ—tyrs died for who died for none other doctrine but such as is contayned in the holy Scriptures in which Poperie hath no ground
gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
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
be seene in England yet they that had spirituall eyes and by Gods grâ—ce drewe neare vnto his Church did in the most obscure tymes as the worlde esteemeth them see the cleare bewtie of her light and the glorye of the Lordes hill lifted vp aboue all the hills in the world Esa. 2. The heathen tyrants thought by their cruell persecution that they had vtterly rooted out the name and nation of Christians from the face of the earth Nero gloried that he had purged the world of the superstition of Christ as appeareth in an olde inscription in a picture of stone Neroni â—l Caes. Aug. Pontif. Max. ob prouin latromb hijs qui nouam generi hum superstitionem inculcar purgatam To Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus the greatest Prelate for that he hath purged the prouince of theeues and them that brought in a newe superstition to mankind Likewise another like piller there is of Diocletian and Maximian in these wordes Diocletian Iouius Maximi Herculeus Caes. Augu. Amplificato per Orientem Occident nup. Rom. nomme Christianorum deleto quiremp euertebant Diocletianus Iouius and Maximianus Herculeus Caesaris Augusti hauing amplified the Empire of Rome both in the East and West and vtterly destroyed the name of Christians which did ouerthrow the common wealth Another like there is of Diocletian alone Diocletian Caes. Aug. Galerio in Oriente adoptat superstitione Christi vbique deleta cultu Deorum propagato Diocletianus Caesar Augustus hauing adopted Galerius in the East and in all places vtterly destroyed the superstition of Christ and set forth the worship of the Gods By these inscriptions and glorious titles you see that the heathenish tyrants perswaded them selues that they had vtterly defaced the religion of Christ destroyed his Church out of the worlde what maruell then if Antichrist and his adherents which to the cruelty of the former tyrants haue added most detestable hypocrisy haue thought that they had so wholy subuerted the true religion of Christ and his true Church that the name ether of Church or religion might not seeme to haue remayned in the world but that of the Romish Antichrist But as Nero the Pontif. Maximus of Rome with Diocletiane and the reste were deceyued in their time so their successors in place office and wickednes the Popes of Rome are likewise disapoynted of their cruell purpose But M. Sander glorieth that in all markes and signes of the true Church the popish Church doth excel ours But first of all that which is the onely true marke and triall of the Church namely the word of God he denyeth to be a sufficient marke of the true Church yet had he before confessed the Church to be the piller and stay of truth 1. Tim. 3. but the rule of truth if we beleue our Sauiour Christ is the word of God Iohn 17. 17. therefore the word of God is the onely true tryall and marke of the Church But let vs consider his reasons by which he woulde perswade vs that y e word of God is not the chiefe marke whereby the true Church of God may be knowen First he sayth the marke whereby an other thing is knowne ought it selfe to be most exactly knowne wheras we are not agreed what Gods word is Note this reason of his by which he taketh away all authoritie and vse from the worde of God not onely thereby to discerne the true Church but also to teache vs any other thinge that is needefull for vs to know But why I pray you are we not agreed what is Gods word Forsooth because some cal onely the written letter and the meaning thereof Gods word other thinke many thinges are Gods word which are not expressely written but deliuered by tradition from the Apostles and by the holy Ghost which hath written his lawes in our hartes of this later sort be the Papists but they are easily confuted For this principle must needes stand vnmoueable that Gods spirite is neuer contrary to him selfe Therefore seeing the spirite of God hath pronounced of the Scriptures that they are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. 16. it is certayne that God hath reuealed nothing by tradition for our instructioÌ„ which is not conteyned in his worde written much lesse any thing that is contrary to his doctrine deliuered in the holy Scriptures His second reason is that we are not agreed vpon the written word of God because the Protestants doe not admitte so many bookes of the olde testament as the Catholikes doe I aunswer the Protestants doe admit as many as the Catholike Church euer did or doth at this day His third reasoÌ„ is that the meaning of those bookes which we are agreed vpon is altogether in question betwene vs therfore that can be no marke of the church which it self is not knowne I answer although heretikes which are ouerthrowen in their owne conscience will acknowledge no meaning to be true but their owne yet are there many principles in the Scriptures so playne as they are graunted by both partes or els can not without shame be denyed of our aduersaries out of which playne certeyne and immutable principles all matters in controuersie may be proued and the same church also discerned which is the verie cause why the Papistes dare not abide the triall by the Scriptues but flye to traditions euen as their forefathers the auncient Valentinian heretikes of whome Irenaeus writeth lib. 3. cap. 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem conuertuntur ipsaruÌ„ Scripturam quasi non rectè habeant neque fuit ex auctoritate quia variè sunt dictae quia non possit ab his inueniriveritas qui nesciant traditionem non enim per literas traditam sed per viuam vocem When they are conuinced out of the Scriptures then fall they to accusing of the Scriptures them selues as though they were not right nor of sufficient authoritie because they are spoken doubtfully and that the trueth cannot be found of them which knowe not the tradition for that was not deliuered by letters but by word of mouth Thus much Ireneus of the olde Heretikes and what his iudgement was of the meaning of the Scripture which M. Sand. maketh so ambiguous he declareth lib. 2. cap. 35. Vniuersae scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitat similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt c. The whole Scriptures both of the Prophets and of the Gospells are open and without ambiguitie may be heard of all meÌ„ alike This speaketh Irenaeus not of euery text of Scripture but of the whole doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles which is so playne and easie to be founde in the Scriptures that no man can misse thereof that seeketh not of purpose to be deceyued as he sayth cap. 67. of the same booke But M. Sander is content for disputation sake to admit Gods word for a marke of the true Church and
will proue that it is first with the Papistes For if by Gods word we meane the written letter of the Bible they are before vs because we haue none assured copies thereof which we receyued not of them for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered Gods word to the Romaines the Church of Rome hath alwayes kept it without leesing or corrupting I aunswer we meane not by Gods worde the written letter onely but receyuing and obeying the true and playne sense thereof to be the marke of the Church Againe I deny that we had any assured copies of the olde and new testament of the popish Church but the one of the Iewes in Hebrue the other of the Greeke Church in Greeke And whereas he talketh of a certayne daye in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered the Scripture to the Romains it sauoreth altogether of a popish fable finally how the Romish Church in these last dayes hath kept the Scripture from corruption although I coulde shew by an hundreth examples yet this one shall suffice for all the very first promise of the Gospell that is in the Scripture Gen. 3. that the seede of the woman shoulde breake the serpents heade the popish Church hath ether willfully corrupted or negligently suffered to be depraued thus ipsa conteret caput iuum she shall breake thyne heade referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressely to the seede of the woman The second marke is that the Papistes acknowledge more of the Bible then we doe by the bookes of Toby Iudeth Wisedom Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees I aunswer in that you adde vnto the word of God it is a certayne argument that you are not the true Church of Christ for the true Church of Christ hath euer accompted those bookes for apocryphall witnesse hereof Hieronym praef in prouerb Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritateÌ„ EcclesiasticoruÌ„ dogmatum confirmandam Therefore as the Church doth in deede reade the bookes of Iudith Tobias and of the Machabees but she receyueth them not among the canonicall Scriptures so she may reade these two bookes meaning the booke of Wisedom and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall opinions Nether is Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. whoÌ„ M. Sander quoteth of any other iudgement but prescribeth rules how the canonicall Scriptures are to be knowne And cont Gaudent epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesseâ—h plainely that the booke of Machabees is not accompted of the Iewes as the law the Prophets and the Psalmes which our Sauiour Christ admitteth as his witnesses yet it is receyued of the Church if it be read or heard soberly Whereby it is manifest that the Church in his tyme receyued it not absolutely as part of the Canonicall Scripture but vnder condition of a sober reader or hearer As for the decree ascribed to Gelasius it hath no sufficient credit of antiquitie and much lesse the late councels of Florence and Trent which he quoteth Beside that the same decree of Gelasius admitting but one booke of Esdras excludeth the Canonicall booke of Nehemias and receyueth but one booke of the Machabees which will doe the Papistes but small pleasure The third marke the popish Church receyueth not only the hebrue text of the old testament the greeke of the new but also the greeke translation of the septuaginta and the common Latine translation to be of full authoritie whereas we giue small credit to those translations except they agree with the first Hebrue and Greeke copies Therefore the Papists haue Gods word in more authenticke tongues and copies then we haue I aunswer The Tridentine councell alloweth none for authenticall but the common Latine translation that is the worst of all but in that the popish Church admitteth differing translations from the originall truth of the Hebrue and Greeke text to be of full authoritie with the truth it appeareth plainely that she is not the Church of Christ which ether willfully confoundeth error with truth or els lacketh the spirite of discretion to know the one from the other And for more authentike copies it is impudently sayd that the Papistes doe receiue for we receiue not onely all these which he nameth but also the most auncieÌ„t Chaldee Paraphrastes the Syrian text of the new testament yea the Arabicall text of the whole Bible beside all vulgare translations of English French Dutch Italian Spanish which the Papistes can not abide All those I saye we receyue as authenticall copies for Christian men to vse but so that the tryall of all translations be made by the originall truthe of the Hebâ—ue and Greeke texts in which tongue the olde and newe Testament were first written Fourthly the Papistes doe translate and expounde Gods worde in all maner of tongues better then we because they haue not onely internall vocation but also externall vocation and commission from the Apostles by lyneall succession of Bishops and Preestes whereas we haue no commission but â—rom the common wealth which hath none authoritie to make Preestes c and yet how shall they preache if they be not sent Rom. 10. I aunswer concerning translations of the word of God into all tongues I neuer saw any nether is there any translation to be shewed of any Papist into any vulgare tongue And as for the externall calling of the Papistes I say it is not from any lawfull succession of the Apostles and auncient Church whose faith and doctrine they do not follow in their interpretations for if lyneall succession of Priestes and Bishops coulde make interpretations good the doctrine of Arius Nestorius Macedonius and many other heretikes whose externall calling was according to the lyneall and ordinary succession of Bishops and Priestes might be auctorised for Catholike Yea the Papistes might not refuse whatsoeuer Luther Bucer Cranmer and other haue taught which had the same lyneall succession that M. Sander doth nowe bragge of And as for our externall calling he sayth falsly it is of the common weale c whereas it is of the Church and therefore ordinarye and lawfull and the saying of S. Paule whom he citeth Rom. the tenth is of the inward calling and sending by God whereof our doctrine agreeable with the Scripture and our whole intent to set forth the glory of God is a sufficient profe the one to satisfie men the other to aunswer our owne conscience Fiftly he sayth it is no perfection at all on our side that we reade Gods word to the people in our Church seruice in the vulgare tongue for thereby we lacke the vse of the better tongues as of the Greeke and Latine O maister of impudencie what vse is there of the Greeke and Latine tongues to be read to the people
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
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
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
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
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
made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one he is not ashamed to charge Maister Iewell for leauing the moste literall sense and mingling three opinions of these foure in one as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ were the onely or moste literall sense But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particulerly with all circumstaunces for my parte considering all circumstaunces I think the most simple and plaine meaning of Christe is that Peter it a Rocke or stone vppon which the Church is buylded but none otherwise then euery one of the Apostles is Ephe 2. and 20. verse and in the Apocalips the 21. chapter and 14. verse Of which M. Sander also confesseth euery one to be a Rock in his kinde But nowe let vs see the fiue circumstaunces by which Maister Saunder will proue Peter for to bee such a Rocke as none of all the reste of the Apostles is but he The firste Christe promised Symon before he confessed that he shoulde be called Peter whiche was the firste cause of beeing the Rocke Iohn I. Admit this to bee a promise not an imposition of a name in respect of the giftes of fortitude constancie where with he woulde endue him this proueth him not to be a singular rocke The second he was named Peter before he coÌ„fessed which was the performaunce of the promise Mark 3. I dout not but that he had coÌ„fessed Christ before he was made an Apostle although he had not made that solemne confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstaunce is a friuolous argument And his brother Andrewe which first brought him to Christ confessed Iesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ. The thirde when he had confessed the Godheade of Christ which was the fruâ—ct of the gift of the promise Christ pronounced him to be such a rocke whereupon he would build his church which was the reward of his confession But all the Apostles made the same confession therefore the same reward was geuen to all that they should euerie one be a rocke or stone on which the church should be builded The fourth Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle which was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter was in respect of his greater weakenes when he was left to him selfe The last to shew what strength Peter should geue to his brethren after his conuersion Christ bad him feede his lambes wherby he was made such a rock wherby he should stay vp his church by teaching ruling y e faithful as whose voyce the sheepe should be bound to heare in payne of damnation First I answere that the strength or confirmation which he should geue to his brethren was not all one with his feeding of the lambes but was vsed to the strengthening of his weake brethren the rest of the Apostles whom after his maruelous conuersion he did mightely confirme though in his fall he was shewed to be the weakest of all Then I say the feeding of the sheepe of Christ was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles in which he had no prerogatiue of auctoritie geuen but an earnest charge to shewe his greater loue by greater diligence in his office So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock then euery one of the Apostles is The fourth Chapter DIuerse reasons are alleaged to proue chiefely by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture that these wordes thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will builde my church haue this literall meaning vpon thee ô Peter being first made a rocke to thend thou shouldest stoutely confesse the faith and so confessing it I will build my church the promise to be caelled Peter was the first cause VVhy the church was built vpon him the Protestants can not tel which is the first literall sense of these wordes vpon this rocke will I build my church FIrst it is to be remembred that M. SaÌ„der in the chapter before reiecting the interpretatioÌ„ of three of the greatest Doctors of the church Origen Augustine and Chrysostom not only is bound in equity to geue vs the same liberty which he taketh him selfe but also to confesse that these three principal doctors following other senses then his were ignoraunt of that which he all other Papists make to be the chiefe article of Christian faith namely of the supremacie of Peter when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rocke wherupon Christ would build his church and therfore would neuer haue subscribed to his booke which he instituteth the rock of the church But nowe to the argument of this chapter Chrysostomis cited to proue that where Christ sayth to Peter thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cepha which is by intepretation Peter a newe name is promised to Simon in Ioan. Hom. 18. Honorifice c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him For the certeine foretelling of things to come is the worke only of the immortal God It is to be noted that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all thinges which shoulde come to passe afterwarde to him For he did not call him Peter neither did he say vpon this rocke will I builde my church But he sayd thou shalt be called Cephas For that was both of more power and also of more auctoritie There is nothing in this sentence but that we may willingly admit Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelue foundations of the church as he was afterward And that Chrysostom iudged no singular thing to be graunted by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter appeareth by his wordes in Euang. Ioann Praef. Where he applieth the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus columna omniuÌ„ quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum qui caeli claues habet For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ being a piller of all the churches which are in the worlde which hath the keyes of heauen Neither doth Cyrillus whom he citeth make any thing for his purpose In Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon c. And he telleth afore hande that his name shalbe Peter and not nowe Simon by the very word signifying that he would build his church on him as on a rocke and most sure stone These are the wordes of Cyrillus but that he meaneth not his person but his faith he sheweth manifestly in his booke de Trinit lib. 4. speaking vpon the text of Math. 16. the grounde of M. Sanders booke Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud quam inconcussam firmissimam discipuli fidem vocauit in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata fundata esset vt non laberetur I thinke he called a rocke by denomination nothing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast
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
all Churches when the history is plaine he did M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledgged before which acknowledged a certaine primacie of the see of Rome And certaine it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas tyme affected a great primacie which of many was acknowledged but yet neuer absolutely neuer without coÌ„trouersie vntil Phocas for a great summe of money receyued of Boniface the thirde strake the stroke and made the decree for which in all popish writers he is highly praised although in the Greeke church his decree was not long obserued Touching the examples of Emperours and Princes of later times although I could shewe they haue often resisted the Pope yet I know many may be alledged that haue submitted them selues to his Antichristian tyranny which I will not staÌ„d to examine because they can be no preiudice to the truth approued by examples of the eldest age As for the history of Lucius king of Britayne that sent to Eleutherius for preachers if it were true it maketh nothinge for the supremacy of the romish Bishop I will therefore conclude this chapter with a saying of Socrates in proe lib. 5. to shew what authoritie he iudged them perours to haue in Ecclesiasticall matters Etipsos quidem Imperatores hac historia continua complectimur prâ—pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt res Ecclesiasticae pendent maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia congregatae sunt congregantur And in this continuall history we comprehend the Emperours them selues because that vpon them since they began to be Christians the matters of the Church depend and the greatest synods haue bene gathered are gathered by their authoritie The punishment he threatâ—eth to them that forsake the Church of Rome shal one day fall vpon them that take part with â— Church of Rome as in part it doth already The 17. chapter THeir doctâ—ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be Aâ—â—ichrist him selfe is confuted by the auctoritie of Gods worde and by the consent of auncient fathers VVhy Antichrist is permitted to come AFter he hath shewed his opinion what maner a one Antechrist shalbe alleaged â—â—â—â— cause of his coÌ„ming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men haue not receaued the loue of the truth that they might be saued God shal sende theÌ„ the working of error y t they may beleue lying c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants for that they can find no place to setle Antichrist in but in the see of Rome so beautified dignified by Christ and all the primitiue Church But seeing Antichrist is appoynted to sit in the temple of God which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer it is no meruayle if Satan haue thrust him into that see which of olde tyme was accompted the toppe and castell of all religion But let vs see his reasons taken out of Gods word by which it is proued that the Pope can not be Antichrist him selfe The first is because in S. Paule he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man of sinne which signifieth one singular man and not a number of men in succession and this is affirmed to be the Greeke article in this worde man by Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how frendly Cyrillus was deceaued you shall see by some examples euen out of the new Testament In S. Mathew cap. 12. 35. you haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart and an euill man out of the euil treasure of his heart bringeth c. where no one singular man is ment In S. Mark cap. 2. verse 27. The Sabboth was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man not man for the Sabboth In S. Luke cap. 4. verse 4. Not with breade onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man shall liue but by euery woorde of God S. Paule 2. Tim. 3. ver 17. That the man of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be perfect and prepared to euery good woorke These places and an hundreth more which might bee brought doe proue howe vaine the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke article Nether is Hierom or any of the auncient writers to be heard without authoritie of the Scripture which supposed that Antichrist should be one man Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man as Christ was Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. sayth we must not thinke that Antichrist should be a Deuill but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell This proueth not that he should be a singular man no more then the fourth beast which signifieth the RomaÌ„e Empire out of which he should rise should be one singular Emperour No more doth it proue that because Antiochus was a figure of him he must be but one man And as litle that Ambrose in 2. The. 2 sayth Satan shall appeare in homine in a man which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince and last Antichrist meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last may agree to a whole succession of men in one state as well as the wordes king and beaste to a whole succession of Emperours in Daniel To conclude there is not one whome he nameth that denyeth Antichrist to be a whole succession of meÌ„ in one state of deuilish gouernment And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Romane kingdom lib. 5. The second argument is that Antichrist is called the aduersary therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ denying Iesus Christ to be God and man or to be our Mediatour I aunswer the Pope doth so denying the office of Christ although with the deuills he confesse in wordes Iesus to be the holy one of God and to be Christ the sonne of God Marke 1. 24. Luke 4. 41. his diuinitie the Pope denieth by denying his onely power in sauing his wisedom in his word to be onely sufficient his goodnes in the vertue of his death to take away both payne and guylt of sinne which he arrogateth to him selfe by his blasphemous pardons Christes humanitie he denyeth by his transsubstantiation his mediation in which he is principally Christ he denyeth by so many meanes of saluation as he maketh beside Christ videlicet mans merits ceremonies inuented by man pardons a newe sacrifice of the Masse c. The third argumeÌ„t is that Antichrist shall not come before the Romane Empire be cleane taken away For that which Saint Paule sayth ye knowe what withholdeth c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Romane Empire yet following the olde writers that so vnderstood it I say the Romane Empire was remoued before Antichrist the Pope was throughly enstalled For beside that the see of the Empire was remoued from Rome the gouernment it selfe was in a manner cleane remoued the title of the Romane Emperour onely remayning at last an
other Empire by the Pope was erected in Germanye whereof litle beside a name remayneth at this day the Pope clayming authoritie of both the swordes and he that is the Emperour in title if he haue no landes of his owne inheritance scarse equall with a Duke by dominion of his Empire The fourth argument is that the deedes doctrine of Antichrist against Christ must be open and without all dissimulation because Saint Paule maketh a difference betwene the mysterye of iniquitie and the open shewing of Antichrist I aunswer they are open to all faithfull Christians although they be hidde from such as be deceiued by Antichrist Here M. Sander aunswereth to that which he supposeth might be obiected that some gloses of y e canon law call the Pope God or make him equall with Christ yea they call him God aboue all Gods but he thinketh to auoyd it by saying they call him not God by nature but by office vnder Christ where they say he is equall with Christ. This blaâ—phemy will not so easily be excused Nether is it to be thought that any man will euer cal him selfe God by nature But to omitte these flattering gloses of the canon lawe doth not the Pope exalt him self aboue all that is called God and worshipped as God When he commaundeth to abstayne from meates and mariage whereof God hath created the one and instituted the other as good and holy for greater goodnes and holines then God created or instituted in them Doth he not exalt him selfe aboue God the redeemer when he affirmeth his redeÌ„ption to be ether onely from sinnes committed before baptisme â—or onely from the guilt of sin whereas his popish pardons can absolue from both Doth he not extoll him selfe aboue God the holy Ghost when he taketh vpon him to sanctifie the creatures of the world otherwise then God hath sanctified them to apply the merits of Christ otherwise then Gods holy spirite worketh application by faith c. The 5. argument is that Antichrist should be receyued moste speciallye of the Iewes of which hee bringeth the opinion of diuerse olde writers but because the Scripture sayth no such thinge but contrary that he shall sit in the Church of God We deny the antecedent or proposition of this argument But M. S. alledgeth the saying of Christ Ioan. 5 I came in my fathers name and ye haue not receyued me if another come in his owne name ye wil receyue him This other man sayth M. S. is Antichrist and so expounded by the auncient fathers I aunswer they haue no ground of this exposition For Theudas the Egyptian Cocabas and such like deceyued the Iewes in their owne name yet none of them was this Antichrist The 6. argument is that Antichrist according to the prophecy of Daniel cap. 7. the interpretation of Hierom shal subdue 3. kings the kings of Egypt Africa and Ethiopia which seeing the Pope hath not done he is not Antichrist I aunswer Nether Hierom nor any Ecclesiastical writer whom he followeth hath any directition out of the Scripture for this interpretation wherefore it is more like that the Emperour is the litle horne which first diminishing as it were a thirde parte of the strength of the fourth beast at length began vtterly to oppresse destroy it I meane y e coÌ„mon welth of Rome The 7. reason is Antichrist shal preuaile in his raigne but 3. yeares an halfe Dan 7. which time the Apocalâ—se calleth 42. monethes I aunswer this tyme must not be limited by measure of man but as God hath appoynted it Daniell nameth no yeres but a tyme tymes halfe a tyme. And Hierom in his accompt of 1293 daies differeth from S. Iohn Apoc. 12. 6. who setteth them downe 1260. dayes The 8. reason is that Helias shall come at the tyme of Antichrist as Hippolitus Augustine Hierom Theodoret teach who is not yet come although the Pope haue long florished I aunswer The Scripture speaketh of no comming of Helias but of Christes two witnesses which haue neuer failed in the greatest heate of the popish tyranny Apoc. 11. The 9. reason is that Antichrist shall be of the try be of Dan by the â—â—inion of Irenaeus Hippolitus Theodoretus and Gregory whereas the Popes are of no such â—ribe I aunswer the Scripture hath not reuâ—aled any such matter nether doth Irenaeus rest vpon that opinion but iudgeth he may well be the king of the Romane Empire saying very wisely Certius â—rgo sine periculo est sustinâ—re adâ—â—pletionem prophetiae quaâ— suspâ—carâ— c. Therefore it is more certayne and without daunger to tary the fulfilling of the prophecy then to surmise c. Againe if this opinion should be true he shoulde not rise out of the Romane Empire as all olde writers haue consenced he must according to the prophecye The 10. argument is that Antichrist shall not come before the later ende of the world as August ne and Theodoretus iudged but Gregory seeing the ambition of Iohn of Constantinople affirmed that the tyme of the reuelation of Antichrist was euen at hand and that the same Iohn was the forerunner of Antichrist and Antichrist should shortly be reucaled an army of Priests should waite vpon him Nowe seeing he whosoeuer tooke that which Iohn refused by Gregories iudgement should be Antichrist and it is certayne that Pope Boniface the 3. soone after the death of Gregory and his successors vsurped not onely that but more also it is certayne by Gregoryes prophecye that the Pope is Antichrist Who being within the 600. yeares aunswereth to M. Sanders fonde chalenge And although none within that compasse had pointed out the see of Rome yet the fulfilling of the prophecye in the later tymes did sufficiently declare who it should be And most of the auncient writers name Rome to be the see of Antichrist Although they could not foresee that the Bishoprike of that see should degenerate into the tyrannye of Antichrist M. Sander aunswereth that Tertullian and Hierom call Rome Babylon because of the confusion of tongues of diâ—ersenations that hauÌ„ted thether in tyme of the Emperours And the Rome was full of Id â—any and did perseâ—ute the Sainctes and namely more tâ—â—n 30 Bishops of Rome The reason of tongnes is very absurd and not giuen by any of those writers As for Idolatrie and persecuting of Sainctes although it might be sayd in tyme of Irenaeus and Tertullian yet could it not be sayd in the dayes of Hierom Augustine Ambrose Primasius and a number that liued in time of the Christian Emperours And whereas Hierom ad Algasiam expoundeth the name of blasphemye written in the foreheade of the purple harlet to be Rome euerlasting it agreeth very well vnto the see of the Popedom which they boast to be eternall although the Empire of Rome shall be cleane taken away For M. Sander him selfe liketh well the title giuen by Martianus and Valentinianus to Leo whome they call Bishop of the euerlasting citie of Rome
of saluation brought in by the Pope then S. Paule deliuered to the Galathians we hold the Pope theÌ„ iustly accursed But we iustifie them sayth he by the word of God not written I am sure but by your counterfeit word of traditions as you say by bookes of auncient fathers and yet not by bookes of the most auncient fathers in whome is litle or nothing at all of suche drosse and chaffe amonge a great deale of good corne But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like thinges sayth he but keepe the olde humilitie obedience and vnitie is our fault if we haue any O fautles hypocrites if the older truth had neuer bene reuealed vnto you against your olde heresies your faults had bene the lesse but nowe your darkenes being conuinced of the light your pride rebellion and schisme from Christ and his Church is and appeareth most haynous and manifest Now seeing M. Sander dare not encounter with vs in this very poynt of our contention he sayneth an Idoll of an aduersary to shew his manhood vpon before his friendes that they may prayse him for a worthy champion He imagineth that we reply that Luther and Caluine did so change popish religion as Christ and his Apostles did chauÌ„ge the Iewish religion and then he layeth on lode that Luther and Caluines authoritie is not like to Christes whereas we make no such comparison but affirme that these godly preachers were sent of God so to reueale and discouer the idolatry corruptions mayntayned in the Church as Elias Elizeus Oseas and the other Prophets were sent to restore and reforme the true worship of God corrupted and decayed amonge the Israelites reprouing and reforming all thinges according to the infallible rule of Gods worde And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech I say it is horrible blasphemy to make any successors vnto Christ in â—â—â—â— priesthood which the holy Ghost sayth he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as passeth not from him by succession to others because he liueth for euer And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin in Psal. 33. de ciui Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont adu leg lib. 1. cap. 18. reade the places who will and he shall finde that these fathers speake not at all of any propiciatory sacrifice of Christes very body and bloode in the sacrament but of the sacrifice of thankes giuing which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God in the celebration of the holy mysteries for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blinde and obstinate Papists to see the bookes margent paynted with quotations of doctors by them which peraduenture neuer turned the bookes them selues but borowed their quotations of other men But M. Sander sayth whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine doe all things according to Gods worde they are the more to be abhorred not only because the one is contrary to the other but also because they pretende to haue their doings figured and prophecyed in the Gospel whereas there is but one Christ which hath bene borne dyed but once therefore these men haue no power to abrogate the Masse or to take away the key of auncient religion To their dissention I aunswer it is not in many poyntes but in one that not of the greatest weight as for their pretence of theyr doinges to be figured or prophetied in the Gospell it is a dreame of M. Sanders drousie head for they make none such but they shew the abuses of the Romish church by the doctrine of Gods word by the same they shew the way to reforme them and this to the glory of Christ who dyed but once they abrogate the Masse by which it should follow if it were of any force that he should dye often for without death sheding of bloud there is no sacrifice for remission of sinnes Heb. 9. 22. 26. If we deny the Masse to be that they say it is he aunswereth that as he doeth not reade that the Iewish priestes did erre concerning the substance of their publike sacrifice So is it lesse possible that the vniuersall church of Christ should erre in that publike act wherin Christ is sacrificed Here is a wise argument hauing neither head nor foote nor any ioynt to hange togeather For whatsoeuer M. Sander readeth we reade that Vrias the high Priest made an heathenish altar in the Temple at the commaundement of the king Achas offered sacrifice theron 2. Reg. 16. VVe reade also in Iosephus that Caiaphas diuers other of y e high Priestes were Saduces which could not but erre in the substaÌ„ce of their publike sacrifice when they beleued not the resurrection Seeing the end of theyr sacrifices was to signifie y e eternall redâ—ption by Christ. Now to the second parte of the argument I say the vniuersall church dyd not erre though the schismaticall synagogue of Rome departed froÌ„ Christs institutioÌ„ But M. SaÌ„der chafeth vs away with this double negatiue no no maisters Antechrists you may be christ you caÌ„not be Gods curse light on him that would haue any other Christ theÌ„ Iesus the sonne of God Mary which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heaueÌ„ But it is your Antechrist of Rome that vsurpeth not only the office but also receiueth the name of Christ God of his AntechristiaÌ„ Canonists w c I know you will not deny though your face be of brasse because â—â—â—â— boks may be shewed to any maÌ„y list to se theÌ„ After his large excursion he returneth to D. Parker whome he would aduise to reuolt to the popish church but he God be thanked hauing ended his dayes in the catholike church of Christ on earth is now receued into the fellowship of the tryumphant church in heauen I passe ouer how maliciously he â—ayleth against the blessed martyr Tho. Cranmer for defence of whose learning and godlines I refer the reader to his story faithfully set forth by M. Fox All other Archbishops of Canterbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Gregory were of their popish profession Of a great number it is as he sayth but not of all For the opinion of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament was not receiued in the Church of England for two or three huÌ„dereth yeeres after Augustines arriual as that Homely which that reuerend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury caused to be translated and imprinted doth manifestly declare And whereas hee sâ—orneth at the persecuted congregation of Wickleue Husse and the poore men of Lyons boasting of the externall pompe and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church I haue sufficiently aunsweared before that bothe the apostacy of the church of Antichrist the persecution of the church of Christ was so described proficied before that neither the one nor the other should trouble any mans conscience w