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
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
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
testimonijs If this onely were the question which or where the Church were that they woulde pleade nothing at all by publike actes of men but only by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures Yet sayth Bristow the Apostles were of our religion because Chrysostom sayth Ad pop Antioch that it was decreed by the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries a remeÌ„brance should be made of the dead This sayth Bristow was masse for the dead How prayers for the dead came in how at leÌ„gth sacrifice of the masse was applied vnto the dead I haue shewed sufficiently against Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles which some of the olde writers doe ascribe to their traditions wee should receiue many thinges that euen the Papistes them selues doe not obserue As that it is a wicked thing to fast on SoÌ„day or to pray kneling that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes c. which with diuerse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth vpon the tradition of the Apostles as wel as oblation for the dead De coron nul hearing therefore such manifest vntruths are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition by most auÌ„cient writers what certainty can we haue of their tradition without their owne writing Againe S. Hierom saith it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40 daies in the yeare If this be true then is the popish story false that maketh Telesphorus Bishop of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth the great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5 cap. 26. saying that some fasted but 1 day some 2 daies some more some 40 howres of day night this diuersitie proueth â—â—â—â— Hierom vntruly ascribeth y t tradition to the Apostles which should haue bene kept vniformely if it had any institution of the Apostles Cyprian sayth it was our Lordes tradition that the wine in the communion should be mingled w t water But the Scripture saith not so S. Paule w c deliuered that w c he receiued of Christ saith not so And yet CypriaÌ„ coÌ„teÌ„deth principally for the vse of wine in the cup against the watry heretikes that vsed onely water It is a coÌ„mon thinge with the auncient writers to defend euery ceremony mhich was vsed in their time by tradition of the Apostles But the chiefe matter is the masse which sayth Bristow S. Paule one of our religion made I maruell whether Bristow writeth this for fooles to beleue or for wise men to laughe at When they them selues make Gregory or Scholasticus or I can not tell whom auctor of the canon and when they write howe euery peece was added by what Pope what impudence is it to say that S. Paule made the Masse and to call Augustine to witnesse that which he good man did neuer thinke of and much lesse write Whose wordes Bristow hath mangled and falsified for thus he citeth them Ep. 118. cap 6. Totum illum agendi ordinem quem uniuersum per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse That by him was ordeyned this order of doing which through the whole world the Church doth keepe in doing of Masse The wordes of Augustine speaking of receiuing the communion fasting or before all other meates are these vpon the wordes of S. Paule Caetera cum venero ordinabo Vnde intelligi datur quia multum erat vt in epistola totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret quem universa per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morum diuersitate variatur Other thinges will I set in order when I come Whereby it is giuen vs to be vnderstood because it was much that in an epistle he should set forth that whole order of doing which the whole Church throughout the world doth obserue that this thinge was ordeyned by him which is varied by no diuersitie of maners vnderstanding the custome of receyuing the communion fasting which he sayd before was generally obserued in all places But of ordeyning the masse there is no title You see now howe â—â—â—â— Apostles especially S. Paule is of Bristowes religion beside ChrysostoÌ„ Hierom Cypâ—iaÌ„ The 10 and 11 motiues are confusely conteâ—ned in the 34 demaund The Courches iudgement is alwayes infallible VVhen by Iewell the Church of God dyed Donatistes and Luciferians aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine and S. Hierome were of our religion Protestants in their owne conscience be against the Church which is euerlasting and visible No scripture against the Catholiks but all for them Christ to be loued for the authoritie of his Church for which there be playner prophecyes then for Christ him selfe Although we should graunt the Churches iudgemeÌ„t to be alwaies infallible yet would we neuer graunt the popish churches authoritye which falleth so manifestly from the word of God thereby sheweth her self to be the malignant Church Synagogue of Satan That the Church of Christ hath alwaies ben from y e beginning shal continue vnto the end of the world we all confesse and defende Wherefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristow to saye that by Iewell the Church dyed within six hundreth yeares after Christ. And that the Donatistes and Luciferians are reuiued in Protestants For we nether say that the Church is perished out of all places except Africa as the Donatistes nor that it is become a stewes with the Luciferians But the Papistes are more like to the Donatistes which say the Church is perished out of all partes of the world except Europe and in steede of the Church they defende a stewes and sincke of all dolatrie superstition vngodlines Therefore Augustine and Hierom be not of Bristowes religion for condemning those heretikes to whome Bristow and his Papistes are more like then the Protestants Nether doe Protestants in their conscience thinke the Church of Christ to be against them because Castalio an Anabaptist translateth Ecclesiae the Churche into reipublicae the common wealth or because many vse the name of congregation which is the true signification of this word Ecclesia as no man will deny that is not past all shame That the Churche is euerlasting and visible to them that haue suche eyes as the Churche is that is spirituall we neuer deny But that it is visible to the world alwayes that shall neuer be proued That no Scripture is against the Catholikes we graunt but that many Scriptures are against the Papists it hath bene more then a thousand times proued That the church geueth testimonie to Christ that the prophecies of the churches euerlasting continuance are plaine euident It is no question betwene vs. But that the synagoge of Romish Papists is the church of Christ to whoÌ„ such credit or reuerence is to be geuen that I say if Bristow woulde burst for anger against the Protestantes he shall neuer be able to proue The 11. motiue The practise or custome of the church of God S. Paule and S. Augustine of our
religion Exorcisme exufflation in baptisme Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Baptisme necessary for saluation of children ChauÌ„ge of religion neuer made by us Altares prayer for the dead used alwayes Reall presence of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t Pilgrimage reliques of Saints S. Hierom of our religioÌ„ Miracles for reliques Churches coÌ„firmed by miracles VVhat an impudeÌ„t atteÌ„pt is chauÌ„ge of religioÌ„ Of the churches practise custome I say euen as of the churches iudgement that how much soeuer it be to be esteemed yet is not the Popish church the Catholike church of Christ but an apostasie schisme from it Neither is it sufficieÌ„t for Bristow to say y e Popish church practiseth many things that the auÌ„cieÌ„t church of Christ practised therfore it is the true church of Christ except he can proue that the Popish churchteacheth practiseth all nothing els but that which the ancieÌ„t church of Christ did teach practise In stede whereof Bristow can allege nothing but certeine spots wrinkles of the elder church which the Popish church doth embrace hauing almost nothing els like vnto it But let vs see how substantially he proueth out of S. Paule S. Augustine that the churches custome and practise is an infallible rule of truth First S. Paule saith he 1. Cor. 11. after many reasons for the vncomelines of womeÌ„s going bareheaded recoyleth to this inuincible forte Si quis c. But if any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome for women to pray vncouered nor the church of God See how this impudent asse to stablish his ground of custome is not ashamed to falsifie the wordes of holy Scripture S. Paul saith if any man seme to be desirous of contention we haue no such custome nor the churches of God whereby he meaneth plainly that it is not the custome of the Apostles nor of the church of God to be contentious about such small matters of external behauiour May we herof inferre that whatsoeuer the church at any time hath vsed is allowable to be vsed alwaies S. Aug. Ep. 118. Ian. is cited by Bristow but corruptly Si quid tota per orbeÌ„ frequentat ecclesia hoc quia it a â—acienduÌ„ sit disputare insoleÌ„tissimae insaniae est If y e whole church do vse any thing only to call it in question whether that thing should be so don is a poinct of most prowd or most straÌ„ge madnes But Augustine is not so generall for his words are siquid horuÌ„ if any of these things speaking of ceremonial obseruations as of receiuing the coÌ„munion fasting c. be vniuersally vsed of all the church when it is not coÌ„trary to the word of God it were madnes to striue about it For in the first place Augustine setteth the auctority of Gods word secoÌ„dly the custome of the vniuersal church being not contrary to Gods word last of all the customs of particular churches which are varied according to the diuersities of coÌ„tries natioÌ„s Now for these matters in coÌ„trouersy betwene vs I answer as Augustine doth to the questioÌ„ of Ianuarius immediatly after the words cited by Bristow Sed neque hoc neque illud est in eo quod tu queris But neither is this nor that in the question that thou propoundest that is neither the practise of the vniuersall church nor the auctority of the Scriptures serueth to decide this question but it is the third kind So say I to Bristow nether the auctority of the holy Scriptures nor the practise of the vniuersall church can be shewed for these things which thou defeÌ„dest but they are of a third kind that is contrary to the word of God and the practise of the most auncient Primitiue church But Augustine sayth Bristow proueth that infants are borne in sinne against the Pelagians which are reuiued in ProtestaÌ„ts by the customes practise of the church which was to baptise theÌ„ for remission of sinnes And this practise he called the waight of truth a most plaine bignes of truth The slauÌ„der that PelagiaÌ„s are aliue in ProtestaÌ„ts by denying children to be borne in sinne I wil no more esteme then the barking of a dogge against the moone But where he sayth that Augustine by the only practise of the church coÌ„uinceth the Pelagians calling the practise poÌ„dus veritatis c it is a shameles lye for his words are in the same Epist. 105. Circunstiâ—antur enim diâ—inarum auctoritate lectionuÌ„ antiquitus tradito retcÌ„to firmo Ecclesiae ritu in baptismate paruulorum For they are compassed about both by the auctoritie of the diuine readings also by the stedfast practise of the church deliuered of old reteined in the baptisme of infants But he vrgeth them with exorcisme and exsufflation which were there vsed in the church I confesse but their meaning by exufflatioÌ„ exorcisme he defendeth out of the Scriptures And who can blame Augustine if after he haue mightely confuted the Pelagians out of the Scriptures to shew the nouelty of their heresie he alleaged the perpetuall practise of the church which she alwaies had alwaies shall haue in praying for the conuersion of infidels for the perseueraÌ„ce of the faithful in goodnes This is all one saith Bristow as if we should reason against these heretikes out of priuate mens beades out of the publike prayers which are in the portuse or Breuiary or in the missall and such like bokes The deuill it is except Bristow can proue that such beades and prayers were euer vsed in the church For Augustine sayth de bono perseuer ca. 22 Atque vtinam tardi corde infirmi qui non possunt velnon dum possunt Scriptur as vel earum expositiones intelligere sic audrient vel non audirent in hac quaestione disputationes nostras vt magis intuer entur orationes suas quas semper habuit habebit ecclesia ab exordijs suis donec finiatur hoc seculum And I would they that are dull of hart weake which can not or as yet can not vnderstand the Scriptures or the expositions of them would so heare or not heare our disputations in this question that they would rather consider their owne prayers which the church alwaies hath had shall haue from her beginning vntil this world be ended You see plainly that Augustine ioyneth to the auctority of the holy Scriptures the perpetuall practise of the church which hath continued from the beginning and shall remayne vnto the ende Which seeing it can not be shewed for Poperie the argument of the practise of the church serueth not for Popery Bristowe proceedeth and passeth ouer the example of Christian women which killed them selues rather then they would haue their bodies abused yet notwithstanding by the churches iudgement were honored as martyrs To which I aunswere the church considered their minde which was good not the fact which was euell At last he commeth to affirme that the
Popish church neuer made any chauÌ„ge of religion Which is a shamelesse assertion although he say that none of his aduersaries is able to charge them with any alteration since Augustines time For to omitte the whole scope of doctrine cleane peruerted I will obserue only the practise of the church in Augustines time about the Lords supper In that time the lay people did receaue the communion in both kindes and one thousand yeres almost after which of late the Papistes haue altered In Augustines time the communion was geuen to infantes which the Papistes doe not obserue therefore they can not bragge of perpetuall practise and deny all chaunge in religion made by them But Bristow not content with this vayne bragge will go farther and shewe that whatsoeuer they haue vsed sithe S. Augustines time was obserued euen so in all that time that passed betwene S. Paule and S. Augustine Is not this a master of impudence to promise that which all the worlde of learned men doth know to be impossible to be performed and whereof the promiser himselfe can bring no profe at all but his bare worde For he beginneth with exorcisme and exsufflation which as it was vsed in Augustines time vnnecessarily so it appeareth by Cyprian that was long before him that it was vsed for the casting out of the deuill in them whose bodies he did sensibly possesse lib. 3. cap. 7. ad Magnum Of the sacrifice of the Masse worshipping of the Sacrament and oblation for the deade as Bristow referreth the reader to his fift and seuenth motiues so doe I to mine aunsweres vnto the same Concerning the vse of the altare howe truly he sayth I referre the reader to mine answere of D. Heskins lib. 3. cap. 31. The other fonde reason of the practise of the church that children were taught to beleue the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament for which he citeth Aug. de Tim. lib. 3. cap. 10. which the poore man borowed out of Allens booke of Purgatory is discussed answered in my confutation of the same treatise lib. 2 cap. 9. Then followeth going on pilgrimage to holy places worshipping of reliques prayer vnto Sainctes vsed as he sayth in Augustines time For worshipping of reliques and praying to Sainctes he citeth Aug de câ—re pro mor. Who concludeth that to be buried at some memorie of the martyrs doth in this poynct only auayle the dead that the affection of supplication commending him also to the patronage of the martyr may be encreased That this was no perpetuall practise of the church to desire the intercession of Sainctes it is manifest by this that Augustine him selfe dare affirme nothing certeinly whether or how the Saincts may heare our prayers Affirming that this question passeth the power of his vnderstanding cap. 16. But by the name of memory Bristow will vnderstande relique because it is somtime so vsed which is no strong argument But admitte it were so how can he proue either that practise to haue bene continued from S. Paule to S. Augustine or the same opinion of reliques to haue ben in Augustines time which is mainteined in the Popish church that there was superstitious peregrinatioÌ„ vnto Ierusalem c. vsed in S. Hieroms time it is as true as that the same was reproued of him Ep. ad Paul If God shewed any miracles at the deade bodyes of the Martyrs to confirme that religion for which they suffred against the Gentiles it foloweth not that the reliques of dead Saints are to be worshiped kissed saught vnto by pilgrimage c but most absurd is it that Bristow would haue Hierome by ofteÌ„ entering into the Cryptos or vaultes of churches at Rome to signifie that he went a Pilgrimage Hierome was not so grose to accounte walking about the Citie to be a Preregrination But what is so leaden or blockishe which these doltish Papists will not auouch for the mainteinaunce of their trompery Last of all he chargeth the Protestantes with an impudent attempt in making such an vniuersall chaunge of the whole face of Religion which none of the olde Heretikes did before theÌ„ That we are like to none of the olde Heretikes we like our selues neuer the worse but as concerning the vniuersall chaunge it was necessary in reformation where there was an vniuersal Apostacie For any alteratioÌ„ that we haue made the Papistes dare not affirme for shame that wee haue brought any thing into the Church which ought not to be vsed by the worde of God neither are they able to proue that we haue omitted anything which by the holy scripture is necessaryly required To coÌ„clude you see that the practise of the church except it be perpetuall euen from the first beginning is no Motiue by Augustines iudgement and that Bristowe though hee hath bragged much thereof for some superstitions vsed of olde yet he hath brought nothing to proue that they haue beene from the beginning The 12. Motiue is the 28. demaunde Sea apostolike The communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians The Romain Church is the Catholike Church Saint Augustine of our religion Such as are condemned by the Sea Apâ—stolike are holden for Heretikes Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Emperours and other peeres of our Religion as also their first conuersion S. Theodoret Chrisostom and Hierome of our Religion Antichristes side against the Pope Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing VVhosoeuer sayth Bristow at any time were for their doing or teaching condemned by the definitiue sentence of the Sea Apostolike and stubbernly condemned the same they were Scismatikes or heretikes And contrariwise all Catholike men haue kept them selues in the vnitie of that sea and if for any cause they were out of it labouring to be reconciled againe or if they had beene but suspected neuer ceasing vntill they had made their purgation Moreouer he saith there can none example be alleadged to the contrary but innumerable for it It is not denyed but the Church and Sea of Rome while it continued in true catholike Religion was much reuerenced euery where so farre at least as the Romane empire did extende But when any Bishop of that sea went out of the way either in scisme or herefie they were not followed but resisted condemned For Example When Victor bishop of Rome like a proude scismatike did take vpon him to excommunicate all the Churches of the East for celebration of Easter they did not onely contemne his censure but many Bishops also did sharply rebuke him as Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons other Euse. li. 5. ca. 25. WheÌ„ Liberius bishop of Rome relented vnto the Arrians he was forsaken of the true Christians and accounted an Heretike Hier. in Catal. When Bonifacius Zosimus and Celestinus Bishops of Rome would chalenge appellations out of Africa contrary to the decrees out of the councels of Africa by counterfaiting a Canon of the Nicene councell they were resisted by all the Bishops of Africa and the trechery
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
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
name of reformed Christians on the other side that either is such in deede as of the vulgare and ignorant people they are called But why are Protestantes all hereâ—ikes desirous to be called Catholikes but that they which in deede haue the name are also in deede euermore true Catholikes and so the name alone sufficient to moue any man Who euer heard such an asse bâ—aye as though there were no difference whether they haue the name rightfully or wrongfully truely or falsely In all the Easte Church who are called Catholikes but the Grecians Which for many hundreth yeares haue bene separated from the Communion of the Latines and of them are compted for heretikes and Schimatikes But Augustine de vera rel Cap. 7. writeth more plainly for the name of Catholike Tenenda est nobis Christiana c. Wee muste holde the Christian religion and the companie of that Church which is Catholike and called Catholike not onely of her owne but also of her enemies For will they nill they the heretikes also and Schismatikes them selues when they talke not with their own but with strangers they call the Catholike Church nothing but the Catholike Church For they can not else bee vnderstanded excepte they discerne her by that name by which shee is called of the whole world This therefore quoth Bristow is proued they to be Catholikes that Catholikes are called When as Augustine saith we must hold y t church which both is catholike is so called Bristowe the Papist is called by the name of a Cittie in England theresore Bristowe the Papist is in deede a citie in England This therefore is proued that to bee Bristow that Bristow is called But how proueth he that they be called Catholikes The worlde forsooth beareth them witnesse For beside some ignorant fellowe in Germanie that calleth them so or rather not meaning to brable in the streat yealdeth to that tearme not because hee thinketh them to bee so but because he knoweth the Papist which asketh for the Catholike Church seeketh not the Catholike Church in deed but the Popish Church falsely called Catholike beside I say some tankarde bearer boye or gyrle that hath mâ—de such a unswere to Bristowe as he trauelled in Germanie he asketh when in printed bookes they bee called Catholikes whether the reader knoweth not who is meaned Yes verily if the bookes bee written by papistes oâ— such as take neither part But he would â—now further why we mâ—ke name theÌ„ call them Cacolikes or Cartholikes I suppose whosoeuer mocketh them it is because they falsely â—surpe that name which they are not woâ—thie to beare and not because they bee such and the name euill yet againe he asketh why Luther iâ— Germanie did cause the Creede to be turned I beleeue the Christian Church and not I beleeue the Catholike Church Mine answere is I beleeue that Bristowe belyeth Luther for any such change of the creede although he might well expouÌ„d the true Catholike Church by the name of the true Christian Church But Iewel confirmeth the name of Catholike to be theirs or els what meaneth he to entitle his replie Against the Romane religion which of late hath ben accompted Catholike Alas poore Bristow hast thou no better reason to proue the Popish Church to be Catholike but that Iewel saith it hath bene accompted Catholike and proueth that it hath ben falsely accompted so Yes sir not he only but also Pope Humfrey in his Legend of sains Iewel confesseth vs to be Catholikes where he saith that Pontacus erred when he wrot that onely lay men neither learned nor Catholikes were moderators in the disputation at Westminster Why Bristow are you not ashamed to take the name of the lorde your god the Pope in vaine And because Pontacus complaineth that catholikes were not moderators doth Humfrey therefore acknowledge papistes to be Catholikes yea forsooth he doth so and also coÌ„firmeth the storie of Pontacus when he saith Catholikes were present but in the next worde he expoundeth what catholikes namely papistes And som of theÌ„ were also moderators at the least wise one namely D. Heath then occupying the place of the Bishop of Yorke therefore not onely lay Lords vnlearned heretiks as this lewd losel and vnlearned dogbolt trayterous papist I am bold with him because he is so malepert with the learned godly nobilitie of England most slaunderously and maliciously affirmeth were only moderators of that disputation but some of y e Popish faction were not only present but presidents of that action beside all the rest of the popish prelates which then were of the Parliament for information whereof that conference was appointed But Humfrey saith moreouer that the chiefe cause of all euils and as it were the Troian horse within the walles of the Church hath beene hitherto a Catholike defection from the holy scripture and especially your papistrie Therefore saith Bristow hee acknowledgeth vs to be Catholikes In deed you be catholike that is to say vniuersal reuolters froÌ„ y e holy scriptures if that title please you reioyce of it spare not You be Catholike heretiks that is heretikes not in one or two articles of religion but in all in as much as you denie the office of Christe vpon which is grounded all Christiaâ—itie The name of Catholike of it selfe is indifferent to good and euil euen as the name of vniuersall is therefore in our Creede we say not simplie I beleeue the Catholike Church but the holy Catholike Church And therefore D Humfrey in calling you pseudocatholici false Catholikes sheweth what Catholikes he meaneth you to be not members of the holy Catholike Church of godly Christiss but pillers of the false and counterfeit Church of malignant herenkes And whereas you say you haue hearde Humfrey in his fond and vnlearned lectures at Oxford call them pseudocatholiâ—i â—home Faustus the Maniche did entwite for honouring the memorie of Martyrs first you take vpon you like the sowe to entwite Minerua as it is in y e latine prouerb which might better be borne withall in a man of such learning and arte as you shew if you did not also slander belie him as the diuell doth all the saintes of God For although I neuer heard any of his lecturs yet I dare affirme he neuer accompted Augustine and â—â—â—â— godly Catholiks of his time for false Catholikes although hee coulde not allowe of all that Augustine hath written and mainteyned Wherefore it is cleare hee calleth not Augustine and the Catholikes of his time but you Papistes of our time false Catholikes and shewed that to you did truly agree that which Faustus did falsely charge y e true Catholikes with all y t is the turning of Idols into Martirs For Faustus did slander not as you traÌ„slateit onely entwite the true Catholikes for worshipping the Martirs as â—â—â—â— pagans worshipped their Idols Calumniatâ—â—nobis Faustus c. Faustus doth slander vs saith Augustine Againe Non taÌ„ me mouetut hic Calumniae
dixit ille collegameus aut illi collegaemei aut illi Episcopi vel Clerici vel Laici nostri aut ideâ— verum est quia illa illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius aut quilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quia ille frater nofler aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilanâ— vidit veltale visum dormiens somniauit Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum velportenta fallacium spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae diâ—unâ—tr aut sihaereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt magis cauere debemus And let him so shew it that he say not it is true because I say this or because this sayd that companion of mine or those companions of mine or those our Bishops or Clerkes or laymen or therefore it is true because Donatus or Pontius or any other hath done these or those miracles or because men pray at the memories of our martyrs are hearde or because these are those things doe happen there or because that our brother or that ou rsister sawe such a vision waking or dreamed such a vision sleping Let these things be remoued which ether are the faynings of lying men or els the wonders of deceyuing spirites for either they are not true that are sayd to be or if any miracles are done by heretikes we ought the more to take heede of them And yet againe he writeth in the same booke and chapter Sed vtrumipsecclesiam teneant non nisi diumarum sâ—ripturarum Canontcis libris ostcudant quia nee nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quod in ecclesia Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus coâ—â—niendauit Mileuitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alij innumerabiles nostrae coÌ„munionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum concilijs ipsa predicata est aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora martyrum quod possunt à multis interrogantes audire Ambrosio fuerint reuelata ad ipsa corpora Caecus multâ—rum annorum ciuitati Mediolanensi notissiâ—nus oculos lumeÌ„que receperit aut quia ille SoÌ„nium vidit ille spiritu assumptus audiuit siue ne iniret in partem Donati sâ—ue vt recederet à parte Donati Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbaÌ„da quia in Catholica fiunt non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia hae in eafiunt Ipse Dominus Iesus cum resurrexisset à mortuis discipulorum oculis videndum manibusque tangendum corpus suum offerret nequid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur magis eos testimonijs Legis Prophetarum Psalmorum confirmandos esse iâ—dicauit ostendens ca de se impleta quae fuerant tanto ante praedicta Sic ecclesiam suam coÌ„mendauit dicens praedicari in nomine suo poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes inciptentibus ab Hierusalem Hoc in Lege Prophetis Psalmis esse sâ—riptum ipse testatus est hoc eius ore commendatum tenemus Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta haec fundamenta haec firmameÌ„ta But whether they holde the church or no let them shew none otherwise but by the Canonical books of the holy Scriptures Because that neither we do say that therefore men must beleue vs that we are in the Church of Christ because Optatus of Mileuitum or Ambrose of Millain or innumerable other Bishops of our communion haue commended this Church which we hold or because it is commaunded in the councels of our fellow Bishops or because that in the holy places which our comunion doth frequent throughout the worlde so gteat miracles are done either of hearing mens prayers or of healings so that the bodies of martyrs which haue bene hidden for so many yeres which which thing if they will aske they may heare of many were reuealed vnto Ambrose and that at the same bodies a man which had bene blind many yeres very well knowen to the city of Millain receiued his eyes sight or because this man sawe a dreame or that man being taken vp in spirite did heare either that he shoulde not enter into the faction of Donatus or that he should depart from Donatus side Whatsoeuer of such things are done in the Catholike church they are therefore to be approued because they are done in the Catholike church but the church is not therby proued Catholike because such things are done in it Our lord Iesus himselfe when he had risen from the dead offred his body to be seene with the eyes touched with the hands of his disciples yet least they should think they suffered any illusion he iudged that they were rather to be confirmed with the testimonies of the lawe the prophets the Psalmes shewing that those thinges were fulfilled of him which were so long before prophecied So also he coÌ„mended his church saying that repentance forgenenes of sinnes must be preached in his name throgh out all nations beginning at Hierusalem This he him selfe testifieth to be writteÌ„ in the lawe the prophetes the psalmes this we holde being commâ—nded to it by his owne mouth These be profes of our cause these be our foundations these be our strong argumentes These thinges I haue set downe more at large out of Augustine because they are not onely a stop vnto these motiues of miracles visions but in a manner to all the rest that followe The 8. motiue is the 4. demaunde Scriptures denied by the Protestantes what scriptures they deny praying for the dead confirmed by scripture pray or of saintes for vs fayth onely aganst the scripture Reall presence of Christ in the sacrament confirmed by scripture No scripture is against the Catholikes but all is for them VVhosoeuer haue taught doctrine saith Bristow so plainly repugnant to the holy Scriptures that for maintenaunce thereof they were faine to deny bookes of the holy Scriptures or to say the Scriptures to haue bene falsified and corrupted they were heretikes and such are the Protestantes therefore they are heretikes Howe proue you the Protestants to be suche Marie sayth Bristow first they deny the Canonicall most certayne Scripture of the Machabees for none other cause but that it is playne against their heresies maynteyning prayer for the dead and prayer of Sainctes for vs. This is a lowde lye for we shewe many causes why we reiect that prophane writing of Iasons abridger beside the auctoritie of the Iewish church before Christ and the primitiue church after Christ as I haue declared against the secoÌ„d booke of Allens defence cap. 3. But in defense of the booke of Machabees to be Canonical Bristow wilsay as S. Augustine sayd to certeyne that
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
naming of all his progenitors from Adam vnto his time so there is no doubt but the Church hath had a perpetuall succession in the world from y e beginning thereof vntil this day although she can not name a particular succession of persons in any one place for all ages that are past But euen as by the Scriptures we are taught that Adam is our naturall father although we can not name all our auÌ„cestors that haue bene betwene vs and him right so by the Scriptures we are taught that the Church is our heauenly mother although we can not frame such tables of succession as the Papistes require vs to shew which they can not performe them selues For although they can name a number of Bishops whereof some haue taught at Rome some haue sitten and slept in their chayer at Rome and some at Auynion some haue played the deuill therein an hundreth of the last being no more like to a score of the firste in doctrine and life then God whose children the first were is like the deuill whose derlings the last were yet what is this to shewe a succession of their Church And howe doth this proue them to be the true Churche can not the Churche of Constantinople and other Churches in Greece doe the like vnto this daye Yet doe the Papistes count all them for heretikes and scismatikes Whatsoeuer therefore Optatus Hierom Augustine Tertullian or any other haue written of succession of Bishops in the Apostolike sees they meane so large and so farre forth as they continue in succession of Apostolike doctrine Otherwise woulde not Hierom haue embraced Arrianisme because it was receyued by Liberius who sate in the Apostolike see of Rome and coulde name his predecessors from Peter Nor Optatus haue receyued Eutychianisme because it was defended by Dioscorus which satte in the Euangelisticall see of Alexandria and coulde name his predecessors from S. Marke the disciple of S. Peter Nether woulde Augustine haue consented to Arrianisme because it was mayntayned by Eulalius and Euzoius Bishops of the Apostolike see of Antioche althoughe they were able to shewe their succession by many Bishops euen vnto S. Peter him selfe who planted his chayer at Antioche by all Papistes confession seuen yeares before he came to Rome You see therefore howe farre the motiue of succession may drawe or driue any man to haue regard vnto it euen as long as there is succession of doctrine as well as of place and person and not longer nor further The 23. motiue is the 44. demaund Apostolike Church The Communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians Apostolike Church is the Romane Church Apostolike Church as the Romane is S. Augustines motiue Succession of the Bishops of Rome the motiue of Optatus S. Augustine and S. Irenaeus This motiue in effect is all one with the former and in a maner so confessed by Bristow him selfe But thus he takâ—th his principle of their singing in the Masse our saying in the communion of the creede in which we confesse that we beleue one onely Catholike and Apostolike Church This one Catholike Church sayth Bristow is our Church that is Apostolike because it agreeth with the faith of the Church of Rome which is the sea of an Apostle holding on to this day by succession and to which was written an Epistle by an Apostle I aunswer it is not the popish Romane Church because that Church is departed from the vniuersal Church of Christ planted by the Apostles through out the worlde and holdeth not on in succession of the doctrine of the Apostle which did write that epistle to the Romanes But Bristowes wise reasoning is to be noted S. Peter was an Apostle That is true he was the first Bishop of Rome It is a great doubt whether he euer came at Rome and it is out of doubt by the Scriptures that he taried not there so longe as the histories affirme and last it is false that he was a Bishop of a particular Church which was an Apostle ouer all the world and specially ouer the circumcision There is a citye in the worlde named Rome And that citye by the Scripture is the seat of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. vers 18. S. Paules epistle to the Romaines is extant and euen that epistle will proue the Church of Rome at this day to be not apostolicall but apostatical as in many articles so in the article of iustification Rom. 3. vers 28. Are not those causes why a Church is called Apostolike sayth Bristow No verily but onely because it holdeth and mayntayneth the Apostolike doctrine which if it doe in all necessary articles then is it Apostolike hath succession and plantation of the Apostles or els not although it be gathered in such cities in which the Apostles haue preached planted and to whome they haue written But Tertullian doth so define Apostolike Churches sayth Bristow I say it is vntrue for Tertullian against newe heretikes sendeth vs not to the emptye chayres of the Apostles which had written to such cities but vnto the the testimony of their doctrine receyued from the Apostles and continued vntill that time So he sendeth them that are in Achaia to Corinthe such as are in Macedonia to Philippi those that are in Asia to Ephesus them which be neare Italy to Rome from whence they of Africa had their authoritie not by excellency of that Church aboue other Apostolike Churches but by nearenes of place Therfore he saith Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es à Macedonia habes Philippos Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adieceris habes Romam vnde nobis quaeque auctoritas presto est statuta Is Achaia nearest vnto thee thou hast Corinthe If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi If thou canst goe into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thoulye neare to Italy thou hast the Church of Rome from whence vnto vs also in Africa authoritie is setled nearer at hand Tertul de praeser But Bristow sayth that the auncient fathers when there were many Apostolike Churches standing they did principally and singularly direct men alwayes to the Church of Rome This you see to be false by the place of Tertullian last ciâ—ed But that they did more often direct men to the testimony of the Church of Rome it was for that by meanes of the Imperiall citie it was more notorious and best knowne Otherwise it is a very lye of Bristow where he sayth that when the fathers name the Apostolike church they do meane the Romane church by excellency as the Poet signifieth Vergil and the Philosopher Aristotle A like lye it is that no Church remayneth in the world founded by any of the Apostles but onely Rome For many Churches remayne to this day that were planted by the Apostle Paule who from Hierusalem to Illyricum filled all the contryes with the doctrine of the Gospell of which
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word Which because the Papists dare not atteÌ„pt Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation priuiledge of the sayd libell to shew a bad shift better then none at all why they wil not answere it For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing we require no approbation nor priuiledge dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it haue approbation priuiledge The 29. motiue Protestantes them selues take thinges vpon our churches credit The churches auctority S. Augustines motiue VVhat Sor. pture the Protestants deny Although we did receaue such things as he reherseth vpon their churches credit it followeth not that theirs is the true church for we receaue nothing from them without dew exammation The Scriptures we receaue not vpon the only credit of the Popish church but vpon the credit of y e vniuersall church of Christ. The creedes articles of doctrine tearmes of person trinitie consubstantiality Sacraments c. we receaue because they be consonant to the Scriptures not because the church of Rome tellâ—th â—s they be true As for the auctoritie of the church which he sayth was S. Augustines motiue to beleue the Gospell was not a single or sole motiue but a commotiue or an argument that with other argumeÌ„ts did moue him for the sayth not moueret but commoueret and so it is with vs. Prouided alwayes that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholike or vniuersall church VVhat then sayth Bristow was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine ment or can you hold laughter when the question is asked No verily for when the Protestants church that it is now so called in this age like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustines time is a member of the Catholike vniuersall church of Christ and so proued by the holy Scriptures it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an hereticall assembly departed from the vniuersall church long since Augustines departure out of this life But Bristow will proue that the church at whose commanndement Augustine beleued the Gospell was not the ProtestaÌ„ts church because that church commaunded him to beleue the bookes of Toby Iudith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees to be canonicallscripture which the church of Protestantes doth denye But what it Augustine were deceiued to thinke he hearde the voice of the Catholike church when he did not shall the Protestantes churche be condemned S. Hierome who if the church of Rome were the Catholike church was more like to heare her voice because he was a Priest of the church of Rome telleth vs a cleane contrary tale For thus he writeth In praefat in Prouerbia Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam Therfore as the Church in deade readeth the bookes of Iudith and Tobias and of the Macchabees but yet she receiueth them not among the Canonicall scriptures so she may reade these two Bookes speaking of the booke of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the common people but not for confirming the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall doctrine Doth the Church of Protestants iudge otherwise of these Bookes then that Church which thus instructed Hierome What then I must say as Bristowe doth S. Hierome and the Catholike Church in his time of our Religion The Church of Rome now is of an other iudgement then the Church of Rome was then ergo it is not now that it was then But whereas Bristowe chargeth vs to to deny or at least to leaue indifferent the Canticles of Salomon The Epistle to the Hebrues The Epistles of Saint Iames S Peter S. Iohn Sainct Iude with the Apocalips it is a diuelish slaunder as God knoweth and the woâ—ld can beare vs witnesse The 30. Motiue is the 36. and 37. demaÅd Storehouse of the Scriptures Tht Iewes Religion chaunged into ours by Christ. The Churches learning and wisdome The Church store S. Irenaeus motiue Bristowe demaundeth whether the Popish Church receiuing the Scriptures of the olde and newe Testament from Christ hath not kept them faithfully without adding minishing or corrupting I aunswere no for the Popish church receiueth none of Christ but the catholike church of Christ. Againe the popish Church hath added whole bokes to the canon which the chuch of the Iewes neuer receiued nor the vniuersall Church of Christ. But those Bokes saith Bristow hath the Protestants church robbed vs of w c are allowed by approued Councels You heard in the last motiue Hieromes iudgement of those bookes whervnto agreeth the couÌ„cel of Laodiâ—ea cap. 59. Augustine receiueth the boks of Macchabees but with condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Augâ— consec â—pist Gaudent cap. 13. Last of al the popish church either of fraud or negligence hath corrupted an exceeding great number of textes of the scripture in her vulgar latine translation w c she receueth as only authentical The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied For wheras the trueth is Ipsum contret caput â—â—â—â— the same seede shall broose thine head the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman Gen 3. Wheras he saith the Protestants church for this 100. yeeres as we coÌ„fesse our selues occupyed no bible nor had any thing to do with the scriptures he lieth out of al measure for the church of Christ hath alwaies had the scriptures in euery nation where it was it had theÌ„ in their mother toung How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchmeÌ„t 3 or 4. hundreth yeeres past in the English toung beside other in the Saxon language The like are to be proued to haue ben in al places where the Churches were gathered as in France Italy Bohemia c. Finally whatsoeuer he bableth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures trueth the like may be said of the greke Church which they coÌ„demne as schismaticall hereticall therefore this storehouse is no Motiue to proue the Romish Sinagogue to be the church of God In the 37. demaund he asketh whether as wel Protestants as other doe not condemne the old writers errors other heresies of Heretiks which made great shew of scriptures by the rule of y e popish churchs faith I answere the Protestants out of the scriptures do can disproue such shew of scriptures made by maisters of error are no more moued by the popish churches authoritie then the Apostles were moued by authoritie of the Iewish Synagogue to reproue all the grosse Idolatrie and snperstition of the Gentiles Therfore the popish Church is not Depositorium Diues that rich storehouse of trueth which was S. Ireneus motiue The 31. motiue is the 41. demaund Sending and teaching of all diuine
truth Caluins errors about the trinitie The ignoraunce of Protestants Such was Iew elr ignoraunce also that Christe is a prieste according to his Godhead Vniuersities of Heretiks Catholikes Degrees taken in Vniuersities of Heretiks are ad nihillated The ignorance of Protestants the cause partely why there be so many Atheistes in England The Churches learning wisdome and continuance S. Augustines Motiue This Motiue conteineth nothing but an immederate arrogant bragge of their studying and teaching of trueth with the great learning of their Doctors and Vniuersities and a proude disdamefull vpbraiding of our Doctors and vniuersities of much ignorance and lacke of learning Which comparison if it had beene vttered by a man of excellent learning had beene the lesse odious but beeing made by such a blinde Baiarde and blockheadded asse as is this Bristowe it is moste intollerable Caluiue saith he through ignoraunce erred about the Trinitie saying That Gods Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is God of him selfe whereby it followeth ineuitably that there be two Gods For this slaunderous and foolish cauill he citeth Institut lib. 1. cap. 13. Num. 23. c. where is no such word nor matter but a confutation of Heretikes that denyed the very essens of the deitie of Christ he cyteth also Geneb de trinit lib. 1. pa. 43. Where if the woorde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be vsed as I know not whether it be yet vndoutedly no such thing is ment thereby as Bristow bableth For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maye signifie him that is very God himselfe although begotten of God the father eueÌ„ as Gregory Nazianzene in his Booke of the holy Ghost or De theologia lib. 5. calleth the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lorde himselfe whereof it followeth not that there be two or three Lords or that the holy ghost proceedeth not from the father and the sonne Likewise he calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Light it selfe and Life that is very light and very life and yet he denyeth not that he is light proceeding from light Wherefore this is an vnlearned cauil against Caluine who more souÌ„dly substantially learnedly hath written of the blessed trinitie then all the Dunces Aquines Alberts the whole rablement of Scholemen of whome Bristow so vainely doth brag were euer able to attaine vnto who with their sophistrie and barbarousnes haue rather darkened then sette foorth the cleere light of those most excellent and diuine misteries The like impudent cauil he bringeth against M. Iewel whome no man I think without laughter can read to be charged with ignoraÌ„ce by bluÌ„dering Bristow for affirmiug Christ to be a prieste according to his deitie whoÌ„e the Apostle expresly saith by his eternall spirit to haue offred himself Heb. 9. ve 11. As for the comparisons betweene the Vniuersities of Papistes and ours how vaine it is all that be learned of indifferent iudgement can testifie And concerning degrees and ciuil titles of dignitie taken in our vniuersities beeing nothing else but testâ—monies of their learning which receiue them we think them better beeing confirmed by the Princes authoritie from whom all cidignities euen by ciuil law are deriued then such as are either giuen or confirmed by the Popes leaden Bulles The Atheists other vnreligious mindes in England are not nourished by the ignorance of the Protestants but detested by their godly and learned iudgement But if where there be most Atheists there is greatest ignorance then euen in Italy at Rome vnder the Popes nose where be most Atheists of any regioÌ„ almost in the world is greatest ignorance Where open blasphemies are as common yea oftentimes in the Popes mouth as the praises of God are among true christians What trauâ—ller in Italy is ignorant of this whether he be protestant Papist or Newter Last of all if the Chuches wisdome learning continuance was S. Augustines motiue the folly barbarousnes late shining of the popish Church is a motiue to make vs think that it is not the church of Christ. For Bristowes brags are not sufficient to carry away all credit of learning to popish doctors Vniuersities whose orders and readings he doth the rather commend to be so excellent that men w c knew him of late with periury to haue taken degrees in Philosophie should not meruaile that he is so sudenly transformed into so great a doctor of diuinitie eueÌ„ by once hearing the cause of Diuinitie which he supposeth none of our doctors knoweth what it meaneth such a goodly matter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby a manne maketh moste account of that he hath learned last But albeit the question be not of learning but of trueth yet if it would please the Papists to try the learning of our doctors Vniuersities vnder indifferent iudges I doubt not but they should be found equall vnto theirs that I say not in many things they should be found superiour The 32. motiue is the 22. demaund Aunuall celebrating of Christes mysteries The churches seruice is to be imbraced Christ is to be beleued for the scriptures of the olde testameÌ„t as they be vnderstood in the church Ember daies or Enper dayes whichy our blinde Apostles doe boldely say to haue ben the Popes leman The Martirs were of our religion Saints dayes laide downe by protestants as our Ladyes daies S. Laurence day the assumption of our Lady The Churches and seruiâ—e of heretikes to be râ—frained in paine of damnation Against communiâ—ating with them An admonition to priestes that say the now seruice Heretikes are idolaters and heresies are idols The yeare of Iubely 1575. Pilgrimage The sermons of Heretikes not to be heard their bookes not to be read Christ to be beleeued for the vertue of the signe of his Crosse which workesh miracles Visions for our religion The Annuall celebration of Christes misteries by dumb ceremonies and readings not vnderstood of the ignorant people although there were no heresie in the popish seruice nor no sufficient motiues to imbrace the popish synagogue as the church of Christ if the Scriptures and the figures of the lawe better applyed then they be in all the lumpe of the popish solemnities they would procure small credit to our Sauiour Christ but rather the scorning and derision of Turkes Iewes and Pagans As for the blind commeÌ„taries of the Iewes out of which he magineth we haue all our vnderstanding of the old testament how litle we trust in prophecyes of Christ may be seene in the written commentaries of Caluine Musculus such other The names of a great number of the solemne feastes as Bristow sayth doth argue in deede the Papists ether to haue inuented theÌ„ or to haue abused them as Candelmas Corpus Christi day c but that the same were inuented by that auncient Church w c celebrated the natiuity resurrection ascention of Christ cat is vtterly vntrue For your owne Durand testifieth that many of them were of late Popes institutioÌ„ w c
altogether purged from all similitude of popish actions by yelding vnto the infirmitie of the weaker sort yet is the Church of God perfect in her selfe and needeth not to borrow of any secte any thing for her perfect furniture in doctrine ceremonies or discipline but hath absolute rules to direct her in any of these expressed in the holy Scriptures For the diuision of parishes the holding of Councells excommunication suspension publike solemnising of mariage with the lawes of the same punishing of heretikes by death c. are all manifestly proued out of the Scriptures Probat of testaments and such like matters pertayne to the ciuill lawe And whereas Bristow sayth we could not tell that we shoulde vse baptisinge of men more then washinge of feete or this lesse then that or one to be a sacrament and not the other except we had bene taught by the popishe Churche it is a greate falshoode For althoughe we might alleage the iudgement of the moste auncient Churche of Christ which did not accept that action of Christ as a sacraments yet the wordes of our Sauiour Christ are manifest which doth not institute a sacrameÌ„t or visible signe of the inuisible grace of God giuen vnto vs but onely giueth vs an example thereby of seruice able humilitie one to an other Ioan. 13. 12. Wherefore no more in this then in any other matter doe we take any light out of the bookes and doings of those owles that flye in the darkenes of mens traditions but onely out of the lawe of God which is a light vnto our steps and a lanterne vnto our feete that we neede not like apes counterfeit externall toyes as they doe but being followers of God as wellbeloued children we may walke in loue as Christ hath loued vs and so faâ—re to followe the steppes of other men as we see plainly that they haue followed Christ. The 35. motiue is the 25. demaund States of perfection Monkes Monasteries Parliament religion We confesse that we haue no states of perfection in this life amonge vs which to affirme in any mortall man is blasphemye against the bloode of Christ. As for Monkes and Fryers names Eremites c none were farther from a Christian or honest life then they as the worlde knoweth sufficientlye And therefore by lawe they and their Monasteries were iustly subuerted As for the solitarye men of the auncient tymes dwelling by them selues or in the desert places called Mâ—nachâ— Anchoritae or Eremitâ—e these popishe orders of whose subuersion Bristow complayneth were no more like vnto them then Apes and Monkeyes are to men and women The communitye of goodes that was in the Church of the Apostles Act. 4. was none other then suche as is and ought to be amonge all true Christians which was not as Bristowe ignorauntlye and impudently affirmeth to liue without propriety of goodes hauing all thinges in an Anabaptisticall communitie but that they accompted nothing of that they possessed to be their owne when the necessitie of their brethren required the vse therof Act. 4. 32. 34. And Act. 5. 4. Peter affirmeth that both the lande and the price thereof was in the proprietye of Ananias so that he might haue retayned ether his land or the whole price thereof but that he was an hypocrite and would beare the Churche in hande that he had brought the whole price when he withdrewe a parte thereof As for Virgines although there be fewer amongest vs that boast of that profession yet are there more both men and women which freely keepe their purpose of virginitie then were amonge those popishe vowed cloystralls The 36. motiue is the 46. demaund The state of our predecessors Prayer for the deade the ground of building Christian monuments Vniuersities of heretikès and Catholikes Protestants be ashamed of their fathers The demaund serueth to be contrary to the motiue for in the motiue he confesseth that we will not condemne our auncestors that haue dyed these many hundred yeares in popish ignorance nor the auncient doctors which haue held some errors which the Papistes doe hold but in the demaund he asketh if all these are damned in hell if not then theirs is the true Church those errors are truth I aunswer we deale not with condemnation of men for lacke of two causes which make a Iudge the one austeritie the other is knowledge Concerning the first it pertayneth onely to Christ to be the Iudge of the quicke and the deade whose office we dare not vsurpe otherwise then he hath commaunded vs to pronounce sentence out of his word concerning the latter we take not vpon vs to knowe ether the faith or repentance of them that dyed before our time and therefore we commit their iudgement to God But generally we are taught by the Scriptures that such as holde the onely foundation which is Iesus Christ in a true faith shall be saued although they build vpon this foundation chaffe straw wood c. 1. Cor. 3. And therefore we doubt not but S. Augustine Chrysostom Hierom Gregory Bernard many thowsands euen in the tyme of great blindnes holding the same only foundation may be saued notwithstanding the chaffe and stubble of a few errors which the former sort did hold or a number of errors and superstitions wherewith the later sort were defiled As for Fraunces and Dominike such late leaders of the locustes we rather thinke they are returned into the bottomlesse pit from whence they came then that they be Saincts in heauen But if we excuse the rest by ignorance Bristow asketh why we condemne not Augustine which was not ignoraunt of our doctrine because he condemned it for most wicked heresie in Aerius Iouinian and Vigilantius who although they be our fathers he sayth we are ashamed to blesse their memorie First concerning Iouinian although he helde an heresie in not preferring virginitie before mariage in some respect yet haue we nothing to doe with him for we hold not that opinion which if we did yet were it no damnable heresy Touching AErius he is coÌ„demned of Augustine for an Arrian his opinioÌ„ of prayer for the deade although it were not liked of Augustine yet doth he in no place condemne it for most wicked heresie as Bristow calleth it but that he did allowe prayer for the deade it was an error of ignoraunce euen in S. Augustine as that he thought the communion necessary for infants Cont. duas ep Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 4. As for Vigilantius I finde him not reckened ether by Epiphanius or Augustine for an heretike or for one that erred in doctrine although Hierom did write so bitterly against him who likewise did write against Augustine and Ruffinus yet are nether of both accompted for heretikes And AErius as he helde some truth with vs against prayer for the deade so helde he also much popishe superstition and errour for like the order of Carthusians they of his sect admitted none to their felowship but such as professed
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
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
will proue that it is first with the Papistes For if by Gods word we meane the written letter of the Bible they are before vs because we haue none assured copies thereof which we receyued not of them for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered Gods word to the Romaines the Church of Rome hath alwayes kept it without leesing or corrupting I aunswer we meane not by Gods worde the written letter onely but receyuing and obeying the true and playne sense thereof to be the marke of the Church Againe I deny that we had any assured copies of the olde and new testament of the popish Church but the one of the Iewes in Hebrue the other of the Greeke Church in Greeke And whereas he talketh of a certayne daye in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered the Scripture to the Romains it sauoreth altogether of a popish fable finally how the Romish Church in these last dayes hath kept the Scripture from corruption although I coulde shew by an hundreth examples yet this one shall suffice for all the very first promise of the Gospell that is in the Scripture Gen. 3. that the seede of the woman shoulde breake the serpents heade the popish Church hath ether willfully corrupted or negligently suffered to be depraued thus ipsa conteret caput iuum she shall breake thyne heade referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressely to the seede of the woman The second marke is that the Papistes acknowledge more of the Bible then we doe by the bookes of Toby Iudeth Wisedom Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees I aunswer in that you adde vnto the word of God it is a certayne argument that you are not the true Church of Christ for the true Church of Christ hath euer accompted those bookes for apocryphall witnesse hereof Hieronym praef in prouerb Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritateÌ„ EcclesiasticoruÌ„ dogmatum confirmandam Therefore as the Church doth in deede reade the bookes of Iudith Tobias and of the Machabees but she receyueth them not among the canonicall Scriptures so she may reade these two bookes meaning the booke of Wisedom and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall opinions Nether is Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. whoÌ„ M. Sander quoteth of any other iudgement but prescribeth rules how the canonicall Scriptures are to be knowne And cont Gaudent epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesseâ—h plainely that the booke of Machabees is not accompted of the Iewes as the law the Prophets and the Psalmes which our Sauiour Christ admitteth as his witnesses yet it is receyued of the Church if it be read or heard soberly Whereby it is manifest that the Church in his tyme receyued it not absolutely as part of the Canonicall Scripture but vnder condition of a sober reader or hearer As for the decree ascribed to Gelasius it hath no sufficient credit of antiquitie and much lesse the late councels of Florence and Trent which he quoteth Beside that the same decree of Gelasius admitting but one booke of Esdras excludeth the Canonicall booke of Nehemias and receyueth but one booke of the Machabees which will doe the Papistes but small pleasure The third marke the popish Church receyueth not only the hebrue text of the old testament the greeke of the new but also the greeke translation of the septuaginta and the common Latine translation to be of full authoritie whereas we giue small credit to those translations except they agree with the first Hebrue and Greeke copies Therefore the Papists haue Gods word in more authenticke tongues and copies then we haue I aunswer The Tridentine councell alloweth none for authenticall but the common Latine translation that is the worst of all but in that the popish Church admitteth differing translations from the originall truth of the Hebrue and Greeke text to be of full authoritie with the truth it appeareth plainely that she is not the Church of Christ which ether willfully confoundeth error with truth or els lacketh the spirite of discretion to know the one from the other And for more authentike copies it is impudently sayd that the Papistes doe receiue for we receiue not onely all these which he nameth but also the most auncieÌ„t Chaldee Paraphrastes the Syrian text of the new testament yea the Arabicall text of the whole Bible beside all vulgare translations of English French Dutch Italian Spanish which the Papistes can not abide All those I saye we receyue as authenticall copies for Christian men to vse but so that the tryall of all translations be made by the originall truthe of the Hebâ—ue and Greeke texts in which tongue the olde and newe Testament were first written Fourthly the Papistes doe translate and expounde Gods worde in all maner of tongues better then we because they haue not onely internall vocation but also externall vocation and commission from the Apostles by lyneall succession of Bishops and Preestes whereas we haue no commission but â—rom the common wealth which hath none authoritie to make Preestes c and yet how shall they preache if they be not sent Rom. 10. I aunswer concerning translations of the word of God into all tongues I neuer saw any nether is there any translation to be shewed of any Papist into any vulgare tongue And as for the externall calling of the Papistes I say it is not from any lawfull succession of the Apostles and auncient Church whose faith and doctrine they do not follow in their interpretations for if lyneall succession of Priestes and Bishops coulde make interpretations good the doctrine of Arius Nestorius Macedonius and many other heretikes whose externall calling was according to the lyneall and ordinary succession of Bishops and Priestes might be auctorised for Catholike Yea the Papistes might not refuse whatsoeuer Luther Bucer Cranmer and other haue taught which had the same lyneall succession that M. Sander doth nowe bragge of And as for our externall calling he sayth falsly it is of the common weale c whereas it is of the Church and therefore ordinarye and lawfull and the saying of S. Paule whom he citeth Rom. the tenth is of the inward calling and sending by God whereof our doctrine agreeable with the Scripture and our whole intent to set forth the glory of God is a sufficient profe the one to satisfie men the other to aunswer our owne conscience Fiftly he sayth it is no perfection at all on our side that we reade Gods word to the people in our Church seruice in the vulgare tongue for thereby we lacke the vse of the better tongues as of the Greeke and Latine O maister of impudencie what vse is there of the Greeke and Latine tongues to be read to the people
that vnderstande them not And why are those the better tongues he sayth they were sanctified on Christes crosse for all holy vses and especially to serue God in the tyme of sacrifice But howe were they sanctified I pray you For sooth because Pilate wrote the title in Hebrue Greeke and Latine that it might be vnderstoode of all nations for what cryme he was condemned And is Pilate nowe become a sanctifier of tongues for Gods seruice is the malicious scorne of an heathen tyrant a sanctification of these tongues O brasen foreheads of shameles Papistes But heare more yet of this impudent stuffe This sanctification was the cause that the Apostles in the East and West deliuered these tongues alone as holy learned and honorable not regarding the infinite multitude of prophane and barbarous tongues whereof it came that the East Church was called the Greeke Church the West the Latine Church But the Scripture Acts the second doth teach vs that the holy Ghost hath sanctified all tongues of all nations to the praysing of God and that the Apostles deliuered the magnifical prayses of God in all languages Act. 2. 11. And although the Greeke and Latine tongues were most vsed most commonly vnderstoode in the Romane Empire yet the Church of Christ was enlarged farther then euer the Romane Empire extended in Persia Armenia AEthiopia India c. where there was no knowledge ether of the Greke or Latine tongues And euen in the Romain Empire those nations to whome the Latine Greeke tongues were not vulgare vsed their Church seruice in other tongues Hieronym in epitaphio Paulae ad Eustochium telleth that at the solemne funeralls of Paule euery nation that was present did singe their Psalmes in order in their owne language Hebraeo Graeco Latino Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant In the Hebrue Greeke Latine and Syrian speache the Psalmes were songe in order But seeing Maister Sander alloweth none other sanctification of the tongues but Pilates title on the crosse how is the Hebrue tongue which was one of the three and the most principall as the first tongue of the worlde and for the excellencye therof called the holy tongue how is that I say shut out from Church seruice why was there not an Hebrue seruice established by the Apostles as well as the Greeke and Latine But yet he bringeth another argument to proue that it is lawfull to reade seruice to the people in a tongue w c they vnderstaÌ„d not by the exaÌ„ple of Christ who in time of his sacrifice did recite the beginning of the 21 Psalme My God my God why hast thou forsaken me in y e Hebrue tongue which he knew the people did not vnderstand and did not interprete the same in the vulgar tounge Good Lord into what foollishnes doth satan carry their minds that wilfully striue against the truth For what reason is this Christ in his priuate praier that concerned his owne person spake with a touÌ„g that was not commonly vnderstood therefore the ordinary publike seruice ought to be in a strauÌ„ge toung Christ compassed about with his enemyes none within the hearing of him but the virgine Mary Iohn the Euangelist â—â—â—â— loued him or regarded him spake Hebrue therefore the Prieste in the church must speake Latine or Greeke But when M. Sand. hath played with this argument as long as he can his antecedent is vtterly false for Christe resited not that texte of the Psalme in the Hebrue but in the Syrian toung which was the vulgar tounge vnderstood and spoken of all the people as is manifestly proued by the word Sabacâ—tani reported by both the Euangelists Mat. 27. Mark 15. Which is of the Syrian tounge whereas the Hebrue texte is Hazabtani as I report me to all that can but read two tounges Hebrue and Syrian And whereas the malicious Hel-houÌ„ds said he called for Elias it was not because they vnderstood him not but because they most dispightfully mocked his most vehement praier taking occasion of the like sound of the name of God of Elias as scornefull deriders vse to doe Sixtly lest the Protestants should passe the Papistes in any one iote they haue the vse of the vulgar tongues in Dalmatia Assyria AEthiopia which acknowledge the supremacie of the Byshop of Rome This is a loude lye for neither the church of Dalmatians Moscouites Armenians Assirians AEthiopiaÌ„s nor any other of those East nations that retaine the name of Christe did euer acknowledge the Popes supremacie I knowe they haue fayned Fables of Letters sent from Preto Ioannes and such like which are meere forgeryes vppon the submission of some one poore wanderer that hath come out of those countryes But M. Sand. will shewe the cause why all Nations are not suffered likewise to vse their vulgar tounges in their seruice First he sayeth vulgar tounges cause barbarousnesse for the Preachers of those Countryes vnderstande not the Latine and Greeke tounges by this meanes What an absurde reason this is experience doth shewe For when or where was greater ignorance in the Cleargie then there and at such time as the Latine seruice was vsed How many in all England vnderstoode or coulde read the Greeke toung within these sixtie or eightie yeeres I speake nothing of the Hebrue tounge Contrarywise what age was euer more full of lyberall knowledge in all Sciences and learned tounges then this is euen in England France Germany where seruice is vsed in the vulgar touÌ„ge Theâ—fore the vse of thevulgar touÌ„ge in Church Seruice is not the cause of barbarousnesse The seconde reason is that necessitie inforceth the Apostolike See to tollerate these Nations in their vulgar tounges because they knowe none other but Protestants by schisme are fallen from Latine to Englishe that is from better to worse and therefore not to be tollerated But indeede the necessitie is because they will not receiue your Latine tounge and our schisme is from Antichriste to be ioyned with Christe from whose doctrine the Church of Rome by horrible schisme is departed for what the doctrine of Christe is concerning Publique Prayers in a tounge that is not vnderstoode his Apostle Saincte Paule hath abundauntly taught vs the 1. Corinthes the 14. Chapter Finally we defende that our naturall Engliâ—he tounge is better to ediâ—ie Englishe men then your balde Latine touÌ„ge that you vse in your popish seruice is for any vse of any man learned or vnlearned Seuenthly the Papistes doe not onely consider the written letter but also the plain meaning of euery proposition and as the words doe sound so doe they vnderstand them And heerof he bringeth many exaÌ„ples To this I answere that if they vnderstande all propositions aswel figuratiue as plain proper speaches as the words doe sound they make monstrous interpretations as if they vnderstande this proposition the rock was Christe as the words sound they make a new transubstantiation of the stone into Christ or this This cuppe is the newe Testament
that he deserued so to be and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the other Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution if he had lost it is superfluous Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were but at this time especially confirmed as his speciall case required His last reason is that admit Peter had not beene restored before this time yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority then any other Apostle had receued at any time and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes he aunsweareth by distinction forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship and yet Peter was chiefe of tâ—e Apostles and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high â—â—yshop wherein they were all inferiours to him and â—â—ee was their Primate and their heade and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be and in the same respecte is a straunge Logition Fynally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock deny the honor to his successors he will proue that the Byshop of Rome and none other hath all that authoritie which Peter sometime had and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature condition of Antichrist then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe The seconde Chapter THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ though not properly a Lordlynesse or heathenish dominion And in what sort this Eâ—clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmeÌ„t ofseculer princes and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared That there â—as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes The high Priest is preferred before the King by Gods law The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes That Moyses was a Priest THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a ministery or seruice by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion but altogether as vnlike to it as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth That no man properly can tâ—e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ. he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist â—ut also an Anabaptist For the coÌ„mon seruice that we oâ—â—e vnto Christ hindereth not but that a Christian man â—ay be Lord King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar to eche in things that belonged to them that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles like to the princes of the nations Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church some kind of primacy also it is cleerer by the scriptures then that it neede any proofe especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth namely where he citeth this text Feed my sheepe to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion iust measure of victuals in coÌ„uenient time which thing neither Peter did nether was he able to doe And much lesse any man in succession to him which is not equal in gifts with him And therefore the example of a stuarde who may prouide for a competent number of one family is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde beside him that is almightie For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse 23 they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos which hee calleth Exortem quandam eminentem potestatem A certaine peerelesse and highe power And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time c. True Euery seuerall Pastor or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority yet in that he argueth that the like should be in the whole church militant which is in euery parish it is out of all compasse of reason For that which is possible in the one is altogeather impossible in the other And the argument is no better then if we should say there is one steward in euery Colledge or greate house therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world And wheras he would proue his matter good by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles calleth Peter the first it is to childish friuolous For in euery nomber one or other must be the first it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship therefore his primacy was of order not of auctority Nether is he alwaies first named for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is of the dignity of the Apostles Iames is named before Cephas or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem by consent of most auncient writers neither doeth it folow that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi A prince of the people therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people as M. S. seemeth to say neither had Peter by those wordes feede my shope any auctority committed vnto him more then to the rest of the Apostles As for the name of Lord or tearme of dominioÌ„ sometime geueÌ„ by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment we striue not about it so there be no such dominion by him excercised
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
these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church it proueth not your exposition to be true for neither do all the old Doctors nor yet the new Papistes agree in one the same interpretation of this text And oftentimes it may inuincibly be proued that an heresie hath no grounde out of suche a text of Scripture although the true and naturall sense thereof can not be found at all The fift Chapter IT is proued out of the auncient fathers that S. Peter is this rocke whereupon the church was promised to be builded otherwise then M. Iewell affirmeth THat Peter was a rocke or stone vpon which the church was builded is graunted of vs but that he alone was a rock for the whole church to be builded vpoÌ„ we deny and M. Iewell rightly affirmeth that the olde Catholike fathers haue written and pronounced not any mortall man as Peter was but Christ him selfe the sonne of God to be this rocke whereon y t whole church is builded But M. Sander will proue if he can out of the old writers that not onely Christ is the chiefe rocke but Peter also is an other rocke so that the church by his doctrine is builded vpon two rockes and this he will shew 1. by their words 2. their reasons 3. by the same places which M. Iewell alleageth for the coÌ„trary opinioÌ„ The decretal epistles of Anacletus Pius Fabianus c. which in his owne conscience he knoweth to be forged he omitteth and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip aduers. haeres Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicaÌ„dae ecclesiae Petram dictum Was any thing hid from Peter which was called a rocke of the church which was to be builded This is graunted that he was a rocke or stone whereon the churche is builded and the same Tertullian in his booke de pudicitia sayth of this whole text that this was conferred to Peter Personally and perteineth to none other but such as he was namely an Apostle or Prophet Secundum enim Petri personam spiritualibus potestas ista conueniet aut Apostolo aut Prophetae For according to the person of Peter this power shall belong to spiritual men either to an Apostle or to a Prophet Where is then the succession of the B. of Bome But Hippolytus saith Princeps Petrus fideipetra Peter is chiefe a rocke of faith He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rocke whereon faith is builded Origenes in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud c. That great foundation and most sound rocke whereupon Christ hath builded his church But let Origenes expound him selfe in Math. cap. 16. Si autem super vnum illum Petrum arbitraris vniuersam ecclesiam aedisicari à deo quid dicis de Iacobo Ioanne filus tonitrui velde singulis Apostolis Verè ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est Tues Petrus super hanepetram edifiâ—abo ecclesiam meam pertae inferorum non praeualebâ—nt ei tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibus q perfectis fidelibus dictum videtur quoniam omnes sunt Petrus petrae in omnibus aedificata est ecclesia Christi aduersus nullum ecrum qui tales sunt portae preualent inferorum But if thou thinke the whole church is builded by God vpon that one man Peter what sayst thou of Iames and Iohn the sonnes of thunder or of euerie one of the Apostles Therefore it was in deede truly sayd vnto Peter Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will builde my church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile agaynst it yet it seemeth that it was spoken also to all the Apostles and to all the perfect faithfull because they are all Peter and stones and on them all the church of Christ is builded and agaynst none of them which are suche the gates of hell shall preuayle By this you see howe Origen is none of his howe so euer he abuse his name Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. lib. 4. Ep. 9 which sayeth that the church was builded vpon Peter Which we confesse as vpon one of the foundation stones but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum sayth Hoc erant vtique caeters Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscinur vt ecclesia vna monstretur The rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honor and auctoritie but the beginning procedeth from one that the church might be shewed to be one This speaketh Cyprian vpon the very text now in discussing Consequently he citeth Hilarie lib 6. de trinit Petrus c. Peter lieth vnder the building of the church and in ca. Math. 16. O in nuncupatione c. O happy foundation of the church in hauing the new name pronounced and ô rocke worthie of the building of that church which should dissolue the lawes of hell But the same Hilarie sayeth of Christ de trinit lib. 2. Vna haec est foelix fidei petra Petri ore confessa tu es filius Dei viui This is that onely happie rocke of fayth confessed by the mouth of Peter thou art the sonne of the liuing God And agayne lib. 6. Super hanc igitur confessionis petram ecclesiae aedificatio est Vpon this rocke of confession is the building of the church And againe Haec fides ecelesiae fundamentum est per hanc fidem infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae inferorum Haec fides regni caelestis habet claues c. This fayth is the foundation of the churche by this fayth the gates of hell are of no force agaynst it This fayth hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. Therefore not the person of Peter is the rocke for all the church to be built vpon S. Ambrose hath the next place whome he citeth Scr. 66. Si ergo c. If Peter then be a rocke vpon which the church is builded he doth well to heale first the feete that euen as he doth conteyne the foundation of faith in the church so in the man he may confirme the foundation of his members Of the auctoritie of this Sermon I will not dispute it shall sufâ—ice that Ambrose in Ps. 38. sayth Quod Petro dicitur Apostâ—lis diâ—itur non pâ—testatem vsurpamus sed seruiâ—â—s â—mperio That which is sayd to Peter is said to the Apostles we vsurpe not power but we serue vnder commaundâ—ment By this saying of Ambrose Peter is so a rocke and foundation as the other Apostles are not a rocke to beare all the building him selfe S. Basil is alleaged in Concâ—de paenit Petrus petra est c. Peter is a rocke through Christ the rocke For Iesus geueth his owne dignities he is a rocke and maketh a rocke This proueth not Peter to be the onely rocke of the militant church as M. Sander would make him After him he citeth Hierom in 16. Math.
of the holy Ghoste and by no ordinary authoritie 17 After the sending of the holy Ghost Peter aboue all the rest firste taught the fayth Chrysostome and Cyrill sayth he did it by the consent of all the rest who all stoode vp togither with him although one spake to auoyde confusion when the Apologie was made to answere the slaunderous scoffers But before that they taught euery one a like 18 The multitude conuerted said to Peter and to the other Apostles but to Peter by name VVhat shall we doe If this proue any thing it proueth the equallitie of the Apostles that hauing heard one man preach they demand not of him alone but of all the rest with him what they shall doe 19 Peter made aunswere for all that they should repent be baptised It was good reason seeing he made the apologie for all 20 Peter did the first miracle after the comming of the holy Ghost and by healing the lames feete shewed mystically that he was the rocke to establishe the feete of other I aunswere Iohn healed him as muche as Peter by Peters owne confession Act. 3. 12. and the lame mans acknowledging the benefit to be receiued equally from both in holding Peter and Iohn 21 Peter cōfessed Christ first not only before priuate mē but at the seate of iudgement Act. 4. It is false that Peter cōfessed Christ first before priuate men and at the seate of iudgement he confesseth equally with Ihon. 22 Peter alone gaue sentence with fullnesse of power vpon Ananias and Saphyra Not by ordinarie power but by speciall reuelation and direction of the holie Ghost whatsoeuer Gregorie a partiall iudge in this case doth gather 23 Peter was so famous aboue the rest that his shadow was sought to heale the diseased This was a singular and personall gift which the Pope hath not therefore it perteineth nothing to him 24 Peter did excommunicate enioyne penance to Symon Magus the first heretike Peter denounced Gods iudgement against him but not by way of excōmunication yet the argumēt is naught as all the rest are though the antecedents were graunted 25 Peter was the first that raised a deade body to life namely Tabitha after Christs ascētiō This is neither proued to be true neither if it were should Peter thereby haue greater auctoritie then his fellow Apostles which likewise raised the dead and peraduenture before Peter although S. Luke make no mention of them 26 Peter had first by vision that the Gentiles were called to beleue in Christ. This is false for Paule had that in vision before him Act. 9. 26. 17. 27 God chose that the Gentiles shoulde first of all heare the worde of the Gospell by Peters mouth and shoulde belecue Actes 15. This is false for Peter sayeth not first of all but of olde tyme. And the Eunuche of AEthiopia was baptised by Philippe before Cornclius of Peter 28 Prayer was made for Peter by the churche which was not so earnestly made for any other Apostle that we read of Their earnest prayer for Peter is set forth to shewe that God at their prayer deliuered Peter not that Peter was thereby shewed to be greater in auctoritie 29 Paule and Barnabas came to Ierusalem to the Apostles to fitch a solution from Peter Act. 15. as Theodoret noteth But S. Luke noteth that they came to all the Apostes and Elders at Ierusalem and not to Peter onely nor for his solution but for the solution of the councell 30 In the councell Act. 15. Peter did not onely speake first but also gaue the determinate sentence Both the partes of this proposition are false for Sainct Luke testifieth there was greate disputation before Saincte Peter spake also Sayncte Iames as President of the councell gaue the definitiue sentence accordinge to whose wordes the synodicall Epistle was written in the name of all the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem 31 Sainct Paule came to Ierusalem to see Peter as Chrysostome sayeth because he was primus first or chiefe But Sainct Paule him selfe affirmeth in the same place and diuerse other that he was equall with Peter and the highest Apostles Galathians 2. 8. 2. Corinthians 12. 11. 32 Peter was either alone or first chiefest in the greatest affaires of the church The greatest affaire of the church was the preaching vnto the Gentils in which Peter was neither alone nor first nor chiefest But Paule chiefest Gal. 2. 33 Peter was sent to Rome to occupie with his chaire the mother church of the Romane prouince and chiefe citie of the worlde and there vanquished Symon Magus the head of heretikes c. All this is vncerteyne being not founde in the Scriptures but those stories which reporte it conuinced by Scriptures to be false in diuerse circumstaunces 34 Peters chaire and succession hath bene acknowledged of all auncient fathers c. Although the see of Rome appoynted for the scate of Antechrist hath of olde bene verie ambitious yet it is a fable that hath bene acknowledged by all auncient fathers to haue the auctoritie which the Bishoppes thereof haue claymed For Irenaeus rebuked Victor for vsurping All the Bishops of Africa in councel withstoode Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius and Caebastinus alleaging for their auctoritie a counterfaite decree of the councell of Nic◠as we haue shewed before in the first treatise the like may be sayed of the councells of Chalcedon of Constantinople the 5. c. which withstoode the Bishoppe of Romes auctoritie in such cases as he pretended prerogatiue To cōclude neither any one nor altogether of these 34. reasons proue Peter to be greater in auctority then the rest of the Apostles and much lesse the Bishoppe of Rome to be greater then Bishops of other seates The tenth Chapter THat the Apostles beside the prerogatiue of their Apostleshippe had also the auctoritie to be particular Bishoppes which thing their name also did signifie in the olde time ALthough the Apostles had all such auctoritie as euerie particular Bishop hath yet had they not two offices but one Apostleship No more then a King although he haue all auctoritie that euerie Constable hath is thereby both a King and a Constable but a King onely Neither doth their staying or as he calleth it residence in some particular citie proue that the Apostles either were or might be Bishops that is geue ouer their generally charge and take vpon them a particular or still reteyning their generall charge to exercise the office of a Bishoppe any longer then vntill the churche was perfectly gathered where they remayned For although the holy Ghost distinguished their vniuersall charge into seuerall partes to auoyde confusion as in making Peter chiefe Apostle of the circumcision and Paule of the Gentiles yet were they not thereby made Bishoppes And although the consent of writers is that Iames was Bishoppe of Ierusalem yet following the course of the Scriptures we must hold that Iamesby decree of the holy Ghost was appoynted to stay there not as a
to the former doctrine of Peters primacie namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade because they were not in dauÌ„ger of error the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring hath continued in Peters successors more then in the successors of all the Apostles Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle that he might confirme his brethren I haue often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter was proper to Peters person therefore can not be drawne to his successors And what madnes is it to defend that the Pope can not erre when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant. But M. Sander concludeth to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship but by the appoyntment and will of Christ Peter was heade to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest is one as a kingdom one by hauing one king in it Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ ouer all his Church to make it one in the holy Scriptures when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely then was not Peter his superiour in any respect That Paule reprehended Peter M. Sander sayth he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship If that be so why may not euery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike If you graunt they may then haue you so many Canones against you as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession But this fault you say with Tertullian was of conuersation not of preaching that Peter might not seeme to haue erred in doctrine Neuertheles it can not be excused but Peter also erred in doctrine Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe or of Christian libertie but of bearing too much with the Iewes in preiudice of the Gentils whom he compelled to Iudaisme in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine which dissimulation he entred not into for any worldely respect but because he was dâ—ceyued in opinion thinking that in that case he ought so to haue done before he being reprehended by Paule sawe the inconuenience and then myldely yelded to the correction But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles seeing Christ had sayde he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser In deedâ— he shewed herein such greatnes as Christ commendeth but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren Cyprian ad Quintum sayth he did not iudge this reprouing of Peter to be an argument against his supremacie but a witnes of his humilitie but he giueth vs this much to vnderstande that if he had chalenged primacie he had taken vpon him arrogantly his wordes are these Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For nether did Peter whome our Lorde chose the first and vpon whome he builded his Church when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward chalenge any thinge insolently or take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the primacie and that he ought rather to haue bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers nether did he despise Paule for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche but he did admitte the counsell of truth The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye De bap cont Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis c. VVe haue learned in the holy Scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence when he vsed to dâ—e otherwise then the truth required about circumâ—sion was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order not of dignitie and authoritie But Gregory much later then Augustiue graunteth to Peter not onely a primacie bâ—t also a maioritie in Ezech. Hâ—m 18. Quatenus c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship should be chiefe also in humilitie And agayne Eâ—ce à minore c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser and he disdayneth not to be reproued Nether doth he call to minde that he first was called to the Apostleship These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise then that he was first called to the Apostleship which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther Zwinglius Caluine c. and their bitter dissentions shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles It is not to be doubted that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues if they come not nearer to them then the Pope and his pompous Clergye let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vpon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized he aunswereth that proueth no more their equalitie then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop to go about busines of the chapter it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the CanoÌ„s But by his fauor where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines to be inferior to the whole chapiter as Peter Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles though the Bishop or Deane in other respects be superior to the Canons and Peter and Iohn were equall to euery one of the Apostles Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vpon a false supposition that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles if they had fallen as Iudas did therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right but by concession election or vsurpation The 12. chapter THat S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the other Apostles is most manifestly seenâ— by his chiefe Bishoply power Howe Christ loued Peter aboue others M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter superior to the Apostles not in their Apostleship but in his Byshoply degree doth yet againe distinguish the order and office of a Byshop from the authoritie and iurisdiction of the
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
gouerne all the faythful by helpe of many inferiour officers As thoughe the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time If S. Peter then was not able to rule w c had such greate giftes muchlesse the Pope which is nothing comparable with him in gifts is often a wicked man an here tike is able to gouerne all the Church for he hath not so great an helpe of the conuersion of the worlde as he hath a want of Peters gracious giftes meete for such a gouernment Secondly he would haue vs mark the peculiar names of a Rock of a pastor of a confirmer of his brethren which are giueÌ„ by Christ to S. Peter alone which argue that Peters supremacy must necessarily continue for euer But who will graunt to M. S. that Christe gaue these peculier names to Peter alone indeed that which is meÌ„t by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church Peter was a Rock not his person but his doctrine that remaineth stil in the Church he was a shephearde and confirmer of his brethren and there bee nowe many shepheards and confirmers of their brethren Thirdly he sayth the Church neuer wanted a visible rock on the earth beside the eternall Rock Christ who in this life might bee so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christe the great Rocke that he though not for his owne sake yet for the Churches sake might be able to stay vppe all other small stones which ioyned vnto him vntill Christ came in the fleshe who likewise appoynted Saincte Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock as Adam Enos Henoch Noe Abraham Isaac Iacob Moyses Aaron and his successors who sate in the chaire of Moyses vntill the comming of Christ. Against this I say that the church militant on earth hath her foundation in heauen and not on earth therfore the churche hath not a visible rocke in earth Againe it is not true that some one hath alwayes bene this visible rocke on earth For who was greater Abraham or Melchisedech out of all controuersie Melchisedech then was not Abraham the onely rocke After the death of Iacob and the twelue Patriarkes who was the visible rocke vntill Moyses was called And yet had God a church among the Iewes all that time Thirdly who is so impudent to say that all the successors of Aaron were so strongly fastened in the faith that they were able to stay all the small stones that leaned vpon them Was not Vrias the high Priest an idolater 2. Reg. 16. What were Iason Menclaus Lysimachus by the reporte of the booke of Machabes Was not Caiphas Annas Sadducees by the testimonie of S. Luke Act. 5. and of Iosephus Where is then the visible rocke whose faith neuer failed c we see there was none suche before Christ therefore there neede to be none suche after him His fourth reason is of the name of a pastor which signifieth an ordinarie office for as the sheepe continue after S. Peters death so must there be also a shepheard as Peter was But how proueth he that Peter was an only shepheard forsooth Chrysostom sayth lib. 2. de sacerdotio Christus sanguinem c. Christ hath shedde his bloode to purchase those sheepe the care of whom he did commit both to Peter to Peters successors But whom doth Chrysostom take for Peters successors the Bishops of Rome only No verily but all true pastors of the church as his wordes going before doe manifestly declare Neque enim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur siquidem id multis nobis argument is constabat Verum hoc ille sum agebat vt Petrum caeteros nos edoceres quanta beneuolentia ac charitate ergasuam ipse ecclesiam afficeretur vt hac ratione nos quoque eiusdem ecclesiae studium curamque toto animo susciperemus For his purpose was not then to testifie vnto vs howe muche he was beloued of Peter for that was euident vnto vs by many arguments But this thing then he intended that he might teache both Peter and all vs what beneuolence and loue he beareth towarde his church that by this reason we also might take vpon vs with all our hart the loue charge of the same church This sentence sheweth that Chrysostome accounted him selfe euery true pastor of the church a successor of Peter and not the Bishop of Rome alone As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I haue often protested that he was more addicted to the dignitie of his see then the Scripture would beare him and therefore was ouerruled and resisted in the generall councel of Chalcedon His fift argument is a rule of lawe where the same reason is the same right ought to be The reason of Peters confession and power is such as agreeth to any ordinary office of the church therefore the office of Peter being a rock of strengthening his brethren and feeding Christes sheepe is an ordinarie office But I say that Peters confession made him not a rock but declared him so to be being appoynted of Christ for one of the twelue foundations of the churche the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Peter so it is not ordinarie that it should be singular in any man His sixt reason Irenaeus Optatus and Augustine did recken vp such successors of Peter as had liued till euâ—rie of their ages or times Therefore Peter had successors in his pastorall office It is not denyed but he had them and other Bishoppes also successors in his pastorall office at least the Bishoppes of Antioche whereby your owne cofession he was Bishoppe before he came to Rome Therefore his succession was not singular to the Bishoppes of one see His seuenth reason no man may preache to them to whom he is not sent therefore there must be a generall pastor to sende other to preache to them that are not conuerted to plant newe Bishoprikes to controll them that are negligent to supplie the thinges that lacke to excommunicate such as liue in no diocesse c. For sending he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is onely of the sending of God and of the sending by men But all his questions and doubtes may be aunswered Either the whole church in generall councells or euerie particular church in their synodes as they shall see most expedient may sende preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria order all such matters as he imagineth must be done onely by the Pope But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishoppes to generall or prouinciall councells And I aske him who summoned the foure great principall generall councells and so many prouinciall councels but the Emperours and Princes in whose dominion they were gathered So that here is no necessary affaires of the church that doth require one generall pastor or Pope of Rome when all thinges may and haue bene done best of all without him As for placing of Bishoppes in sees
vacant vniting of two Bishoprikes in one or diuiding one into two may better be done by the auctoritie of those churches with consent of their Princes who seeth and knoweth what is needefull in those cases then by one which sittinge in his chaire at Rome requireth halfe a yeares trauell from some parte of the worlde to him before he can be aduertised of the case and yet must vnderstande it by heare saye and therefore not able to see what is expedient so well as they that are present and see the state of the matter Finally it is against all likelyhoode that Christ woulde make suche a generall sheepehearde ouer all his flocke as many thousande sheepe which liue vnder the Sophi the Cham the Turke can haue none accesse vnto for suche thinges as are supposed necessarie to be had and to be obteyned from him onely Wherefore if the Pope were heade of the churche suche as by crueltie of tyrauntes are cut from him shoulde be cut from the bodie of the church Yea if Hethenish tyrauntes coulde so much preuayle as they do in hindring this gouernment of the Pope pretended to be so nâ—cessarie the gates of hell might preuayle against the churche contrarie to the promise of Christ. The fourteenth Chapter THat the ordinarie auctoritie of S. Peters primacie belongeth to one Bishop alone The whole gouernmeÌ„t of the church tendeth to vnitie COncerning Peters primacie as there is litle in the Scriptures wherupon it may be gathered so I haue shewed that it was not in him perpetuall For there are greater arguments to proue the primacie of Iames. Agayne the greatest shewe of Peters primacy that we reade of in the Scriptures is the primacie or heade Apostleshippe of the circumcision So that if one Bishoppe should succeede him in that primacie he must be chiefe Bishoppe ouer the Iewes and not ouer the Gentiles For the chiefe Apostleshippe ouer the Gentiles was by God committed to Paule Galat. 2. 7. 8. But if M. Sander say as he doth in an other place that the Pope succeedeth both these Apostles and therefore hath both their auctoritie First he ouerthroweth his owne rocke of the church which he will haue to be Peter alone Secondlie his argument of vnitie which he vrgeth in this chapter he subuerteth if the Popes auctoritie be deriued from two heades Thirdly he destroyeth his owne distinction of Bishoplike and Apostolike auctoritie if the Apostolike auctority of Paul should descend to the Pope by succession Nowe let vs consider what weighty reasons he hath to proue the title of this chapter S. Peters auctority was specified before the auctoritie was geuen to the rest of binding loosing Mat. 18. Therfore seeing it was first in him alone it ought to descend to one Bishop alone But let M. Sander shew where it was geuen to him alone or promised to him alone ether For the promise thou shalt be called Peter gaue him no auctoritie nor yet the performance thereof Thou art Peter But still the auctority is promised I will build I will geue I reason as M. Sander doth of the Future tense which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter onely but to all the rest and so all auctoritie is geuen in common Ioâ—an 20. But S. Cyprian ad Iubaianum sayth that Christ gaue the auctority first to Peter Petro primus Dominus super quem aedificauit ecclesiam vnitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit vt id solueretur in terris quod ille soluisset This doth M. Sander translate Our Lorde did first geue vnto Peter c. Wheras he should say Our Lord was the first that gaue to Peter vpon whom he builded his churche and instituted and shewed the beginninge of vnity this power that whatsoeuer he loosed it should be loosed in earth This proueth that the auctoritie came first from Christ but not that it was geuen first to Peter And if we should vnderstand it so that it was first geuen to Peter yet he meaneth not that it was geuen to reside in his person but that in him as the attorney of the rest it was geuen to them also as he saith lib. 1. Ep. 3. Petrus tamen super quem aedificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce respondens ait Domine ad quem ibimus c. Yet Peter vpon whome the churche had beene builded by the same our Lorde as one speaking for all and aunswering in the voyce of the church sayeth Lorde whether shall we goe c. as he spake for all so he receaued for all Which thing if it had bene so as we sinde not in the Scripture yet could it haue beene no ordinary matter to discend to one by succession For the power beeing once receiued by one in the name of the reste and by him deliuered to the rest it should be continued in succession of euery one that hath receiued it and not euery day to be fetched a new from a seuerall heade For that beginning came from vnitie which Cyprian speaketh of when Peter beeing one was the voice mouth of the rest and so receiued power for the rest which being once receiued the church holdeth of Christe and not of Peter or his successors no more then a corporation holdeth of him that was their atturney to receiue either lands or authoritie from the Prince but holdeth immediatly of the Prince Wherfore this argument followeth not although the authoritie had begon in one that it should continue in one The second reason is that the most perfect gouernment is meete for the Church but most perfection is in vnitie therefore there ought to be one chiefe gouernor of all This one chiefe gouernour is our Sauiour Christ ruler both in heauen in earth Who ascending into heauen did not appoynt one Pope ouer all his church but Apostles Euangelistes Prophets Pastors and teachers that we might all meete in the vnitie of faith and grow into a perfect man Eph. 4. 11. 12. The third reason is that the state of the newe Testament must be more perfect then the law but in the law there was one high pastor the high Priest on earth therefore there must be one now also and much rather I aunswere we haue him in deede our chiefe Bishop high Priest of whome the Aaronicall Priest was but a shadow namely Iesus Christ whose gouernment is nothing lesse perfect and beneficiall to his church in that he sitteth in heauen and hath as before is cited lefte an ordinarie ministerie on earth in many Pastors and teachers ouer euerie seuerall congregation and not in one Pope ouer al which could not possibly either know or attend to decide the one thousande parte of controuersies which are determined by y e auctoritie of Christs law and such ministers as he hath ordeyned The fourth reason is of auctority Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae vna est c.
Bishop in euery diocese For he writeth against fiue Elders or Priestes which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatike to be Bishop in Carthage against him But what other malicious ignorance or shameles impudence is this that he peruerteth the saying of Christ of him selfe to the Pope There shall be one sheepefold one shepheard Ioan. 10 Yet see his reason A flocke of shepe is one by force of one pastor therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one the flocke is not one on earth If this argument be good howe is the flocke one vpon earth when there is no Pope For the see hath bene voyde diuerse times many dayes many monethes somtime many yeares Howe was the flocke one when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often and so long together Therefore the flocke on earth is one by that one onely shepheard Iesus Christ whose diuine voice all the shepe heare though in his humanity he be ascended into heauen and not by any one mortal man to whom they can not be gathered nether being so farre abroad dispersed can heare his voyce And the whole order of the church on earth tendeth to an vnitie in Christ not in one man whatsoeuer as one generall pastor For if that one shoulde be an heretike and all the church tend to vnity in him the whole church should be wrapped in heresie with him That diuerse Popes haue bene heretiks as Libeâ—ius Anastasiâ—s Vigilâ—us Honorius Ihon the 23. in knowne condemned heresies it is too manifest by recordes of antiquitie that it shoulde be denyed wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary auctoritie to be limited in one successioÌ„ that it should haue prehemineÌ„ce imisdiction ouer all the churche Seeing vnity is best mainteyned in doctrine by his word in gouernment by the discipline by him appoynted And vnity in truth can not be had at the handes of a man which is a lyer experience sheweth that the iurisdiction which the Bishoppe of Rome hath claimed hath bene occasion of most and greatest schismes and dissentions that haue bene in particular churches wheÌ„ no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome beside so many schismes as haue bene in the same see which haue set all the Christian world together by the cares while they were deuided in factioÌ„s some holding with one Pope and some with an other and some with the third and some with none of them all The 15. Chapter THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinarie pastor who succeedeth in S. Peters chaire and is aboue all Bishoppes according to the meaning of Gods worde VVhy S. Peter dyed at Rome S. Augustines minde touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome THe first reason is that although Peter at the first was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision theÌ„ of the Gentiles yet because he did at length settle him selfe at Rome by Gods appointment and left a successor there he sayeth he may well affirme that the Bishop of Romes primacy is warranted by Gods word A strauÌ„ge kind of warantise for to omit that the primacy ouer the Gentils by Gods worde is giuen to another namely to Paule from whom he can neuer proue that it was taken afterward Where hath he any worde of God to proue that by his appointment Peter setled him self at Rome and appoynted there a successor He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordayned not by Peter onely but by Peter Paule the Apostles who founded the Church there euen as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia was made bishop in Smyrna which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paule and continued by Iohn the Apostles he citeth as witnesses alike with the Church of Rome of the tradition of the Apostles against Valentinus and Marcion which being voyd of Scriptures bragged of the tradition of the Apostles But of Peters primacie or his successors ouer all Bishops Irenaeus sayth not a word No more doth Tertullian whom likewise he quoteth de praescrip but euen as Ireneus would haue the tradition of the Apostles against those heretikes that boasted of it to be tryed by the coÌ„fession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles His second reason is vpon a false supposition that he hath already proued Peter alone to be the rocke to haue chiefe authoritie in feeding c. all which thinges are vntrue That Peter came to Rome he is not content that it be testified by all auncient Ecclesiasticall writers But he sayth it is witnessed by the expresse word of God 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you Although the history of Peters comming to Rome and sitting there 25. yeares testified by so many writers is proued false in many circumstances by the playne worde of God yet I am content to admitte that he came thither towarde the later ende of Ne roes raigne But that in his Epistle he sent salutations from Rome I can not admitte seeing that in such manner of salutations men vse not to write allegorically albeit that in the reuelation of Saint Iohn Rome the sea of Antichrist is mystically called BabyloÌ„ But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write is more probably to be taken for a citye of that name in Egypt where Marke was with him whoÌ„ the consent of antiquitie affirmeth to haue bene Bishop of Alexandria a citie of Egypt also who coulde not haue bene with him at Rome Seeing it is manifest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Galathians and by diuerse of Saint Paules Epistles that if euer Peter was at Rome it was but a short tyme in the later ende of Nero his Empire Whereas Marke dyed in the eyght yeare of his raigne before Peter coulde be at Rome For in the tenth yeare Paule was brought prisoner to Rome Saint Luke accompanying him who would not haue omitted to shewe that Peter was there to haue mette him as the rest of the brethren did if he had then bene at Rome Agayne Paule in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome sending salutations from meane personages would not haue omitted mention of Peter if he had bene there Saint Luke then affirming that he taryed two yeares in prison at Rome which must be vntil the twelfe yeare of Nero it followeth that if Peter came he came very late to Rome within two yeare before his death at which tyme it was not possible that Marke which was dead foure yeares before could be at Rome with him wherefore Babylon in that text can not be taken for Rome Another reason of the Popes supremacy he maketh that Peter not onely came thither but also dyed there A simple reason why the city of Rome should haue that prerogatiue because she murthered y e Apostles Rather might IerusaleÌ„ clayme it in which Christ the head of all dyed After this he telleth the fable
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
gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
are made according to that which is namely the trueth set foorth in the holy Scriptures not according to that which euery foole will fondly suppose or imagine The 44. Motiue is the 49. demaund The Church that all Chrsstes enemies fight against Englande ioyneth with Christes enemyes againste Christendome VVhat Religion the Iowes impunge as the Religion of Christ. Christ is to bee beleeued for conuerting of Emperours and powers from their Idols to serue his seruauntes The Church is euerlasting and visible Saincte Augustines motiue Emperors turned from their Idols and praying at Peeters sepulchre and the Christianitie of humane lawes Sainct Augustine of our Religion Protestants bee of many olde heresies The popish Church was not persecuted by the heathen Emperous but the Catholike church of Christ The popish Church is not of so great antiquitie that shee had then any shewe in the worlde although the misterie of iniquitie did then woorke and euen in the Apostles time The Heathens Turks and Iewes doe no more hate the popish church then they doe the church of God which is in England The warres against the Turke be at this day maintained by the states of Germany which are of our religioÌ„ aswel as by the Papists That there is no publike ayde sent against the Turk out of England it is not in any allowaunce of Turkish religion but because the state seeth it not necessary neither was there any publike ayde sente an hundreth yeeres be ore the reuolte from Papistrie And yet euen in the Queenes maiesties raigne there hath gone ayde out of England against Soliman which died at the siege of Segesto where diuers noble Gentlemen of Englande goinge on their owne charges as Bizia testifieth wan more true glory then they that 2. or 3. hundred yeeres before vpon a superstitious vowe were signed with the crosse to fight against the Saracens for the possession of the earthly Ierusalem How often shall I aunswer that the first christian Emperours were not conuerted from Idolatry to Christianitie by the popish Church but the later Christian Emperours by her haue bene peruerted from the true worship of God vnto Idolatry That the Emperours being conuerted from Idolatry did pray at Peter the fishermans sepulchre as Augustine sayth it sheweth the vertue of y e Gospel of Christ that had made so great alteration in them but nothing at all proueth the authoritie or any error of the popish Church for Augustine sayth not that they prayed vnto Peter but at the sepulcher of Peter meaning in the Church that was builded vpon the place that was supposed to be the buriall of Peter The lawes that those Emperours made against Idolaters may well serue against the Papistes w c are as grosse in all kindes of Idolatry as the Gentills for the most part were Finally it was not y e popish Church but the Church of Christ that suppressed the heresies of the Arrians Sabellians Nestorians c. But Iouinian did let out of hell Priestes and Nunnes mariage which gate not the Church of Protestantes but our Church sayth Bristow hath stopped The Church that striued against Iouinian was nether for mariage of Priestes of whom many thowsands were maryed in that tyme yea and a thowsande yeares after nor yet for mariage of such as had vowed virginitie and could not contayne when both Epiphanius the hatchet of heresies and Hierome that greatest aduersary of Iouinian agree that they ought to marye Epiph. cont Apostolicoshaer 61. Hierom ad Demetriadem Nether were Epiphanius Philaster and Augustine which disalow the opinion of Aerius concerning prayers for the dead members of the popish church for this one error which they held seeing they hold the principall substance of religion against the Papists and agreeable to the word of God That Bristow sayth in the demaund VVe count Turkes Iewes and very Atheistes for our frendes and all that be not Papistes it is a most detestable slaunder The Anabaptistes burned in Smithfield were no Papistes the blasphemer of Christ lately burned at Norwiche was no Papist whose sharpe execution sheweth that heretikes blasphemers and Atheistes when they are discouered finde no friendship at the handes of Christes Church but such as they deserue Finally the Easterne Church which of long tyme hath bene separated from the Romish communion hath as great enemies of the Turkes heathen and Iewes as the Popish Church hath yet will not the Papistes allow it for the Catholike Church The 45. motiue conteyneth the 31. 32. 33. 40. demaundes Euer visible and Catholike Vniuersalitic Antiquitie Consent Protestants were neuer before this tyme. They are ashamed of their fathers Hus was not a Protestant VVicklefe was not a Protestant VVicklefe condemned by Melancthon Prophecy for our religion No Scripture against the Catholikes but all for them Here is nothing but the old popish bragge of vniuersalitie antiquitie and consent which is as easily denied as it is allwayes alleaged without proofe Sauing that in the demaundes they are sundered as though euery one of them without the other two were a sufficient triall of truth which nether Vincentius nor Optatus nor Augustine nor any that vsed this argument did euer meane But that is truth which being most auncient hath at all tymes of all true Christians by general consent bene receyued But this can not be proued of any one error of poperye For if any of these three be omitted the argument is of no force to proue truth All nations by generall consent embraced Idolatrie yet was the true worship of God which was knowen onely in Iurye the more auncient The worship of Iupiter was more auncient then the honor of Christ shewed in the flesh and more vniuersally receyued but not of the true worshippers of God As for generall councells which in the demaund of consent he sayth to be all against the Protestants he is not able to shewe one approued generall councel that was held within six hundreth yeares after Christ that decreed any thing contrary to that which we beleue in any poynt But confessing that in many ages some there haue bene in some poyntes of our opinion yet he sayth we can shewe no lyneall succession but leape from Luther to Christ without any recorde of our religion in all the meane tyme hauing no monument of such Church nether in leafe or lyne of seruice booke As one that loueth antiquities well I would fayne see what leaues the Papistes can shewe of their seruice bookes to proue a lyneall descâ—nt from Christ to Pope Gregory the 13 when Bristow sweareth perdie to agree in all poyntes with Pope Leo the tenth which was in Luthers tyme some of their seruice being made by Thomas Aquinas some by Fulbertus some taken out of Beda some out of Gregory some out of Augustine some out of Hieronyme some out of Iohn Chrysostom and of Ambrose and the eldest I thinke not of Origen which argueth nether antiquitie nor vniuersalitie to stand with the popish seruice as for
of saluation brought in by the Pope then S. Paule deliuered to the Galathians we hold the Pope theÌ„ iustly accursed But we iustifie them sayth he by the word of God not written I am sure but by your counterfeit word of traditions as you say by bookes of auncient fathers and yet not by bookes of the most auncient fathers in whome is litle or nothing at all of suche drosse and chaffe amonge a great deale of good corne But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like thinges sayth he but keepe the olde humilitie obedience and vnitie is our fault if we haue any O fautles hypocrites if the older truth had neuer bene reuealed vnto you against your olde heresies your faults had bene the lesse but nowe your darkenes being conuinced of the light your pride rebellion and schisme from Christ and his Church is and appeareth most haynous and manifest Now seeing M. Sander dare not encounter with vs in this very poynt of our contention he sayneth an Idoll of an aduersary to shew his manhood vpon before his friendes that they may prayse him for a worthy champion He imagineth that we reply that Luther and Caluine did so change popish religion as Christ and his Apostles did chauÌ„ge the Iewish religion and then he layeth on lode that Luther and Caluines authoritie is not like to Christes whereas we make no such comparison but affirme that these godly preachers were sent of God so to reueale and discouer the idolatry corruptions mayntayned in the Church as Elias Elizeus Oseas and the other Prophets were sent to restore and reforme the true worship of God corrupted and decayed amonge the Israelites reprouing and reforming all thinges according to the infallible rule of Gods worde And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech I say it is horrible blasphemy to make any successors vnto Christ in â—â—â—â— priesthood which the holy Ghost sayth he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as passeth not from him by succession to others because he liueth for euer And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin in Psal. 33. de ciui Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont adu leg lib. 1. cap. 18. reade the places who will and he shall finde that these fathers speake not at all of any propiciatory sacrifice of Christes very body and bloode in the sacrament but of the sacrifice of thankes giuing which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God in the celebration of the holy mysteries for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blinde and obstinate Papists to see the bookes margent paynted with quotations of doctors by them which peraduenture neuer turned the bookes them selues but borowed their quotations of other men But M. Sander sayth whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine doe all things according to Gods worde they are the more to be abhorred not only because the one is contrary to the other but also because they pretende to haue their doings figured and prophecyed in the Gospel whereas there is but one Christ which hath bene borne dyed but once therefore these men haue no power to abrogate the Masse or to take away the key of auncient religion To their dissention I aunswer it is not in many poyntes but in one that not of the greatest weight as for their pretence of theyr doinges to be figured or prophetied in the Gospell it is a dreame of M. Sanders drousie head for they make none such but they shew the abuses of the Romish church by the doctrine of Gods word by the same they shew the way to reforme them and this to the glory of Christ who dyed but once they abrogate the Masse by which it should follow if it were of any force that he should dye often for without death sheding of bloud there is no sacrifice for remission of sinnes Heb. 9. 22. 26. If we deny the Masse to be that they say it is he aunswereth that as he doeth not reade that the Iewish priestes did erre concerning the substance of their publike sacrifice So is it lesse possible that the vniuersall church of Christ should erre in that publike act wherin Christ is sacrificed Here is a wise argument hauing neither head nor foote nor any ioynt to hange togeather For whatsoeuer M. Sander readeth we reade that Vrias the high Priest made an heathenish altar in the Temple at the commaundement of the king Achas offered sacrifice theron 2. Reg. 16. VVe reade also in Iosephus that Caiaphas diuers other of y e high Priestes were Saduces which could not but erre in the substaÌ„ce of their publike sacrifice when they beleued not the resurrection Seeing the end of theyr sacrifices was to signifie y e eternall redâ—ption by Christ. Now to the second parte of the argument I say the vniuersall church dyd not erre though the schismaticall synagogue of Rome departed froÌ„ Christs institutioÌ„ But M. SaÌ„der chafeth vs away with this double negatiue no no maisters Antechrists you may be christ you caÌ„not be Gods curse light on him that would haue any other Christ theÌ„ Iesus the sonne of God Mary which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heaueÌ„ But it is your Antechrist of Rome that vsurpeth not only the office but also receiueth the name of Christ God of his AntechristiaÌ„ Canonists w c I know you will not deny though your face be of brasse because â—â—â—â— boks may be shewed to any maÌ„y list to se theÌ„ After his large excursion he returneth to D. Parker whome he would aduise to reuolt to the popish church but he God be thanked hauing ended his dayes in the catholike church of Christ on earth is now receued into the fellowship of the tryumphant church in heauen I passe ouer how maliciously he â—ayleth against the blessed martyr Tho. Cranmer for defence of whose learning and godlines I refer the reader to his story faithfully set forth by M. Fox All other Archbishops of Canterbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Gregory were of their popish profession Of a great number it is as he sayth but not of all For the opinion of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament was not receiued in the Church of England for two or three huÌ„dereth yeeres after Augustines arriual as that Homely which that reuerend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury caused to be translated and imprinted doth manifestly declare And whereas hee sâ—orneth at the persecuted congregation of Wickleue Husse and the poore men of Lyons boasting of the externall pompe and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church I haue sufficiently aunsweared before that bothe the apostacy of the church of Antichrist the persecution of the church of Christ was so described proficied before that neither the one nor the other should trouble any mans conscience w
t the straungens thereof so long as the trueth of the little flock the falshod of the reuolted multitude are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures The conclusion of all his Preface is that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superfluous Yea verely all Scriptures Doctors and Councelles be needlesse where there is such a person alwaies at hand who cannot erre in any thing that he commandeth men to beleeue or doe And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures doctors couÌ„cels Learning Tounges c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth But what saye you M. Sander did there neuer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre Was that See neuer voyde many dayes many monethes and many yeeres togither And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes who sat in Peters Chaire You will say one of them but which you cannot tell Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar The one cursed the other absolued the one commannded the other forbadde Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire and vnitie thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth and with his glorious appearance and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse for euer and euer Amen The first Chapter THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after him VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope and of S. Peter he sayth we deny all primacie and chiefe gouernment in the Church Wherevpon he rayseth three questions to intreate of Whether it be against the worde of God that there should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe authoritie Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church that we affirme there is a spirituall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ which neuer was giuen to Peter nor to any mortall man Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches there is must be a primacie of order which is temporall according to the disposition of the Church And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime but that he had it not alwayes it appeareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers consent was President and Primate and vpon the controuersie beeing throughly debated pronounced the definitiue sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia Syria and Cilicia was written in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren But concerning S. Peter M. Sander moueth newe questions First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter whiche is a stone or Rock Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise wheÌ„ he chose him to be an Apostle Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke the question is whether Peter himselfe be that Rock vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church or Christ himselfe or the fayth and confession of peter M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists passing ouer the second question that is whether Christe himselfe whom Peter confessed by this rock denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter not barely confirmed but in respect of the promise past the present confession and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection of which foure conditions the Protestantes hee sayth doe lack no lesse then three But what doe the Papists lack when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ the only foundation then the which none other can be layde 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone I wil franckly yeelde vnto him that which he coulde neuer win by force that Christ saying to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building for then hee should put him selfe out of place but one of the prâ—ncipall stones of the foundation euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were for so the holy Ghost speaketh Ephe. 2. vers 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted groweth vnto an holy temple vnto the Lord. Nowe let vs consider whether any singular authority was committed to peter when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea because it was sayd to him alone feede my sheepe and no particular flock named it must needes be ment the whole flocke Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock Christ saide onely to Peter come after me Satan for thou art an offence to me c. Therefore Peter onely was an enemie of Christe If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him let him take the other also Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter 5. Heere is no particular slocke named therefore he meaneth the whole vniuersall flocke But he vrgeth farther that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors But if labouring in preaching the gospel be the feeding of Christes flock not Peter but Paule laboured more then he and all the rest of the Apostles 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe that by thrise confession and iniunction to feede he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship from which he deserued to be depriued M. Sand. liketh not for three causes First he sayth hee had not lost his Apostleship because his fault was not externally proued nor confessed in iudgment nor stubbernly defended c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell had neede of externall proues or a Commissaries court to depriue Peter of his office O blockish reason Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme that hee was altogither excluded from his office by his fault but