who can blame Hierom if he were loth to lose the communion of that Citie where hee was Christened And as Hierom here honoreth the Church of Rome for keeping her faith so elsewere he taketh vp roundly both the Citie and Clergie of Rome when occasion was offered And in this verie place by your leaue he protesteth that he followeth no man as chiefe much lesse as head of the Church but onely Christ. Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae id est cathedrae Petri communione consocior I following none chiefe but Christ hold the fellowship of communion with your blessednesse that is with Peters chaire Neither doth hee pray the Bishop of Rome to appoint him what he shall beleeue touching the Trinitie as if Damasus word were the rule of his faith but where he confessed in the Trinitie three persons subsisting of one and the same substance with the Councell of Nice and the whole West Church and certaine Bishops of the East not therwith content vrged him precisely to graunt the worde tres hypostases and for sticking at it traduced him as an heretike his request to the Bishop of Rome is vt siue dicendarum siue tacendarum hypostaseon detar autoritas that he might be licenced to vse or refuse that word without being molested at their hands any farther When we aske them saith Hierom what they meane by tres hypostases they say three persons subsisting we aunswere that wee beleeue the same Non sufficit sensus ipsum nomen efflagitant quia vocabula non ediscimus haeretici iudicamur It is not enough to beleeue so they vrge the very word it selfe and because we can not frame our selues to these new wordes wee bee charged with heresie So that Hierom craued Damasus letters and authoritie for his quietnesse least hee should bee troubled in Syria where he lay among strangers for a word that he suspected to be skant sounde The other petition that he maketh is but to know which of those three at Antioch were ioyned in communion with the Church of Rome and the West Bishops that he might safely communicate with that side Graunt these two cases wherein Hierom prayeth helpe of Damasus and what are you the neerer Phi. Nay graunt the wordes that Hierom speaketh in his Epistle and see what then will follow Theo. What wordes Phi. Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram edificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit prophanus est Si quis in Arca Noe non fuerit peribit regnante diluuio I hold the communion of Peters chaire that is of the Church of Rome vpon that rocke I know the Church to be built Whosoeuer shall eat the Paschall lambe out of that house is a prophane person If any man be not in Noahs Arke when the flood riseth he shal be drowned This is as much as we do affirme or could desire for the Church of Rome graunt this and the quarrell betwixt vs shall soone cease Theo. You be so hastie when you heare of Peters chayre that you neuer looke at Christ himselfe though hee stande in your way For Hierom in the same sentence protesteth that although he keepe the fellowship of communion with Peters chaire yet he followeth none chiefe but Christ. Vpon that rocke I am sure saith he the Church is built Why may not these words now be referred as well to Christ as to Peter Phi. For shame what an euasion this is Theo. Nay shame to your selues that are so wedded to your own conceits The words are more likely to belong to Christ than to Peter if you soberly view them Christs name going first and Peters second in the sentence by the very rules of Grammer super illam Petram vpon that rocke serueth more aptly for Christ than for Peter Againe the vehemencie of the verbe scio I am right sure doth argue the wordes to be more fitly referred to Christ than to Peter For that the Church is built on Christ no Christian euer doubted but that Peter is the Rocke on which the Church is built S. Austen and others do plainly denie Phi. But S. Hierom in the third Epistle before this saith expresly Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam Peter on whome our Lorde built his Church Theo. The wordes of our Sauiour in the Gospell Vpon this rocke will I build my Church diuerse men haue diuersly taken S. Austen expoundeth them thus Tu es ergo inquit Petrus super hanc Petram quam confessus es super hanc Petram quam cognouisti dicens tu es filius Dei viui edificabo Ecclesiam meam id est super meipsum filium Dei vini edificabo Ecclesiam meam Super me edificabo te non me super te Thou art Peter saith Christ and vppon this rocke which thou hast confessed vppon this rocke which thou hast acknowledged by saying Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God will I build my Church that is vpon my selfe the Sonne of the liuing God will I build my Church I will builde thee vpon mee not my selfe on thee Hilarie likewise Vnum est immobile fundamentum vna haec est faelix fidei Petra Petriore confessa tu es filius Dei viui super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae edificatio est Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est This only is the immoueable foundation this onely is the happie rocke of faith which was confessed by Peters mouth thou art the Sonne of the liuing God Then vpon this rocke of confession standeth the building of the Church This faith is the foundation of the Church So doth Ambrose Dominus dicit ad Petrum super istam Petram edificabo Ecclesiam meam hoc est in hac Catholicae fidei confessione Eides ergo est Ecclesiae fundamentum Non enim de carne Petri sed de fide dictum est qùia portae mortis ei nòn praeualebunt Sed confessio vicit infernum The Lord saith to Peter vpon this rocke will I builde my Church that is in this confession of the Catholike Faith Faith therefore is the foundation of the church For it was not spoken of Peters flesh but of faith that hell gates should not preuaile against it But that confession conquered hell Vpon this rocke will I builde my Church that is saith Chrysostom vppon this faith and confession Bede Vppon this rocke saith Christ which thou hast confessed will I build my church That rocke was Christ vpon the which foundation euen Peter him selfe was to be builded These meane as S. Paul doth that the right and true foundatiō of the Church is Christ and none else An other foundation can no man lay than that which is already laid which is Iesus Christ. Others I knowe applie these wordes vppon this rocke will I builde my Church to Peter mary not as if hee alone were laide in the
we appoint you to be the father pastor of your soules So the Monks for fear of excoÌ„munication though against their willes not without grudging gaue their voices and choose Stephen Langhton to be Primate of England Let go the wrong which the Bishop of Norwich receiued in that the Pope of his mere pleasure did frustrate his election to gratifie one of his own What Law permitteth the Pope to force men in their elections to choose whom he list to prescribe How could that election be good which was plainly wrested from a few Monks beyond the Seas with threats excommunications the rest that were at home being neither called nor bouÌ„d to go out of the Land for the choice of their Archbishop Why should not the king refuse that violent and shamefull packing of the Pope to plant his Cardinals in this Realm Or what should the king looke to haue of him that was deuoted to the court of Rome obtruded on him in this violent maner but a deadly enimie to his state as it after fel out and a continuall practiser against his person Phi. That is your suspition The. It proued too true for the kings auaile For this prelat not only inceÌ„sed the Pope against the king that he might be receiued to his See but after the king was reconciled and himselfe quietly possessed of his church he set all the Barons of this realme in an open rebellion against the king that neuer ceased till the king was poysoned Phi. You charge him vntruly Theo. His owne actes will not belie him The next yeare after his vntoward election the Pope interdicted the whole Land for that the king would not admit Steuen Langhton into his Realme no point of godlie discipline to chaftise the king but a tricke of your Romish policie to get the subiects to murmur at the Magistrate And foure yeares after when the Pope staied somwhat long as they thought in contriuing his matters against king Iohn your Canterbury Cardinall with the Bishops of London and Flie went to Rome coÌ„plained to the pope of the manifold rebellioÌ„s enormities which king Iohn had coÌ„tinued froÌ„ the time of the interdict to that present day increasing his cruelty tyraÌ„ny so these ambitious hirelings termed their soueraignes doings against God his holy church without intermissioÌ„ WherupoÌ„ they made supplicatioÌ„ to the pope that he would voutsafe of his godly coÌ„passion to helpe the church of England in this extremity So nice your clergie was yâ— wheÌ„ they were but a litle defalked of their abundaÌ„ces superfluities they could no longer abide it but desired to haue the king deposed Phi. The king seased on all their goods caused them to redeeme their immunities liberties raised a grieuous persecutioÌ„ against the whole clergy through out England Theo. We doubt not but your Monkes in this freight wil make great flames of smal sparks The king of EnglaÌ„d did as any prince in this like case would The clergy of this realm was at that time a richer and wealthier state than the Laitie discharged from all burdens and taxes to the crowne by the fauor of the Princes his progenitors If therefore when the Pope beganne to quarrell with the king about the chiefest church in his Realme and offered him so open wrong the cleargie were readie with their wealth and strength to assist the Pope against the king why should not the king both sease their goods into his handes make them redeeme their priuileges which they were wel able to doe for the maintenaunce of his crowne and kingdome against a wicked and iniurious oppressour And sure for ought that I see the king did but iustice For where the clergie refused to doe their duties and would not so much as say him or his people anie diuine seruice why shoulde the Prince suffer them to inioy those liuinges that were prouided for such as would Phi. The fault was not theirs they were restrained by the Popes interdict Theo. Were the fault in them or the Pope this is euident the clergie might better lacke their liuinges than the Realme diuine seruice Phi. Was it not tyrannie to famish so many thowsand Monkes Priests as were in this Land Theo. The king allowed them victum vestitum parce ex rebus proprijs meate drink and raiment out of their liuings though sparefully in respect of their former and vsuall excesse the rest hee kept in his hands till they discharged that function for which they were indowed with so liberal recompence Pâ—i You can not blame them Theo. Hee that perfourmeth a wicked interdict is to be blamed as well as he that commaundeth it Phi. This was not wicked Theo. There could be no wickeder The prohibition of publike praier and restrainct of the worde and Sacraments throughout the Realme is rather a dishonour to God and an iniurie to the faith than a seemely sentence for a christian Bishop You can neither shew vs warrant for it in the Scriptures nor example of it in the church of God for a thowsand yeares They did excommunicate persons not places they thrust not the innocent into the same extremitie with the nocent as you do much lesse did they prohibite God to be serued in the church his Sacraments to be ministred his word to bee preached which the Turkes do not offer where they conquere and Satan himselfe can wish no better increase of his kingdome than this horrible desolation of all those meanes that God hath appointed to saue the soules of men Phi. Then let them be obedient to their Bishops Theo. You can not say the people were disobedient but onely the king why then shoulde they be restrained from seruing God and stand in danger of euerlasting destruction which transgressed not Phi. Let them bee earnest with their king to yeelde Theo. And what if hee will not though they be neuer so earnest Phi. Let them be ready to compell him when they be required so to doe by their Bishops Theo. You hit the nayle right on the head Your generall debarring of diuine seruice throughout a Realme was nothing else but an Antichristian Policie to set the people in a discontent and to make them the readier to rebell against their Princes for whose sakes they be thus put in the high way to perish And therefore the clergie men that did execute and fulfill such an interdict were partakers of the same wickednesse with the pronouncers and by no reason can it bee counted cruelty in the king to take from them their ecclesiasticall promotions so long as they wickedly ceased from their ecclesiasticall functions by this or any other like interdict This was all the persecution and rebellion that king Iohn might iustly bee charged with and yet the Pope by the counsell of his cardinals and Bishops sententially defined that he should be deposed from his throne and an other placed by the Popes procurement that
persons for that is truely and properly catholike By this rule your erecting adoring of images in the church is not catholike For first it is prohibited by gods law where the text goeth against you the gloze caÌ„not helâ— you If there be no precept for it in the word of god in vaine do you seek in the church for the catholike sense and interpretation of that which is no where found in the Scriptures If it bee not Propheticall nor Apostolical it cannot be catholike nor ecclesiasticall Againe how hath this beene alwaies in the church which was first decreed 780. yeares after Christ It is too yong to bee catholike that began so late you must go neerer Christ his Apostles if you wil haue it catholike or ancient Thirdly al places persons did not admit the decrees of that couÌ„cell For besides Africa Asia the greater which neuer receiued them the churches of England France Germanie did contradict refute both their actions reasons And in Greece it selfe not long before a Synod of 330. Bishops at Constantinople condemned aswel the suffering as reuerencing of images Phi. The most part of this that you say is false the rest we litle regard so loÌ„g as we be sure the church of Rome stood fast with vs. Theo. Al that I said is true as for the church of Rome she can make nothing catholike That the church of England detested that 2. councell of Nice Roger Houeden that liued 400. yeares agoe witnesseth Charles the king of France sent ouer into England the Actes of a Synod sent him from Constantinople Where out alas are found many vnseemely things contrary to the true faith specially for that it is there confirmed with the general assent of all the East teachers to wit of 300. Bishops moe that images ought to be adored the which the church of God vtterly detesteth Against the which Albinus wrote an epistle maruelously grouÌ„ded on the autority of the diuine scriptures caried it with the said Synodical acts in the name of our english Bishops princes to the K. of France Charles two yeares after called a great Synod of the Bishops of Fraunce Italie and Germanie at Franckford where the 2. councell of Nice was reiected and refuted Phi. Nay the councell of Constantinople against images was there reuersed and explosed Theo. Your friendes haue done what they could to make that seeme likely and many of your stories run that way for life but the worst is the men that liued and wrate in that verie age doe marre your plaie Regino saith Pseudo synodus Graecorum quam pro adorandis imaginibus fecerant à Pontificibus reiecta est The false Synode of the Graecians which they made for defence of the worshipping of images was reiected by the Bishops assembled at Franckford vnder Charles Hincmarus Archbishop of Remes then lyuing when these thinges were in freshe memorie saieth thus of Charles his Councell The seuenth general councell so called by the Graecians in deed a wicked councell touching images which some would haue to be broken in peeces some to be worshipped was kept not long before my time by a number of Bishops gathered togither at Nice and sent to Rome which also the Bishop of Rome directed into France Wherfore in the raigne of Charls the great the Sea Apostolike willing it so to bee a generall Synode was kept in Germany by the conuocation of the said Emperour and there by the rule of the Scriptures doctrine of the fathers the false councel of the Graecians was confuted vtterly reiected Of whose confutation tâ—ere was a good big booke sent to Rome by certaine Bishops from Charles which in my yong yeares I read in the Palace Vrspergensis hath bin vnder the file of some monkish deprauer as many other writers fathers haue bin For in him you haue razed out the name of the citie of Nice put in CoÌ„stantinople to make men beleeue the Synod of FraÌ„ckford condemned not the 2. Nicene councel that setled adoration of images but an other of Constantinople that banished images Vrspergensis saieth The Synod which not long before was assembled vnder Irene Constantine her sonne in Constantinople called by them the seuenth generall councell was there in the councell of Franckford reiected by them all as void and not to be named the 7. or any thing else Here some foolish forgerer hath added these words in Constantinople whereas it is euident the councel vnder Irene and Constantine her sonne was kept at Nice not at Constantinople Hincmarus that liued in the time of Charles and read the booke it selfe of the Synode of FraÌ„ckford when it was first made saith the Bishops assembled in Germany by Charles vtterly reiected refuted the councel of Nice called the seuenth generall councell The very same words at Constantinople are in the actes of the councell of FraÌ„kford as LaureÌ„tius Surius saith though very falsly for though that I find in the booke it selfe contrary to the plaine words in many places and namely in the 4. booke 13. chapter where they are refelled from comparing themselues with the 1. Nicene councell because they were assembled in the same city so li. 4. ca. 24. But if the words had bin conueied in as they are not except Surius copie be framed by Surius himself to verifie his own saying what proofe is this that the Synod of Franckford neuer deâ—reed against adoration of Images but rather with it as that mouthie Frier obserueth where the reasons and authorities of the 2. Nicene councell for adoring images are truely and fully refuted throughout those foure bookes And his conclusion that wee haue forged those bookes conueied them into the Popes library where they ly written in auncient characters as the keeper of the Popes library confesseth is like the rest and not vnlike himselfe who careth not what he writeth so it serue his humour and helpe his cause For otherwise who that were master of himselfe would suppose it easier for vs to forge foure whole bookes in Charles name and to write them in auncient handes and thrust them into the Popes librarie and into many other churches and Abbaies and no man spie it than for you hauing the bookes so many hundreth yeares in your keeping to put in this one word Constantinople And if our lucke were so good to forge so neere the Popes nose and not be descried who forged Hinâ—marus Regino Houeden Vrspergensis Adon Auentine and others that testifie the Councell of Frankford refuted the false Synode which the Graecians kept Pro odorandis imaginibus For the adoring of images If you were so negligent as to suffer so many to be forged against you and laide in your libraries you not find it how iust cause haue wee to perswade our selues that you would winke with both eies when others should be corrupted to make for your
Phi. If we may not bow to holy images as vnto thinges that be superiour and better than man yet we may imbrace and loue them as thinges which we like and that both by the vse of the Greeke tongue and speech of the scripture is called adoration as Tharasius the Patriarke of Constantinople in his epistle to Irene the Empresse and her sonne doth largely confirme Theo. You put me in minde what cunning was vsed in the second Nicene councell to saue your poppets vpright and to set a colour on their vngodly decree that images should be worshipped When they saw themselues not able to proue by Scripture or father that images should be reuerenced and adored and they had pronounced him accursed that doubted of the adoration of images your wise worthy Bishops thought it safest to shroude their wicked resolution vnder the doubtfull equiuocate sense of the word adoration because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke did signifie not onely to bowe for deuotion and religion but also to imbrace for loue and affection as friendes and familyars when they happen to meete So Tharasius and the whole Synod defend the conclusion which they made in that councel For shewing whose images they would haue to be receiued they adde Sunt hae adorandae etiam id est exosculandae amandae Idem enim haec significant iuxta antiquam Graeciae dialecton Nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat quod quis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id omnino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These images of Christ and his Sainctes are also to bee adored that is to kissed and loued These wordes are all of one force To adore doth signifie both to imbrace to loue For that which a man loueth that he adoreth that which he adoreth that he earnestly loueth The naturall affection and loue which wee beare toward our friendes doe witnes this For so two friendes when they meete embrace salute ech other And â—â—ing some places of the scripture where adoration is taken for a reuerent and louely salutation as when Iacob bowed himselfe before Esau and Abraham before the people of Heth Dauid before Ionathan and the Pharisees were noted by our Sauiour for * louing such magistrall obeisance they inferre Has quoque adorandas salutandas putamus We thinke images are in like maner to be adored and saluted pretending it to be a matter of faith christian pietie to adore images and when they come to the vpshot concluding nothing but an externall and ciuill kinde of imbracing or kissing such as a man may giue to the coate which he weareth to the meat which he eateth to euery thing that he loueth without respect of religion or thought of deuotion Phi. Then you should the sooner graunt that images may be adored since they mean that kind of adoration which is without al danger of idolatry Theo. Then you be wise diuines to make adoration of images a point of catholike doctrine since the Bishops of Nice whose actes you would seeme to follow interprete adoration to be but a familiar and friendly kissing or saluting such as men might yeeld to the manger where Christ laye swathed to the howsen which he entered to the waters on which hee walked to the hilles deserts highwayes and cities where he prayed preached iournied or suffered the adoration of which things and places I trust you will not make a part of the Catholike faith Phi. Compare you an image with a manger Theo. It is the comparison of your owne councell in the very same epistle alleadging these words of Gregory the diuine iustifie their adoration of images Worshippe Bethleem adore the manger If the stable manger where Christ lay must haue the same adoration that images haue yea that the crosse hath whereon Christ died howe shamefully is your church fallen not onely from God but euen from her owne councels in allowing the very same honor to images that is due to Christ himselfe Phi. The crosse they did flatly adore as their own words witnes which presently insue Crucem tuam adoramus Domine We adore thy crosse O Lord. And that as it should seeme was a part of the church seruice For they say CuÌ„vinificam crucem salutamus conuenienter canimus when we salute the crosse that procured vs life we doe well to sing thy crosse Lord do we adore Theo. So did they the speare which pearced his side The next wordes are The speare which opened thy sacred and lifegiuing side wee adore But what they ment by that adoratioÌ„ they straightway expound which adoration is nothing else but a salutation or an imbracing if you so rather like to cal it as is hereby declared for that we touch those things with our lips Phi. Yet this is a kinde of adoration Theo. But not such as your church and schooles afterward defended and yeelded vnto material images crosses For you in plaine words require 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is diuine honor for the wodden crosse and image of Christ whereas the second Nicene councel in this epistle doth wholy renounce that as a manifest and wicked errour And therfore you do nothing lesse than accord with that Councell which is so much in your mouthes they decreeing but a reuerent salutation and you giuing diuine adoration to the image crosse of Christ which be doctrines mightily repugning ech to other if you note them well though the word adoration be vsed in both And did you consent with theÌ„ as you do not neither their resolution nor yours is catholike they ventering farther than either scriptures or fathers before did lead them and that vpon the doubtfull accepcion of the word adoring and blind presumption that external reuerence which they ment therby might be giuen for loue feare fauor or curtesie without impairing the honour due to God and you being deceiued by the heat of their speech and taking adoration for a religious and deuoute submission of body and soule such as belonged to the person himselfe represented by the image and that in our Sauiour is diuine and heauenly honor Phi. Should not the crosse of Christ haue diuine honour Theo. The crosse being taken for his death and passion as the scriptures vse the word must bee adored as the true and onely meane of our redemption and saluation but the wood on which hee hung may not much lesse the signe of it as you nowe abuse it You hearde Sainct Ambrose say that to adore the wood on which the Lorde died was an heathenish errour and vanitie of the wicked And before him Arnobius made this answere for all Christians Cruces nec columus nec optamus vos plane qui ligneos Deos consecratis cruces ligneas
Father and the Sonne to proceede both from the Father and the Sonne For the Sonne saith when the spirit of trueth coÌ„meth which proceedeth from the father Where he teacheth vs the spirit to be his also because himselfe is trueth And that the holy ghost proceedeth likewise from the sonne the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles doeth deliuer vnto vs. For Esay sayth of the sonne Hee shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the spirit of his lippes he shal slea the wicked Of whom the Apostle also sayth Whom the Lord Iesus shall slea with the spirit of his mouth Whome the onely Sonne of God declaring to bee the Spirite of his mouth breathing on his Disciples after his resurrection sayth receiue ye the holy Ghost And Iohn in his Reuelation sayth that out of the mouth of the Lorde Iesu him-selfe there proceeded a sharpe two edged swoorde Hee therefore is the Spirit of his mouth hee is the sword which proceedeth out of his mouth And againe By many testimonies of the diuine Scriptures it is prooued that he is the spirite of the father and the sonne which is properly called in the Trinitie the holy ghost And that he proceedeth from both it is thus proued because the sonne himselfe saith the spirit of trueth proceedeth from the father And when he was risen from death and appeared to his disciples he breathed on them and sayd Receiue ye the holy ghost to shewe that the spirit proceeded from him also And that spirit is the vertue which came from him as we read in the gospel and healed all men What you thinke of these places we know not but sure we are S. Augustine himselfe sayth of these the like Cum per Scripturarum sanctarum testimonia docuissem de vtroque procedere Spiritum sanctum When I had shewed by the testimonies of the Holy scriptures that the holy ghost proceedeth froÌ„ both the father the sonne And if it bee the naturall and distinct proprietie of the Spirite to proceede as it is of the sonne to bee begotten which I winne you will not denie then is it as euident by the Scriptures that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the sonne as it is that the sonne was begotten of the father For as the second person in Trinitie was begotten of him whose sonne hee is so the thirde Person proceeded from them whose spirite hee is but hee is the Spirite of them both as the Scriptures expressely witnes Ergo hee proceeded from them both Phi. The doctrine is true but the scripture is not expresse Theo. What meane you by your expresse scripture Phi. Those very woordes He proceedeth from them both are not found in the scriptures Theo. Alas good Sirs is that your quarrell Doe the scriptures I pray you consist in spelling or in vnderstanding Neuer read you what S. Hierom sayth Nec putemus in verbis ScripturaruÌ„ Euangelium esse sed in sensu non in superficie sed in medulla non in sermonum folijs sed in radice rationis Let vs not thinke the Gospell to lie in the words of the scriptures but in the sense not in the rind but in the pith not in the leaues of speech but in the ground of reason truth If by expresse scripture you meane the plaine 〈◊〉 sense of the word of God we haue euident infallible proofes thence for the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father the sonne But if you sticke on the syllables letters which we speake you doe but wrangle with vs as the Arias did with the Nicene fathers Expostulating why the Bishops that met at Nice vsed these words substance consubstaÌ„tial which were nowhere found in the Scriptures our answere to you shal be the same that theirs was to them These words though they be not found in the Scriptures yet haue they the same meaning and sense which the Scriptures containe And that we count to be expresse scripture For otherwise as Hilarie saith Al heretiks speake Scriptures without sense the diuell himself as Hierom noâ—eth hath spoken some things out of the scriptures but that as they both witnes in the very next words The scriptures coÌ„sist not in reading but in vnderstanding And yet I see no cause why this point should be denied to be expresse Scripture for so much as S. Iohn describing the son of God with a sharpe two edged â—word proceeding out of his mouth which is the rod of his mouth wherewith he shal smite the earth the spirit of his lips wherewith hee shall slea the wicked as Esay prophesied hee should and Paul declareth hee would vseth the very same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twise which our Sauior before spake of his father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit which proceedeth froÌ„ the father So that you were fouly ouerseene when you obiected this point of our christian faith as wanting expresse scripture Phi. If you take not only the words but also the sense â—or scripture we will not greatly gainesay but all points of faith may be deriued out of these words or out of the sense of that which is written The. Deriued as you do pardoÌ„s pilgrimages penaÌ„ces purgatory But we say that al points of faith must be plainly concluded or necessarily collected by that which is writteÌ„ And for our so saying we haue not only the scriptures fathers but also your selues which being so often required vrged to shewe what one point of faith the primatiue church of Christ beleeued wtout the scriptures could neuer shew any Phi. We could shew many if that needed we wer disposed The. I know not what accoÌ„pt you make of it but to our simple conceiuing it is the groundwork of al religioÌ„ crazeth the very heart of your vnwritten verities And if to satisfie the people of God disburden your selues of an errour you be not all this while disposed to doe what you can we must leaue you for curious and daintie men and thinke you can not Phi. Tertullian was of that minde that we are when he willed the christians not to appeale to the scriptures for the triall of their faith His words are Ergo non est ad scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est We must therefore not appeale to the Scriptures nor place the trial of our cause in those writings in which the victorie is either none or not sure Theo. You do both the truth and Tertullian wrong TertulliaÌ„ doth not say that in matters of faith some things should be beleeued wtout the Scriptures no man is flatter against that than Tertullian in this very booke which you bring but he would not haue the heretikes of his time chalenged nor brought to the Scriptures because they receiued not the books as
The Popes power ouer Princes vsurped Rom. 13. Supreme is a manifest deduction out of S. Paul Supreme ouer Persons not ouer things We may not limit where we will obey the sword where not Where they may commaund we must obey We may not resist them but with reuerence indure them though they coÌ„mand against God and his truth Heathen Tyraunts had power of the sword ouer Christ and his Apostles Christ submitted himselfe to the Magistrate So Paul Peter both did and taught 1. Pet. 4. Rom. 13. Whom we must indure in that which is euill those must we obey in that which is good Aug. Epist. 50. Idem Epist. 166. The summe of the doctrine which we teach concerning the Princes supremacie The Iesuites iestes wherewith they mocke the Reader THE DIRECTION of PRINCES VNTO TRVETH Princes must take good care to come by faithfull direction The right directors vnto truth must be discerned by their doctrine not by their dignitie No mortall man may Iohn 14. 1. Iohn 5. * Iohn 5. 8. De Nuptijs ad Valentin lib. 2. â—ap 33. Optat. lib. 5. ad â—ermenianum Iohn 17. Bishops no iudges of the word of God The church is not iudge of the Scriptures Iohn 10. * Iames 4. Aust. in Psal. 2. * Idem de vera religione ca. 31. * Idem confess lib. 13. cap. 23. * Contra Cresc lib. 2. cap. 31. Idem Epist. 19. ad Hieronym Iudging taken for discerning Onely God must limit what is truth what error To discerne truth belongeth to all God willeth all men to trie spirites 1. Iohn 4. Matth. 7. And to discerne false teachers Iohn 10. The people must discerne teachers by their doctrine 1. Corinth 10. 1. Corinth 11. * Matth. 24. Colos. 8. Ephes. 5. 1. Iohn 3. * Heb. 5. 1. Corinth 14. Orig in Jeâ—â—â— Naue hom 2. The Fathers referred them selues to the iudgement of the hearers Ambros. Epi. li. 5. orat in Aux Luke 10. Matt. 10. The people haue libertie to discerne and charge to beware seducers Matth. 24. Matth. 23. The people not bound to beleeue the Pharisees doctrine except it accorded to the law of God Aug. in Iohan. tractat 46. Matth. 16. Ibidem vers 11â— 1. Iohn 4. 1. Thes. 5. Rom. 12. Philip. 1. 1. Corinth 2. The whole Scriptures giue the people leaue to discerne the truth and require them so to do Princes haue the same libertie to discerne trie spirites that priuate men haue The former precepts comprise the Prince aswell as the people Heb. 13. Vers. 7. No man bouÌ„d to the Preacher farther than he speaketh truth The Apostles tied to that condition 1. Pet. 1. * 1. Iohn 1. 1. Corinth 4. Galat. 1. The Angels themselues limited to that rule 1. Corinth 7. 1. Corinth 17. Chrysost. in 1. cap. 2. Epist. ad Timoth. hom 2. * Tertul. de praescript advers haereticâ—s * Chrysost. operis imperfect hom 20. in 7. ca. Mat. Much more teachers that are but seruantes of the law and therfore bouÌ„d vnto the law Princes must obey Bishops because they speak in Gods name and not in their owne Act. 20. Bishops haue commission to feede not to rule their flocks 1. Pet. 5. Iohn 21. They be superiour in teaching not in power to commaund and punish Their functioÌ„ is more perfect excellent because God worketh by their hands and mouthes Aug. contra Crescon lib. 4. cap. 6. Aug. in Psa. 10 In 1. cap. 2. epist. ad Tim. hom 2. De spiritu san lib. 3. cap. 19. 1. Corin. 1. 1. Corin. 3 The word sacramentes serue not to aduaunce the Preachers person The Preachers cal for subiection reuerence to their master not to themselues * 2. Corinth 4. * Mark 10. â— Corint 9. The trueth of God is tied to no certaine persons nor places Peters fayth is trueth in deede but that must be taken out of his owne writings not other mens reports No successour may be trusted against or besides the Apostles writings No poynt of fayth vnwritten Rom. 10. Basil. in sermone de fide Idem in Ethiciâ— definiâ— 8. Hilar. ad Constantium August Idem de Trinit lib. 9. Hieron aduersus Helnidium IdeÌ„ in Psal. 86. Tertul. de praescript aduers. haereticoâ— Idem aduersus HermogeneÌ„ Ambros. de virginibus li. 3. Ireneus lib. 3. cap. 1. Cyril de recta fide ad Reginas lib. 2. August de Pastoribus cap. 11. Idem contra literas Petiliani lib. 3. cap. 6. Caus. 11. quaest 3. § si is qui preaest No person nor place may be trusted in matters of faith besides and without the scriptures The best direction for Princes is the word of God Psal. 118. Deut. 17. Deut. 12. Esai 8. Luk. 16. Hieron Cap. 1. in epist. ad Galatas Tertullian de praescriptionib Tertullian vâ— supra Heretikes therfore couet a shew of scriptures because they be the grouÌ„ds of all trueth No tribunall on earth to the which trueth is fastned Where trueth is in doubt the Church is in more doubt The shepheards voice is not knoweÌ„ by the sheepe but the sheep by hearing the sheepheards voice * Iohn 10. Apolog. Cap. 4. sect 28. Succession is no sure direction vnto trueth Ireneus lib. 4. Cap. 43. Cap. 44. Cap. 45. Act. 20. Mat. 7. 2. Pet. 2. 2. Cor. 11. 2. Cor. 11. Bishops haue beene heretikes Bishops asseÌ„bled may erre as wel as Bishops seuered Mat. 18. Two or three haue the same promise of assistance that two or three huÌ„dred haue Councels may erre Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 5. * Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 9. * Euag. li. 3. ca. 4. Epist. 55 ad Proropium A generall Councel doth not differ froÌ„ a particular but only in number of persons and places Vide distinct 16 § sexta § primo * Tomo concil primo * Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 2. * Idem li. 2. c. 36. Tomo concilior primo A generall Councel erring the Church doth not erre A Councell may be reuersed by the rest that be present or absent Sozo li. 1. ca. 23. Sozo li. 2. ca. 25. Sozo li. 4. ca. 9. Leo epist. 52. ad Anatholium Ibidem Their own fellowes haue consessed that general councels might er Panor de elect electi potestate ¶ significasti Panorm IbideÌ„ A generall councel is not the Church Pigh hierarch ecclesiast lib. 6. cap. 5 4. Pighius is earnest that general CouÌ„cels haue erred in decisioÌ„ of faithes Lib. 6. Cap. 7. Lib. 6. Cap. 13. August de baptist lib. 2 cap. 3. S. Augustine confesseth that councels may erre Ibidem The second Councell of Ephesus was generall * Astio. 1. * Euagrius li. 1. Cap. 10. Reperitur chalcedonens concil actio 1. Chalced. concil actio 1. Ecclesiasticall iudges are often deceiued Contra Crescon lib. 2. cap. 21. August epist. 167. August contra Maximinum lib. 3. cap. 14. Ibidem lib. 3 cap. 14. The Arrians not bound to the authoritie of the Nicene councel The Councell of Ariminum was generall Socrat. lib. 2.
of her death Theo. Then suerly was Innocentius all that while a sleepe for the continuall entercourse betweene the two Cities both for temporall and ecclesiasticall affaires was so great the person so famous the time so long that no meane man in Rome could bee ignorant of her death Besides that Innocentius Legats were at Constantinople to intreate Arcadius for a Councell a litle before Chrysostome died and there vnlesse they wanted both eyes and eares they could not choose but learne that the Empresse was dead Phi. She was then liuing as Nicephorus saith Theo. The more he fableth the lesse credite he deserueth Eudoxia died before Arsacius and after his death was Atticus chosen then how could she bee liuing when Atticus was Bishop in whose time the Legats of Innocentius came to intreat for Chrysostome Phi. Let Nicephorus answere for himselfe I layde before you what I finde in him Theo. If this be all you can say for his defence giue vs leaue to tell you that this Bull bearing Innocentius name is some foolish and late forgerie deuised to perswade men that Popes in those dayes coulde quaile Emperours which God knoweth is nothing so Next for Chrysostomes cause as it helpeth you litle so doeth it hinder you much For first Chrysostome when himselfe and his Clergie were called to appeare before the Synode where Theophilus the Patriarke of Alexandria his mortall enemie was the chiefe man appealed from them not to the Bishoppe of Rome but to a generall Councell So sayth Socrates Iohannes eos a quibus vocabatur tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat vniuersalem Synodum appellabat Chrysostome refused those that called him vppon this exception that they were his enemies and appealed to a generall Councell So sayth Chrysostome himselfe Though wee were absent and appealed to a Synode and sought for iudgement and refused not audience but manifest enimitie yet Theophilus receiued accusors against mee excommunicated such as helde with mee and tooke libels at all their hands which had not yet purged themselues of such crimes as were layde to their charge al which things are contrarie to the lawes and Canons Next when Innocentius saw the matter could not be ended but in a general Councel by reason the three Patriarks of Constantinople Antioche Alexandria were against him he sent Legats to Honorius and Arcadius to beseech them that a Synode might be had and the time and place appointed Wherin his supplication was so litle regarded that his Legats were sent away with reproch as disturbers of the west Empire and Chrysostome caried farther off in banishment than before Lastly when such as fauoured Chrysostome in the East parts would not cōmunicate with his enemies but ioyned themselues in communion with the Bishop of Rome who likewise seuered himselfe from those that were the beginners of this garboyle Arcadius made this Law If any Bishop refuse to communicate with Theophilus Atticus and Porphyrius hee shall loose both his Church and his goods If any that beare office they shall forfeite their dignitie If any Souldier hee shall lose his seruice If any of the common people let them bee fyned and exiled Phi. Will you nowe trust Nicephorus Theo. Sozomene in effect sayth the same For the communion of Arsacius Porphyrius and Theophilus at the suite of the Nobles there was a lawe made that no Christians should meete at prayers out of their Churches and those that woulde not communicate with these three Patriarkes should bee expelled So smally was Innocentius communion at that time respected that the followers of it were sharply punished Phi. You know what manner of men they were that did it Theo. Such as you may not easily despise Entending to write the wrong done to Chrysostome sayth Theodorete I am forced to shrinke at the doers thereof for their other vertues Atticus as Socrates confesseth was a very learned religious and wise man Porphyrius sayth Theodorete left many monuments of his benignitie being a man endewed with excellent wisedome Arcadius besides that Chrysostome calleth him after his banishment Christianissimum pientissimum Regem a most Christian and Godly prince a litle before his death wan estimation of holynes not without the admiration of a great multitude saued from destruction by his prayers Theophilus Epiphanius and others that held tooth and nayle against him were no babes in the Church of Christ. Cyrillus a famous father was after long time with much adoe drawen to yeeld thus much that Chrysostomes name should be rehearsed in the Catalogue of those that had bene Bishops Arsacius if Cyrillus may bee trusted was a blessed man and most worthie of commendation Phi. You goe about to deface Chrysostome by commending his enemies Theo. It is the least part of my thought and yet Socrates doth not altogether excuse him in saying hee was a man Iracundiae magis quà m reuerentiae indulgens more addicted to serue his passions than to reuerence any person And surely the wordes that he spake of the Empresse in his sermon openly before all the people Againe Herodias is madde againe she rageth againe shee daunceth againe she wil haue Iohns head in a dish were very bitter but my meaning is to shewe they were great and good men in the Church that about Chrysostoms quarrell were it right were it wrong neglected the communion of the Bishop of Rome Phi. Though they made light of it in this tumult and faction yet Augustine Hierom and others did highly esteeme it Theo. The communion and felowship of Christian loue and peace may not rashly be broken with any Church especially not with the chiefe and principall Churches vnlesse the cause be weightie and vrgent but looke whē the Bishop of Rome attempted any thing against the faith or the Canons tel me then what accompt they made of him Phi. That you must looke out I know no such thing Theo. So will I when my course commeth but yours as yet is not ended Phi. Myne shall not bee long Theo. As short as you will I thinke the best be spent Phi. Augustine and the fathers assembled in the Mileuitan Councell aske helpe of Innocentius for the condemnation of Pelagius and his heresie Theo. The Bishops of Africa themselues in this and an other Councell helde at Carthage condemned the error of Pelagius as repugnant to the Scriptures and iniurious to the grace of God And because it was a matter of faith that indifferently concerned all they thought it necessarie to aduertise the Bishop of Rome what they had done and to pray him also to condemne the same that as the infection was farre spred and found many defenders so the condemnation thereof might be generall and ratified by the publique liking of the Bishops in euery prouince What can you gather by this but that it was then the manner of the Church as in trueth it was by their letters sent too and fro both to aske and to giue
foundation of the Church and the rest of the Apostles excluded but that which is here spoken to him they make common to all or as much elsewhere to be giuen to all Origen If onely vpon Peter thou thinkest the whole Church to be built what wilt thou say to Iohn and euery of the Apostles shall we dare say that against Peter onely the gates of hell shall not preuaile and against the rest of the Apostles they shall and not rather in them all and euerie one of them that to be true which is saide the gates of hell shall not preuaile and that also vpon this rocke will I build my Church For if this speech to thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen be common to all why then should not all that which goeth before and followeth after as spoken to Peter be common to them all Hierom himselfe whose authoritie you pretend as he placeth Peter in the foundation of the Church so doth he the rest of the Apostles likewise Thou wilt say the Church is built on Peter notwithstanding the selfe same in another place is done vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the stedfastnesse of the Church is equally setled vpon them This sense doth somewhat agree with that place of S. Paul were he saith Ye bee built vpon the foundation not of Peter alone but of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the head corner stone And in that respect Paul saith of Iames Peter Iohn iointly they that seemed to be the pillours gaue me their right handes of fellowship Both these constructions we can admit though we prefer the first as most religious cunning nearest the true meaning of our Sauiour but you wrest the wordes of S. Hierom quite against him selfe all the rest of the learned Catholike fathers It is one thing to say the church is built on Peter which Origē Hierom others affirme in the sense that I told you before an other thing to say the Church is built on Peters chaire at Rome which no Father euer said or thought And therefore if we shoulde graunt that S. Hierom in these wordes spake of Peter what are you the better This is no proofe that Rome is the Rocke on which the Church is built but onely that Peter is a Rocke laide in the foundation of the Church where also the rest of the Prophetes and Apostles are Phi. The place doth mention the chaire of Peter which is Rome Theo. The wordes stande so that they may respect either Peter himselfe or his chayre but the likenesse of the names Petrus and Petra both for sound for sense the alluding to that which Christ spake to Peter in the Gospell long before hee knewe Rome the generall consent of the Fathers expounding the Rocke to be taken either for Christ or for Peter and neuer for Rome import that these words in S. Hierom haue their relation to Peters person and not to his chaire This exposition the place which you brought confirmeth Petrus super quem Dominus fundanit Ecclesiam Peter on whom that is on whose person not on whose successors at Rome the Lord built his Church Phi. The rest of S. Hieroms wordes can not be referred to Peters person as namely these that next insue Without this house whosoeuer shall eate the Paschall Lambe is prophane And why shoulde the former more than these Theo. Peruse the words as they lie and you shall finde your owne error Vpon that rocke I know the Church is built The Church not of Rome only but of Christ generally Then followeth extra hanc domùm without this house What house but the church which he said before was built on the rock And out of this house meaning thereby not the particular Church of Rome but the Catholike church of Christ whosoeuer eateth the Passouer is indeed as Hierom saith aprophane person This is farre wide from the mark which you shoote at Phi. S. Augustine I trust shooteth streight when he applieth the wordes of Christ in the 16. of Matthew to the chaire of Peter Theo. That were maruaile if he which by no meanes would allow Peter him selfe to be the foundation of the Church be now content to yeelde that honor to the Bishop of Rome Phi. He doth so These be his wordes Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede in ordine illo Patrum quis cui successit videte Ipsa est Petra quam non vincant superbae inferorum portae Number the Priestes euen from Peters seate and see who succeded one an other in that rew of Fathers that is the Rocke which the proude gates of hell do not conquere Theo. This place proueth nothing vnlesse you bee suffered to referre the words Ipsa est Petra that is the rocke whither you list You can not refer them but either to the succession of Priests from Peter or else to Peters seate which is all one with Peters chaire Theo. Why not to Peter himself Phi. That were farre fet Theo. The wordes stand indifferent for both as S. Hieroms did and not onely the same reasons I made there serue here but also the proposition hath a manifest reference to Peters person He saith not number the Priests in Peters seat but number them vel ab ipsa Petri sede euen from the very seat of Peter that is from the time that Peter sate He is the Rock against which the proud gates of hell do not preuaile Phi. You seeme to reade Ipse est Petra He is the Rocke but the wordes are Ipsa est Petra that is the Rocke Theo. There are greater corruptions crept into S. Austens works by the negligence of Scribes than of a for e Neither did I translate the words but giue you the right meaning of them and yet ipsa est Petra in S. Austen may be referred to Peter him selfe as wel as super hanc Petram in the Gospell expounded for Peter which you all vphold But graunt which is more than euer you shall iustly conuince that Peters chaire is thereby ment Saint Austen doth not say that is the rocke on which the Church is built but that is the Rocke which the gates of hell do not conquere not promising that Rome still should but witnessing that Rome then did withstand the gates of hell by keeping the faith vndefiled which Peter deliuered Phi. What S. Austen lacketh S. Cyprian supplyeth Qui Cathedram Petri super quam edificata est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesia se esse confidit He that forsaketh the chayre of Peter on which the Church is built doth he hope himselfe to be in the Church I trust these wordes be plaine enough Theo. The wordes as you set them bee plaine enough but where saith Cyprian so Phi. In his booke De vnitate Ecclesiae Catholicae you call it corruptly De simplicitate Praelatorum Theo.
and other places at this day do wee not indure all the tormentes you can deuise because wee will not beleeue what temporall Lordes and Masters list Your owne conscience knoweth it is true that wee saie Why then doe you charge vs with this wicked assertion from the which wee bee farther off than you For you holde opinion of Popes that they cannot erre we do not of Princes Why do you father your owne fansies vppon vs Why d ee you purposely peruert the question heaping absurdities and alleaging authorities against that which we do not defend Phi. The oth which you take your selues and exact of others induceth vs thus to thinke of you For there you make Princes the onely supreme Gouernours of all persons in all causes as well spirituall as temporall vtterly renouncing all forraine iurisdictions superiorities and authorities Uppon which wordes marke what an horrible confusion of all faith and Religion insueth If Princes bee the onely Gouernours in Ecclesiasticall matters then in vaine did the holy Ghost appoint Pastours and Bishops to gouern the Church If they bee supreme then are they superiour to Christ himselfe and in effect Christes Masters If in all thinges and causes spirituall then they may prescribe to the priestes and Bishops what to preach which way to worship and serue God how in what forme to minister the Sacramentes and generally howe men shall be gouerned in soule If all forraine iurisdiction must bee renounced then Christ his Apostles because they were are forreners haue no iurisdiction nor authoritie ouer England A thowsand other absurdities are consequent to this oth which anon you shall heare Theo. Wake you or dreame you Philander that in matters of no lesse weight than your duetie to God and the Prince you fall to these childish and pelting sophismes What kinde of concluding call you this Princes onely beare the sword to commaund and punish ergo Bishops may not teach and exhort Princes be not subiect to the Pope ergo superiours to Christ. They may by their lawes establish those thinges that Christ hath commaunded ergo they may change both Scriptures and Sacramentes No forrainer at this day hath any iurisdiction ouer this Land ergo Christ and his Apostles fifteene hundred yeeres ago might not preach the Gospel Phi. We make no such fond reasons Theo. The former propositions are the true contens of the oth which wee take the later are those very absurdities which you infer vpon vs for taking that oth Phi. You would slip from your words which wee knowe to your meaning which we know not but that you shal not We grouÌ„ded our absurdities vpoÌ„ the words of your oth For if princes be supreme gouernors in al spiritual things causes ergo they be supreme iudges of faith deciders of controuersies interpreters of scriptures deuisers of ceremonies appointers of sacrameÌ„ts what not The. You might euen as well haue coÌ„cluded princes be supreme gouernors in al teÌ„poral things causes ergo they be supreme guiders of graÌ„mer moderators of Logik directors of Rhetorik appointers of Musike prescribers of Medicines resoluers of al doubtes iudges of al matters incident any way to reason art or actioÌ„ If this be leud irreuereÌ„t iesting yours is no better Ph. I promise you we iest not The. The more shame for you if you be in earnest to conclude so loosely Phi. Do you make princes supreme gouernors of al spiritual things Theo. You reason as if we did but our words since you wil needes rest vpon wordes are not so Phi. What are they then The. We coÌ„fesse them to be supreme gouernors of their Realms DominioÌ„s Phi. And that in al spriritual things causes The. Not of al spiritual things causes Ph. What differeÌ„ce between those two speeches Theo. Iust as much as excludeth your wrangling Wee make them not gouernors of the things themselues but of all their subiectes which I trust you dare not withstand Phi. I grant they be gouernors of their subiects but not in Ecclesiasticall things or causes They must leaue those matters for Bishops whoÌ„ Christ hath appointed to be yâ— rulers of his church And therfore your oth yeelding that power to princes which is proper to Bishops is repugnant to the lawes of God the church nature Yea it is an euideÌ„t error reproueable by al humane diuine learning that the souerainty or supremacy in causes Ecclesiasticall is by nature or by christian lawes implied in the right title of a temporal king or that it euer was due or can be due to any temporall gouernor heathen or christiaÌ„ in the world And if you will but giue eare you shal heare what a number of absurdities we wil fasten vpon you The. This oth is a great eye sore with you and I remember I promised to discusse the same in this chapter I will therefore first examine the chiefe parts of it and after you shall obiect against it what you can Where we professe that her Highnes is the onely gouernor of this Realme the word gouernor doth seuer the magistrate from the minister sheweth a manifest differeÌ„ce between their office For Bishops be no gouernors of countries princes be that is Bishops bear not the sword to reward reuenge princes do Bishops haue no power to command punish princes haue This appeareth by the words of our Sauiour expressely forbidding his Apostles to be rulers of nations leauing it to princes The kings of nations rule ouer their people and they that be great ones exercise authority With you it shal not be so that is you shall neither beare rule nor exercise authority ouer your brethren Phi. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ouerrule their subiects with iniustice violence you shal not do so Theo. So your new translatioÌ„ ouer ruleth the word howbeit Christ in that place doth not traduce the power of princes as vniust or outragious but distinguisheth yâ— calling of his Apostles froÌ„ the maner of regimeÌ„t which God hath allowed the magistrate Christ â—aith not princes bee tyrantes you shal deale more curteously than they do but he saith Princes bee Lords and rulers ouer their people by Gods ordinaÌ„ce you shal not be so Again the word which S. Luke hath is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any composition They be Lords and masters S. Paul confesseth of himselfe other Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that we be Lords or Masters of your faith yea the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with power force to rule meÌ„ whether they will or no not with wrong iniury to oppresse them therefore the conclusion is ineuitable that princes may lawfully compell punish their subiects which Bishops may not This distinction between them is euident by their seueral coÌ„missions which God hath signed The prince not the priest beareth the sword ergo the prince not
yet by Gods and mans ordinance it is so diuided that euery one of you in his order and calling hath a part of our charge in so much that I should bee your admonisher and you all my coadiutors For which respect our intent is by other good meanes and by commissioners appointed for this purpose to learne and trie howe well our lieutenants fauour and execute iustice and howe religiously our Bishops liue and preach WILLING TOV ALL VVITHOVT EXCEPTION TO OBSERVE OVR COMMANDEMENT IN ALL THINGS AND HONOVR SVCH AS WE SEND FOR ANY OCCASION OR BVSINES EITHER ECCLESIASTICALL OR TEMPORAL AND IN RESPECT OF OVR AVTHORITIE NOT TO FAILE BVT PERFORME THOSE THINGS WHICH WE HAVE ENIOYNED YOV BY THEM Nowe the charge that wee giue our visitours is this First they shall indict assemblies in two or three places whither all within the limittes of their commission shall resort and there make it knowne to all men what is the summe and effect of their message to witte that wee haue appointed them for this cause that IF ANY BISHOP or Lieutenant can not do his duetie by reason of any impediment hee should haue recourse to them and by their helpe discharge his dutie and if the matter bee such as by their industrie can not bee redressed then shall it bee brought by them to our knowledge and againe IF ANY BISHOP or Lieutenant BE FOVND NEGLIGENT IN HIS OFFICE by their monition he shal be refourmed Wee charge them likewise to make knowen to all men the Chapters or Lawes QVAE GENERALITER DE QVIBVSCVNQVE CAVSIS STATVIMVS WHICH WE HAVE DECREED GENERALLY CONCERNING ALL MANER OF CAVSES and do their best to see them throughly kept of all men And if any of the things which we haue ordained and commaunded be found imperfect by some defect happily which they can not amend then shall they with speede make relation thereof to vs that we may correct that which they cannot And because the last yere our expectation was not satisfied in such sort as we looked for we will that this present yere our visitours whom wee haue allotted to this seruice haue better respect and care how euery man that we haue preferred to the gouernance of our people in his calling dischargeth his dewtie to Gods pleasure our honor the benefite of our subiects and this shall be the very course of their inquirie whether the things contained in our Capitular which we deliuered them this yere past be kept and obserued according to Gods will our commaundement Therefore about the midst of May next shall they assemble I meane our visitours euerie man in his diuision with all the Bishops Abbats Lieuetenants our fee men and aduocats the Abbesses and such as cannot come to send their proxies the liuetenant to bring with him his vnder officers and hundreders and in that conuent shall they first conferre touching Christian religion and ecclesiastical order next they shall inquire of our officers how they doe their duties last of our people in what concord and peace they liue And this inquisition shall they make so diligently and exactly that we may be trewly certified by thē of al these points And if any such cause be brought before thē which needeth their help according to the condition of the causes specified in the short rehearsal of our lawes then our wil is they shall go to the place and redresse it by the warrant of our authoritie You can neither bee so simple but you may see nor so partial but you must graunt that Ludouike and Lotharius behaued themselues as rightful superuisours of the Bishops in their Empire how they liued and preached ayding those that were hindered correcting those that were negligent in their ministeries and sent visitours to inquire and redresse by their Princely power any cause that needed reformation in Christian religion or ecclesiastical order commaunding all men generally to reuerence and obay them as wel in ecclesiastical as common wealth matters in respect of their royal authoritie What more than this doth that oth impart which you so much declaime against Or what lesse than this did Ludouike and Lotharius execute Can their proceedings please you and our words expressing the selfesame right offend you You must either reiect both or admit both they bee so neare linked you can not disseuer them I now make your selfe iudge whether these Christian and Catholike Princes were not commaunders and punishers those we call gouernours of Bishops Priests and Moncks in maters and causes ecclesiasticall Phi. I see they were but yet not supreme which is the cheefest thing that we mislike in your oth Theo. I beleeue you well for by that worde we denie Princes to bee subiect to the Popes consistorie which is the chiefest thing you respect Phi. That worde maketh them superiours to God himselfe for supreme is superiour to all neither Christes owne person nor his Church excepted Theo. Can you make such merriments when you be disposed Phi. Doth not the word inferre superiour to all or at least subiect to none Theo. Was it in question when this othe was made whether God should be superior to man or whether Princes should bee subiect to the Pope Phi. It skilleth not what was then in question these bee nowe your woordes Theo. By this cunning you may conclude all that euer wrate with pen or spake with tongue to be wicked blasphemers Phi. Why so Theo. Where the superlatiue is vsed by your rule God himselfe is not excepted And so these phrases a most wise teacher a most holy Bishoppe a most mightie prince and ten thousand such like which we find in all mens bookes and speeches bee meere impieties For they import that many bee wiser holyer and mightier than Christ himselfe or at lest as wise holy and mightie as he which is open inexcusable blasphemie Name me what father or writer you will and see by this art of yours whether I proue him not a blasphemer Phi. That is no right vnderstanding but a foolish carping at mens wordes For when we giue these titles to men sanctissimus potentissimus beatissimus the most holy father the most puissant king the most blessed Martyr we meane amongst men wee compare them not with God Theo. And since all men euen your selues speake so why doe you take that foolish aduantage at the word supreme which we vse as if we ment not amongst men but exalted Princes aboue God Phi. But the Church of Christ is not excepted and that consisteth of men Theo. If by the Church of Christ you meane the faithfull liuing on earth certainely Princes be not subiect but superiours to all Christian men Peter spake to the chosen and elect of God when hee sayde Bee subiect to the king as to the chiefe Paul willed Titus to warne not the miscreants but the beleeuers in Creta to bee subiect to principalities and powers and wrate himselfe to all the Saintes at Rome
You must bee subiect for conscience sake If the Saintes must bee subiect to Princes ergo the Church for the Church on earth is nothing els but the collection of Saintes And if euery soule that is euery man must bee subiect howe can the Church consisting of men bee exempted But if by the Church you meane the preceptes and promises giftes and graces of God preached in the Church and poured on the Church Princes must humbly obey them and reuerently receiue them as well as other priuate men So that Prophets Apostles Euangelists and all other buylders of Christes Church as touching their Persons bee subiect to the Princes power mary the word of trueth in their mouthes and the Seales of grace in their handes because they are of God not of themselues they be farre aboue the Princes calling and regiment and in those cases kinges and Queenes if they will bee saued must submit themselues to Gods euerlasting trueth and testament as well as the meanest of their people but this neither abateth the power which God hath giuen them ouer all men nor maketh them thrall to the Popes iudiciall processe to bee forced and punished at his pleasure and therefore this notwithstanding Princes bee supreme that is superiour to all and subiect to none but onely to God Phi. Who euer taught before you that Princes were subiect only to God Theo. The Church of Christ from the beginning Colimus Imperatorem vt hominem a Deo secundum solo Deo minorem Wee reuerence the Emperour sayth Tertullian as a man next vnto God and inferiour only to God Againe Deum esse solum in cuius solius potestate sunt a quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes super omnes Deos hommes It is onely God in whose power alone Princes are in comparison with him they bee second and after him first afore all and ouer all both Gods and men So likewise Optatus Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem Aboue the Empe-rour is none but onely GOD who made the Emperour And Chrysostome Parem vllum super terram non habet The Emperour hath no peere on earth much lesse any superiour And that Princes are aboue all Saint Paul is cleare Let euery soule bee subiect to the Superiour powers All must bee subiect to them ergo they bee superiour to all and superiour to all is supreme Chrysostome calleth the Emperour The highest and head of all men vpon earth Iustinian sayth the Emperour hath receiued a common gouernement and Principalitie ouer all men Ambrose sayth of Theodosius that hee had power ouer all men And Gregorie as you hearde affirmeth that Power is giuen to Princes from heauen ouer all men not onely Souldiers but also Priestes And since I before concluded and you confessed all men were they Monkes Priestes Bishoppes or whatsoeuer to bee subiect to the Princes power and authoritie both in causes ecclesiasticall and temporall why shoulde that nowe bee reuoked or doubted Phi. I neuer did nor will confesse Princes to bee supreme For he that iudgeth on earth in Christes steade is aboue them all Theo. You come nowe to the quicke This very clayme was the cause why the woorde supreme was added to the othe for that the Bishoppe of Rome taketh vppon him to commaund and depose Princes as their lawfull and superiour iudge To exclude this wicked presumption wee teach that Princes be supreme rulers wee meane subiect to no superiour iudge to giue a reason of their doings but onely to God Phi. This you teach but this you can not prooue Theo. It forceth not what wee can doe The burden in this case to prooue is yours and not ours You say Princes bee subiect to the Popes Consistorie wee say they bee not Must wee prooue the negatiue or must you rather make good your affirmatiue Againe Saint Paul auoucheth with vs that euery soule is subiect to their power You contradict those woordes and say the Pope is not subiect but Superiour to Princes The generall in precise tearmes concludeth for vs you except the Pope must you not prooue your exception Phi. You be loth to proue you knowe the weakenes of your side Theo. You crosse the plaine wordes of the holy Ghost and woulde put vs to refute your fansies Phi. Wee say Christs Uicar is not included in those woordes Theo. Wee say the generall includeth euery particular Phi. How could Paul make Peter a subiect to Princes when Peter was none Theo. Why shoulde not Peter bee subiect to Princes when God himselfe pronounced by the mouth of Paul that euery soule was subiect to them Phi. Who euer constred S. Pauls words so besides you Theo. The Church of Christ neuer constred them otherwise Peter and the Bishoppes of Rome for the first three hundred yeeres did they not patiently submit themselues as subiects to those punishments and torments which heathen Princes inflicted on other Christians Phi. In deede they were martyred for the most part by the rage of Infidels that knewe them not Theo. And the Christians that knewe them neuer tooke armes to defend thē against the rage of Infidels but thought them subiect to higher powers by force of S. Pauls words as well as all other Bishoppes were Phi. They might not resist though they were wrongfully vexed Theo. And why might they not but because they were subiect by Gods ordinance to the Princes power Unlawfull violence might well bee resisted Phi. Christian Princes were neuer superiours to the Bishoppes of Rome Theo. Syr your courage is more than your cunning The Bishops of Rome for eight hundred and fiftie yeres after Christ that we can directly proue were duetifull and obedient subiects to Christian Emperours Phi. Are you not ashamed to tell such a tale Theo. Will you be ashamed of your error if I proue it a trueth Phi. Shewe mee that and I will yeeld the rest Theo. The rest is alreadie proued and this shall be presently shewed I might alleage that after the Romane Emperours began to professe the name of Christ Iulius and Liberius were banished by Constantius Bonifacius the first by Honorius Syluerius and Vigilius by Iustinian Martyne the first by Constantine the thirde and diuers other Popes by sundrie Princes but that I will skippe come to the submission of Leo the fourth made to Ludouike the West Emperour with these wordes If we haue done any thing otherwise than well and not dealt vprightly with those that are vnder vs wee will amend all that is amisse by the iudgement of your highnes beseeching your excellencie to sende for the better triall of these surmises such as in the feare of God may narrowly sift not onely the matters infourmed but all our doings great and smal as well as if your Maiestie were present so that by lawfull examination all may bee finished and nothing left vndiscussed or vndetermined In all things great and small the Pope
faith and which your Highnes for verie loue to trueth will make voide by your decree to the contrarie most glorious Emperour I therefore earnestly request and beseech your Maiestie by the Lord Iesus Christ the founder and guider of your kingdom that in this councell of Chalcedon which is presently to bee kept you will not suffer the faith to bee called in question which our blessed Fathers helde deliuered them from the Apostles neither permit such errours as haue beene long since condemned by them to bee nowe reuiued againe but that you will rather commaunde the faith concluded in the first Nicene Councell to stande in full force remouing all the latter deuises of Heretikes Which request Martian accomplished entering the Councell in his owne person and there by word of mouth absolutely forbidding the Bishops to defend or auouch any thing of the flesh and birth of our Sauiour otherwise thā the Nicene creed did containe To this councel of Chalcedon Leo willed by Martiā to subscribe returned his answere in this suppliant duetifull order Because I must by all meanes obey your sacred and religious will I haue set down my consent in writing to those Synodall constitutions which for the confirmation of the catholike faith and condemnation of heretiks pleased me very well What better witnesse can we produce that in causes Ecclesiasticall the Prince was the Popes superiour than this that for repealing the Councell of Ephesus for summoning the Councell o◠Chalcedon for charging those 600. and 30. fathers not to decline from the Nicene faith and requiring the Bishop of Rome to subscribe to their actes Martian commaundeth with authoritie Leo with al readinesse obeyeth yea that Leo beseecheth Martian to commaund and protesteth that for his part he did and must obey the Princes will in those cases We COMMAVND saith Iustinian the blessed ARCHBISHOPS of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Theopolis and Ierusalem to receiue for ordering and instauling of Bishoppes onely that which this present Lawe doeth allow And taxing the charges of euery Bishoppe according to the yearly value of his Church If any man saith hee presume to take for installations or other duties aboue the rate which we prefixe we cōmand that he repay thrise so much of his own to the church or bishop in that sort grieued Neither doth he limit the Popes receites onely but also bindeth him with the rest by this general constitution If any man be made Bishop contrary to the forme which this law prescribeth the party confirmed shall loose his Bishopricke and the confirmer stand suspended from his Ecclesiasticall function one whole year and besides forfeit all his goods to the vse of his owne church mary when a bishop is accused of any thing that doth by the sacred canons or our lawes hinder his consecration if any man order him before diligent examination had as well he that did order him as he that is ordered shal for euer be depriued Thus coulde auncient Princes commaund in causes and correct for offences Ecclesiasticall euen the chiefest Patriarkes and namely the Bishop of Rome who now taketh on him to depose Princes and dispose kingdomes at his pleasure This illation is more than euident by the wordes of Gregorie the first who writing to the Emperour Mauritius vseth euery where this stile My Lord my most gracious Lord I your seruant and subiect to your commaundement and that not in temporall causes but in things concerning the rules and orders of Christes church as by the speciall circumstances will appeare Mauritius perceiuing that many coueted to be Clergi-men and Monkes some to preuent the daunger of their accomptes others to decline the burden of warfare made this decree that no souldier nor officer accountant to the Prince for any summes of mony should be receiued to sacred orders or Monastical profession charging the Bishoppe of Rome to giue notice thereof to the rest of his Prouince Gregorie though very much amased and grieued at the strangenesse of this law yet durst not resist or refuse the same but first with all diligence put the commaundement of Mauritius in execution and afterward fell to beseeching him to relent somewhat from the rigour of this hard and seuere prohibition My Lord hath giuen forth this edict saith he that no man entangled with seruice for the common weale should enter any ecclesiasticall function which I greatly praysed knowing that he which on the suddaine steppeth from a secular trade to a spiritual charge doth not meane to leaue but exchange the world Where it is added that none such should be suffered in any Monasterie this I maruailed at seeing the place doth not hinder the making of his accompts nor the paiment of his debts It followeth in the same law That no man once mustered as a souldier should cōuert from that calling and become a Monke Which constitution I confesse to my Lord did euen astonish mee because the way to heauen is thereby shut vp from many men and that now prohibited as vnlawfull which hath hitherto bin frankly permitted And what am I that speake to my Lord but dust and a verie worme Yet for that this Edict tendeth against God the creator of all thinges I can not conceale so much from my Lord. I therefore beseech you by the dreadful iudge that your holines wil either mitigate or abrogate this rigorus proclamation I for my part as subiect to your commaundement haue sent your precept into sundrie coastes yet because your Lawe doeth not stand with Gods glorie Lo by letters I haue acquainted my most glorious Lord there-withall So that I haue either way done my duetie which haue both yeelded obedience to my Prince and in Gods behalfe disburdened my conscience I your vnworthie suppliant waxe not thus bold either in respect I am a Bishop or in that I am your seruant by publike right but resting on your speciall and priuate fauour for that most gracious Soueraigne you were my Lord and master when as yet you were not Lord and chiefe ouer all If it be possible for a subiect to shew more submission and dutie to the Princes commaundement than the Bishop of Rome doth to Mauritius restraining all Bishops by his princely power from admission of such Monkes and election of such Clerkes as hee disabled let your Apologie bee had in some credit but if greater obedience than these wordes import neither Gods law doth exact nor Princes can expect I trust Gregories owne confession shal be taken without exception The like submission vpon like occasion is extant in other his Epistles as when Mauritius willed him to grow to some concord with Iohn Bishop of Cōstantinople to whom or from whom Gregorie would in no wise send or accept letters of communion societie because the saide Iohn entitled him vniuersall Patriarke I haue saith hee receiued letters from my vertuous Lord that I should be at peace with my brother and fellow Bishop Iohn In deed
your holy father hath taught kings Emperours to waite on his trencher to hold his stirrop and kisse his feete Phi. We would haue Princes to serue that is to obey the church so S. Paul willeth them Obey your rulers be subiect to them for they watch as being to giue accōpt for your souls This is spoken as well to Princes as to priuate men Theo. You leape from one thing to an other neuer resolue certainly any thing Can you shew where S. Paul or Esaie or any other Prophet or Apostle teacheth Princes to be the Popes Bedels Bailifs to execute his pleasure The questiō betwixt vs is not whether princes as wel as others must be guided directed by religious godly Pastours the way to eternall life which is S. Pauls meaning in this place but whether the Pope cloathing himselfe with the name of the church may command the swords of Princes if he like not their doings take their kingdoms frō thē Do the places which you bring proue this that I mention say yea or no. Phi. Not expressely but only because the Pope is Christs Uicar on earth head of the church Theo. Will you neuer vnderstand how weake your proofes how wide they be from your intention First you stil presume we stil deny that your holy father is the head of the church and Christs Uicar general vpon the face of the earth On that false foūdatiō what God promiseth to the church in respect of her head which is Christ you closely conuey to the Bishop of Rome as heire apparant to that honor and excellency which Christ hath in his church a friuolous but a blasphemous imagination Next what submission obedience God requireth at al mens euen at Princes hands for the reuerencing of his word obseruing of his law that you wittingly confound with the temporall iurisdiction dominion that the church of Rome claimeth ouer Princes to command their scepters if they resist to depose their persons which is a wicked wilfull error If you loue truth deale plainly let this cunning go Phi. I seeke for truth let truth preuaile Theo. Would God you were so minded Phi. I am Theo. That shall wee see by your proceeding Phi. What say you by the wordes of S. Paul Obey your rulers Theo I say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth leaders as well as rulers in this place standeth rather for leaders than rulers because S. Paul in this very chap. vsing the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Remember your leaders addeth Beholding the end of their conuersation imitate their faith that is followe their steppes If wee must marke them and imitate them then surely must they be leaders to direct vs and not rulers to master vs. Secondly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it be leaders or rulers are ment not the Pope and his Cardinals but all that be christian and godly Preachers this is S. Pauls own construction Remember your leaders which haue spoken to you the word of God We be not bound to their fansies or pleasures but only to the word of truth proceeding from their mouthes Lastly obedience here required is no corporal subiection to their persons but an inward liking and imbracing of their doctrine For as touching their persons whom it pleaseth you to call rulers in this place S. Paul maketh seruāts in other places We preach not our selues saith he but Christ Iesus to be the Lord our selues your seruants And againe Not that we haue dominion or rule ouer your faith but wee are helpers of your ioy And that was our Sauiours charge to them al. Kings of nations rule with you it shal not be so but whosoeuer wil be chiefe among you shal be the seruant of all Their function is as you see TO SERVE not to rule their brethren I meane to feede not to master the flock of Christ. Phi. The Apostle saith God hath placed thē To rule the Church Attend to your self to your whole flock ouer which the holy Ghost hath put you to rule the church Theo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not To rule the church but to feed the church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be no rulers but Sheepheards Are you not very desirous of rule when you thus wrest the Scriptures to make your selues rulers Phi. S. Hieroms translation hath Regere ecclesiam to rule the church That we follow The. You follow the old corrupt translatiō where it maketh for you and where you list you leaue it S. Hierom vpon the first chapter to Tite saith In quo posuit vos spiritus sanctus Episcopos pascere ecclesiam Dei not regere And yet regere is to lead guide with counsel as wel as to rule or force with authoritie as you may perceiue by dirigere the compound which is to direct any man what way he shal go what things he shal do what words he shal speake yet these be no rulers nor haue any iudiciall power ouer the parties so directed The english word that you abuse hath the same sense In many matters men are ruled by their friends in sicknes they are ruled by their Physition in traueling they bee ruled by their guides and yet neither friends Physitions nor guides haue any iurisdiction ouer the persons that are ruled by them Why then do you trouble the world with such ambiguities perplexities of words why speake you not distinctly why conclude you not directly The Bishops of Ephesus were set by the holy Ghost to attend their flock feede the church If by this you collect that they were placed by God to teach instruct the faithful how to walke in his waies that we graunt that we know to be most true so long as they do their message from God sincerely without adding altering or diminishing but if by colour of those wordes to rule the church you seeke to giue the Pope iudiciall power to compell and punish Princes as a Superiour iudge which is the point we striue for see what shamefull violence you offerre the Scriptures First you falsifie the Text by putting ruling for feeding the church Next you dawe the word ruling from instructing and exhorting which is Apostolike to commaunding and forcing which our Sauiour forbiddeth all his Disciples thirdly that which was spoken to the Elders of Ephesus and is common to all Pastours you present the Bishop of Rome with as his peculiar charge though hee neither feede nor leade the flocke And so where S. Paul ment the Bishops of Ephesus were set to teach and instruct their brethren you conclude the Pope must ouer-rule Princes and take their crownes from them if they yeelde not the sooner Phi. You mistake me I do not bring these places to that end Theo. To that end you should bring them for that is the doubt betwixt vs that was my demaund I required you to shewe Scripture
part Theo. Faith is the foundation of the church why then should not faith be a part of the church Phi. The Church consisteth of persons not of thinges Men are the church saith S. Augustine Againe The church that is the people of God throughout all nations Theo. I doe not deny the church to bee many times taken for the faithfull on earth but I adde that the graces mysteries and word of God bee contained in the Church and without them the Persons are no Church Our bodies and soules doe not make vs members of Christ but our faith and obedience By Baptisme not by birth doe we Put on Christ and grace not meates establish our heartes They bee the sonnes of God that he led by the spirit of God And if any man haue not the spirit of Christ the same is no member of his Phi. All this is true Theo. The church then consisteth not of men but of faithfull men and they bee the Church not in respect of flesh and blood which came from earth but of trueth and grace which came from heauen Phi. I graunt Theo. Ergo the perfection of Gods giftes the communion of his graces and direction of his word are the verie life and soule of his Church so within the compasse of the church are comprised not onely the persons that bee earthly but also the things that be heauenly whereby God gathereth preserueth and sanctifieth his Church Phi. What doth this helpe you Theo. That when wee saie with S. Ambrose Imperator bonus intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est A good Emperour is within the Church not aboue the Church you can conclude nothing out of these words against vs. Phi. Can we not If good Princes bee not aboue the church ergo they be not aboue the prelats pillours of the church Theo. That is no consequent Phi. Why not Theo. By the Church are ment sometimes the places somtimes the persons sometime the things that be cheefely required in the Church Of the place S. Austen saith We cal the Church the temple where the people which are trewly called the Church are conteined that by the name of the Church I meane the people which is conteined we may signifie the place which conteyneth And againe The Church is the place where the Church is assembled for men are the Church The Church as it is taken for persons hath a triple distinction First the Church of glorious and elect Angels and men Ecclesia deorsum ecclesia sursum Ecclesia deorsum in omnibus fidelibus ecclesia sursum in omnibus Angelis There is a Church beneath there is a Church aboue The Church beneath in all the faithfull the Church aboue in all the Angels And againe The right order of confession required that in our creed next to the three persons in Trinity should stand the Church as next to the owner his howse to God his tēple to the builder his citie which must here be taken for the whole not only that part which is a pilgrime on earth but also for that part which abiding in heauen hath euer since it was created cleauen vnto God This part in the holy Angels persisteth in blessednes and helpeth as it ought her other part wandring in earth The temple of God therfore is the holy Church I mean the vniuersall in heauen and earth Secondly the Church is the people of God through out all nations ioyning reckning al the Saints which before his cōming liued in this world The whole Church euerie where diffused is the bodie of Christ and he is the head of it Not only the faithful which are now but also they that were before vs and they that shall be after vs to the end of the world they al pertaine to his bodie The Church is the body of Christ not the church which is here or there but that which is here and euery where throughout the world neither that Church which is at this time but from Abel vnto those which shall hereafter bee borne and beleeue in Christ euen till the end the whole companie of saintes belonging to one Citie which is the bodie of Christ and whereof he is the head Thirdly the Church may bee limited by time and place as the particular Churches of Rome Corinth Ephesus and such like Behold saith Austen in the Church there be Churches which be members of that one Church dispersed throughout the world There be many Churches yet one Church and in that sort many that there is but one Somtimes the church importeth besides the persons y◠things in which those persons must communicate before they can be members of the Church as when the church is called the kingdome citie and howse of God whereby wee learne that it is furnished not onely with persons but with all thinges needefull for the seruants citizens and people of God to the conuerting and sauing of their soules In that sense saith S. Paul The kingdome of God is righteousnes peace and ioy in the holy Ghost meaning these be fruits and effects of Gods kingdome which our Sauiour threatned to take from the Iewes The kingdome of God shall bee taken from you and giuen to a nation that shall bring forth the fruites thereof shewing that when the woorde of trueth and seales of grace are taken from vs wee cease to bee the people and Church of God Christ raigneth in his Church by his word and spirit without these men are not the Church An earthly citie must haue vnitie societie regiment sufficiencie for an earthly state the number of men doeth not make a citie if these thinges want Howe much more must the citie of God haue abundance of al thinges profiting to eternall life S. Austen sayth of the house of God which is the Church It is founded by beleeuing erected by hoping perfected by louing noting these three to bee the maine partes in the building of Gods house It is playner than that longer proofe shall neede If wee woulde define the Church wee must comprehend not onely men but other thinges also which may seuer the Church from those that are not the Church and those thinges that are required to the explication are wee say contained in the appellation of the Church The Church is not simply a number of men for Infidels heretikes and hypocrites are not the Church but of men regenerate by the woord and Sacraments truely seruing God according to the Gospell of his sonne and sealed by the spirite of grace against the day of redemption Men thus qualified are the Church and the giftes and graces of GOD that so qualifie them bee not onely the iewels and ornaments wherewith the spouse of Christ is decked but euen the seede and milke whereby like a mother shee conceyueth and nourceth her children The church our mother saith Austen conceiued vs of Christ nourished yea nourisheth vs with the milke of faith Shee conceiueth by the Sacraments
as by the seede of her husbande Thou wast conceiued in that thou receiuedst the name of Christ and the Lorde to make his wisedome milke for vs came clothed with flesh vnto vs. Shee is a most true mother which openeth her bosome to all nations when they shall bee newe borne and offereth her teates when they are newe borne The teeth cheekes and lippes of this spouse wee vnderstande sayth Ambrose to bee the vertues of the soule Yea the Church is life and as Paul sayth the Pillour of trueth These speeches and others that might bee alleaged shewe the Church to bee resembled to a woman and trueth sayth life grace and such like giftes of Godâ— bee counted not onely the garments but euen the bowels and partes of the Church And therefore the name of the Church sometimes imployeth as well the thinges that bee in the Church as the persons that bee of the Church which was the third point that I noted Phi. These speeches bee figuratiue Theo. I did not seeke for the proprietie but the vse of the woord and yet in proper speach persons without these thinges are not the Church and in the very definition of the Church as well thinges as persons bee comprised Phi. In deede persons enduen with those giftes and graces of God that bee needefull for eternall life are properly the Church but thinges without Persons are not the Church Theo. I do not exclude Persons but include those thinges which cause the Persons to bee members of the Church Phi. I will not much impugne that Theo. Returne then to the woordes of Ambrose which occasioned me to make this distinction A good Emperour is not aboue the church Not aboue the Church vniuersal for that consisteth of men Angels aboue whom princes be not Neither aboue the Church militant in earth for that containeth all the faithfull of all ages and Countries ouer whom there can bee no Prince but onely Christ. Phi. And what For the Church dispersed through the Romane Empire in the time of S. Ambrose was the Prince aboue it or no Theo. You must here distinguish the thinges proposed in the Church from the Persons that were members of the Church The Persons both Laymen and Clerks by Gods lawe were the Princes subiects the thinges comprised in the Church and by God himselfe committed to the Church because they were Gods coulde bee subiect to the power and will of no mortall creature Pope nor Prince Phi. Say that againe Theo. In shorter termes the Prince was aboue the Persons in the Church but not aboue the thinges in the Church Phi. Aboue the Persons but not aboue the thinges in the Church What thinges meane you Theo. Those thinges which God commaundeth in his Church and requireth of his Church Phi. I vnderstande you not Theo. Understande you our sauiour when hee sayth Giue vnto God the things which bee Gods Phi. Hee meaneth as I take it faith deuotion holynes repentance patience obedience and such like christian dueties and vertues Theo. You say well these bee thinges which Princes haue no right to clayme nor power to rule They belong onely to God To these I adde the meanes whereby God worketh these thinges in his church to witte the woord and Sacraments ouer these thinges wee graunt Princes haue no power Phi. S. Ambrose sayth not ouer the Church Theo. That is not ouer the thinges which God hath setled in his church but ouer the Persons Princes haue power Phi. What a shift of descant that is Theo. Call you that a shift which I before confirmed and you confessed to bee true Phi. What did you confirme Theo. That Princes haue power by Gods appointment ouer al men I brought you Tertullian Chrysostome Iustinian Gregorie and Ambrose himself witnessing that Princes had power ouer al men S. Paul auoucheth the same Let euery soule be subiect to their power It is no shift it is trueth that our sauiour saith kings of nations beare rule ouer them that is ouer their subiects You must either take the names of Princes and Gouernours from them or els yeeld them Countries and people to be subiect vnder them Phi. I doe so Theo. Then Princes haue power ouer all men that is ouer all Persons Phi. Ouer all persons but not ouer the Church Theo. What doe you nowe but make the same distinction your selfe which before you refused at my handes Ouer all persons they haue power ouer the Church they haue not ergo the Church is not here taken for persons And it must needes be taken either for the persons or things for the persons it is not ergo for the thinges and so by your confession mine answere standeth good that Princes haue power ouer the persons but not ouer the things in the Church And so saith S. Ambrose Ea quae diuina imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta The thinges that be Gods be not subiect to the Emperours power though the Emperour had power ouer all Persons as Ambrose himselfe affirmeth Phi. Shall S. Ambrose strike the stroke in this case Theo. The stroke is alreadie giuen by the sacred scriptures by the publike Lawes and auncient stories of the primatiue Church and yet in this point wee reiect not the iudgement of S. Ambrose Phi. S. Ambrose is cleane against your opinion that Princes should bee gouernours in causes ecclesiastical To the yonger Valentinian the Emperour thus he answereth Vexe not thy selfe so farre O Emperour to thinke that thy Emperiall right perteyneth to diuine thinges exalt not thy selfe aboue thy measure For it is written Giue to Cesar that which is Cesars and to God that which belongeth vnto God The Palace for the Emperour but the Churches are for the Priest Againe the same holy Doctor When didst thou euer heare most clement Prince that Lay men haue iudged Bishoppes Shall wee bend by flatterie so farre that forgetting the right of our Priesthood we shoulde yeelde vp to others that which God hath commended vnto vs And recounting the whole course of holy scriptures and all times past who can deny but that in the cause of faith in the cause of faith I say Bishoppes haue iudged of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishoppes Theo. Omit the circumstances and causes that moued Ambrose thus to write which bee the wordes you take most hold of Phi. These Thy Emperiall right pertayneth not to diuine thinges The Palace for the Emperour but the Churches are for the Priest In a cause of faith Bishoppes haue iudged of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Theo. You helpe the matter forward with false translating and nypping the wordes and yet they proue nothing against vs. In steede of vt putes te in ea quae diuina sunt imperiale aliquod ius habere Do not think thy selfe to haue an Emperiall right ouer those things which bee Gods or ouer diuine thinges you say cunningly Do not thinke thy Emperiall right pertayneth to diuine thinges
and our lawes If either side mislike the cause shal deuolue to the Patriarke of the Prouince and he shall end it by the direction of the Canons and our lawes Clerks we permit none to bee made except they be lettered of a right faith honest conuersation haue neither Concubine nor bastardes but such as either be single men or had or haue one lawful wife and her the first no widowe nor diuorced woman nor otherwise interdicted by the lawes or Canons A Priest wee will not haue made vnder the age of fiue and thirtie neither a Deacon or Subdeacon vnder the age of fiue and twentie neither a Reader vnder eighteene A woman shall not bee admitted to serue the Church that is vnder fourtie or hath beene twise maried Many skore precepts besides these that I recken shall you finde in that constitution touching persons and causes ecclesiasticall with these words Volumus sancimus iubemus Wee wil decree commaund and other verbes equiualent prescribing directly to Bishops what order and course they shall keepe for the seemely regiment of Christes Church By the commandement of Iustinus vncle to Iustinian the Councell of Chalcedon was preached and established through the most holy Churches And by the commandement of an other Iustinus his nephew was Gregorie called from Mount Sina to be chiefe Bishoppe of Antioch next after Anastasius whom the Prince remoued from his seate for wasting the Church treasures Leo the successor and Anthemius that maried the daughter of Martian gaue forth this commandement Let no man be made a Bishop for intreatie or for mony If any man be detected to haue gotteÌ„ the seate of a bishop by rewards or to haue taken any thing for the electing or ordering of others let him be accused as for a publike crime and an offence committed against the state repelled from his priestly degree And we adiudge him not only to be depriued for euer of that honor but also to be condeÌ„ned to perpetual infamie And the same princes by their Edict more general We decree say they that those thinges which were in sort done against the Lord himselfe of true religion being abrogated and vtterly abolished al things be restoared againe to their former condition and order in which they were established before our times as well touching the points of christian faith as touching the state of the most sacred churches Martyrs chappels Al innouations in the time of this tyrannie against the holy churches their reuerend bishops concerning the right of their Episcopall creations the deposing of any Bishop during those times their prerogatiue to sit before others within Councell or without the priuileges of Metropolitanes and Patriarks al such innouations we say repealed Let the grants CONSTITVTIONS of the godly Princes before vs and likewise ours touching churches chappels of Martyrs Bishops Clerkes and Monkes be kept inuiolable Much more might be sayd but this shal suffice You bring vs one seely mistaken authoritie where Constantius commaunding against right and trueth in a Bishoppes cause was reproued wee bring you if you viewe the precedents well an hundred expresse places and aboue that auncient and religious princes commaunded Bishoppes and Councels in matters of doctrine and discipline and were not reproued but honoured and obeyed in the Church of God Now choose whether you will shew your selues so voyd of al religion reason that you will preferre a single and solitarie text and the same so many wayes answered by vs before the publike and perpetuall practise of the primatiue Church or else acknowledge with vs that Princes for trueth did might commaund Bishoppes and preuent and punish in them as well errors in fayth as other ecclesiasticall crimes and disorders Phi. All this I may graunt and yet your supremacie will not followe Theo. Neuer tell vs what you may doe but what you will doe Deny the premisses if you dare or the consequent if you can Phi. I graunt Princes may commaunde Bishoppes but not what they list which is your opinion Theo. If you may bee the reporter of our doctrines wee shall defende many mad positions leaue your malitious and odious slaunders wee maintaine no such opinion Phi. What doe you then Theo. If you did not range thus besides all order and trueth you should perceiue what wee doe but when wee come to conclude you slide from the matter and fall to your wonted outfacing and wrangling Phi. Doe I not answere directly to that which you aske Theo. For a while you doe but when we come to touch the quicke you start aside and busie the reader with other quarrels Forbeare that till wee come to the sifting of your absurdities and then take your fill In the meane time suffer vs to say what we defend and to know what you assent vnto that the difference betwixt our opinions may be rightly conceiued and the proofes of either part duely considered Phi. With a good will Theo. Doe you then 〈◊〉 for a matter fully proued that auncient kings and Christian Emperours 〈◊〉 â—â—â—maund for trueth as well Priest as people and that they chiefly did and iuâ—â—ly might enterpose their royall power and care for the reformation and correction of errours in fayth abuses in discipline disorders in life and all other ecclesiasticall enormities as appeareth plainely by the publike lawes and acts of Constantine Theodosius Iustinian Charles Lodouike Lotharius and other no lesse Godly than worthie Gouernours If the places which I haue brought import not so much refell the particulars I will be of your mind if they doe why stande you so doubtfull as lothe to confesse and yet not able to gainesay the proofes Phi. For trueth I knowe Princes haue commaunded as well Bishops as others and vy their Princely power established and preserued the faith and Canons of Christes Church Theo. And this the sacred Scriptures the learned fathers the stories ecclesiasticall the lawes and monuments of Catholike Princes in the primatiue church of Christ for eight hundred and fiftie yeres doe fairely warrant Phi. They do Theo. And the places that proue this are both innumerable and inexpugnable Phi. The proofes for this point bee pregnant euough Theo. And this is no way repugnant to probabilitie possibilitie reason or nature Phi. It is not Theo. You will not eate these words when you come to the purpose Phi. I will not Theo. And if you were to bee sworne on a booke doe you beleeue in your conscience this which you say to bee true Phi. I doe Theo. Then here I will stay Phi. Haue I not answered directly to your questions Theo. You haue and wee vrge you no farther Phi. What are you the nearer Theo. That shall you now see You make shamefull outcries at the power which we giue to Princes to be supreme Gouernours of their Realmes in al thinges and causes as wel ecclesiastical as temporal as A thing improbable vnreasonable vnnaturall
of his truth and clensers of his Church that is with lawfull force to remoue such as impugne the faith and with publik authorit◠to punish those that defile the Church of God with their shamelesse manners be they Priestes or People and this doth not place earthly kingdomes aboue the Church but prepare them as aydes and defences for the Church which is the right end of all earthly States was the first cause why God erected them Though the sheepe may not rule their sheepeheards yet giue them leaue to discerne strangers and flie from theeues and murderers and giue the great and Archpastor that is in heauen leaue to gard his flock not only with watchmen but also with armed men that if the greedinesse and hardinesse of the wolues bee such that they feare not the clamours of Preachers at least they may shrinke for the terrours of Princes And this is no such absurditie as you make it that Princes should serue the true sheepeheard Christ Iesus by turning their swords against those raueners and spoylers which vnder the colour shew of feeding would kill the fattest and gorge themselues with the fairest of Christes flocke Yea Princes in their sort be sheepeheardes as well as Bishops in that they beare the sword vnder God to compell and punish such as the gentle perswasion of the Preacher can not moue and for that cause God said to Dauid Thou shalt feede my people Israell and Dauid maketh this report of himselfe So he fed them according to the simplicitie of his hart and guided them by the discretion of his handes As Princes are bound to heare preachers directing them vnto truth because the wordes of God are in their mouthes and hee that despiseth those thinges despiseth not mā but God so likewise are Preachers bound to obey Princes commanding for truth who so neglecteth that commandement of theirs shall haue no part with God for not doing that which trueth by the kinges hart commanded him And the Princes obedience to be due not to Preachers persons or pleasures but their message deliuered them by God the Lord Ruler of all Princes appeareth by this that Princes may lawfully punish the preachers if they falsifie the word of truth or shame their calling with their disordered liuing That Princes be iudges of Religion we neuer said it nor thought it much lesse that they be iudges of God himselfe this argueth rather your impudencie in reporting than our ignorance in not affirming it Gods name be blessed we know what difference there is and ought to be betweene God and man as well as you but such is the badnesse of your cause and blindnesse of your harts that you must and will rather childishly quarrell and wittingly belie the truth than come to a faire and euen triall S. Cyprian hath some such wordes but no such meaning as you alleage He saith when a Bishop is orderly chosen in any Church he that After the diuine allowance or iudgement after the suffrages of the people after the consent and liking of other Bishops erecteth a second in the same Church against him maketh himselfe now the Controler and Iudge not of the Bishop but of God which wee beleeue to be verie true but how doth this proue that Christiā magistrates may not displace wicked and vnworthy Bishops for their iustes desertes which is our question And as Cyprian in his sense is not againste vs so Cyprian in our case is cleare against you For when as yet there were no Princes Christened that with publike authoritie might remoue vngodly Bishoppes Cyprian assureth vs that the people might lawfully seuer them-selues from a wicked Bishoppe and elect an other His words bee these Therefore the flocke or people obeying the Lordes preceptes and fearing God ought to separate themselues from a sinfull Bishop and not to participate with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest whereas they chiefly haue power to chose worthy Bishops and to reiect vnworthie perswading and incouraging the people to goe forwarde in that their attempt notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome tooke stitch with the partie deposed and wrote letters for his restitution of the which Cyprian maketh no great account as you may see by his words that follow Neither is the Bishop of Rome so much to be blamed that was deceiued through negligence as this man to be detested that fraudulently deceiued him And though Basilides coulde circumuent men yet can he not beguile God Phi. It maketh her free from Ecclesiasticall discipline from which no true childe of Gods familie is exempted Theo. It maketh her free from the Popes Buls and decretals but not from the Lawes and Precepts of Christ which is the true discipline of Gods children Touching the regiment of their owne persons and liues Princes owe the verie same reuerence and obedience to the word and Sacraments that euerie priuate man doth and if any Prince would be baptised or approach to the Lords table with manifest shew of vnbeliefe or irrepentance the minister is bound freely to speake and rather to lay downe his life at the Princes feete than to let the king of Kings be prouoked the mysteries defiled his owne soule and the Princes indangered for lacke of often and earnest admonition Phi. I am glad you graunt that Princes may be excommunicated for that proueth Priestes to be their superiours and ouerthroweth quite their supremacie Theo. You reason very profoundly The seruants of God may not receiue any mortall man to the diuine mysteries except he bring with him a right faith in God an inwarde sorrowe for his former sinnes ergo the Pope may depose Princes set their subiectes in open fielde against them to thrust them from their thrones Phi. We reason not so but we say Priestes may excommunicate Princes ergo they be superiours to Princes Theo. I speake of not admitting Princes to the Sacramentes but with those conditions that God requireth of all Christian men without respect of States or persons and you by and by leape to excommunication which word you egerly sease on not for any meaning you haue to guide Princes right lest they prouoke the wrath of God to their euerlasting destruction by the contempt of his graces but for a cunning to defeate them of their crownes by your indirect and vngodly deuises For first you wil excōmunicate them that is you wil haue no cōmunion with them in anie thing spiritual or tēporal next you descend from not cōmunicating with thē to not obeying them lastly from not obeying to open rebelling against them placing others in their steedes And thus when Princes displease you you neuer leaue them till with this wreath of excommunication you wring their Scepters out of their handes But if you looke better about you you shall finde great difference between not deliuering them the sacred mysteries of God except they repent and beleeue the Gospell and your diuelish conspiracie to deny
loue may abound yet more and more in knowledge in all iudgement that you may discerne the thinges which are best He that is spirituall discerneth all thinges You may haue a thowsand like both places proofes that the faithfull should looke and take heede that they be not seduced And except you will excuse the people before God if you misleade them why should you bar them al trial vnderstanding whether they folow faith vnto saluation or withdraw theÌ„selues vnto perdition WheÌ„ the blind leadeth the blind and they fall both into the pit of destruction is not hee that followeth as sure to perish as he that leadeth Phi. We be content they shall bee discerners but no iudges of their Pastors Theo. And Bishops themselues be no iudges but discerners of truth Phi. We be froÌ„ the matter that we began with we were speaking of Princes The. We bee right enough Princes haue the same charge to obey the trueth beware false Prophets that priuate men haue ergo they must haue the same freedome to discerne spirites and refuse straunge doctrines that all the faithfull haue Christ hath not appointed one way for Princes an other for their people to come by the knowledge of his wil but the same way for both Ergo the precepts which I last alleadged also the former pertaine to Magistrates as well as to subiects to make the rule more generall in discerning beleeuing and obeying the truth there is no distinctions of persons with God Phi. We receiue your rule infer vpon it that these words of S. Paul Obey your rulers bind as well Princes as priuate men to be subiect to Bishops The. Take with you this limitation which haue spoken to you the word of God which S. Paul giueth euen in the same chap. infer what you can To Bishops speaking the worde of God Princes as wel as others must yeeld obedieÌ„ce but if Bishops passe their commission and speake besides the worde of God what they list both Prince and people may despise them With this limitation our Sauiour sent his Apostles into the worlde Go teach all Nations but what To obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commaunded you And this the Apostles them-selues do not conceale in doing their message The word of the Lord saith Peter indureth for euer and this is the word which is preached among you That which we haue seene saith Iohn heard that declare we to you that ye may haue felloship with vs. Let a man saith Paul so think of vs as of the ministers of Christ stewards of the mysteries of God And as for the rest it is requisite in stewardes that euery man be found faithful And to the Galat. Though we our selues or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you otherwise than that we haue preached vnto you let him be accursed Preach I now man or God I certifie you brethren that the Gospel which was preached of me was not after maÌ„ for I neither receiued it of man neither was I taught it by maÌ„ but by the reuelatioÌ„ of Iesus Christ. And this maketh him so diligeÌ„tly distinguish the precepts of Christ from his own counsels To the maried I command not I but the Lord to the rest I speake and not the Lord Yea hee requireth of them no more but that they follow him so far forth as he followeth Christ Be ye followers of me eueÌ„ as I am of Christ that is no longer nor farther than I â—ollow Christ. Chrysostom alleadging the words of S. Paul Obey your ouerseeers doth thus limit them Si quidem fidei dogma peruertat etiamsi Angelus sit obedire noli But if hee peruert any point of faith though hee be an Angell obey him not And streight after Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet si quid dixerit proprium si quid hymanuÌ„ sed Apostolo ChristuÌ„ in se loquenteÌ„ circumferenti We must not obey Paul himself if he speak any thing of his own or as a maÌ„ but we must obey the Apostle bearing Christ about that speaketh in him Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet It is not lawful for vs saith TertulliaÌ„ to deuise any thing of our selues nor to follow that which others haue deuised We haue the Apostles of the Lord for our authors who deuised nothing of their own heads but deliuered faithfully to the nations the doctrine which they receiued of Christ. Therfore though an Angel froÌ„ heauen should preach otherwise we should couÌ„t him accursed Euery teacher is a seruant of the law because he may neither ad of his own sense vnto the law nor according to his own coÌ„ceit take any thing froÌ„ the law but preach that onely which is founde in the law If Apostles and Angels bee tied to this condition much more others our first addition which speake vnto you the worde of God is euerywhere intended in the Bishops function though it be not expressed Phi. If Bishops then speake the word of God Princes must obey them The. If princes resist the word of truth in the Preachers mouth they resist not the messenger but the master that sent him Phi. Hence we conclude that Bishops be superiour to Princes Theo. By what Logicke Phi. Princes must obey Bishops speaking the word of God ergo Bishops be superiour to Princes Theo. If Bishops spake to Princes in their owne names your argument were somwhat but since they speak to them as seruants in their masters name which is Lord of all and ouer all your consequent is very foolish For let any Prince send his seruaÌ„t in a message to the Nobles of his Realm wil you reason thus The seruant speaking in the princes name that which is coÌ„manded him must be obeied of the Nobles ergo the seruaÌ„t is superiour to the Nobles I thinke you will not or if you do you reason very loosely Phi. If the seruant haue commission from the Prince though he be neuer so meane and the Nobles haue none well they may excell him in Nobilitie but sure he excelleth them in authoritie Theo. He doth in those thinges which his Commission reacheth vnto Phi. But Bishops haue commission from God to rule yâ— church ergo they be superior to princes in the regiment of the church Our assumptioÌ„ we proue by S. Paul Take heed to your selues to the whol flock wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the church of God Theo. Your lucke is euil to light on such vnperfect proofes I told you before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie to feed the church or flocke of Christ not to rule You now catch hold of the same corruption againe make it the ground of your conclusion If you trust not vs your selues in your Rhemish Testament haue so translated the word in S. Peter Feed the flock of God which is amoÌ„g you which is in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very children knowe that these three wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A sheepeheard his flocke and to feede haue one and the same deriuation and therefore one and the same signification The holy Ghost himselfe vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Synonima that is words of the same power force For when Christ repeated this charge feed my sheep thriseâ— to Peter in the Gospel of S. Iohn his words are the secoÌ„d time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now draw your assumptioÌ„ from S. Pauls wordes rightly translated what conclude you Bishops haue commission from God to feede the Church or flocke of Christ which Princes haue not ergo Bishops by their calling may preach and Princes may not This is al you can infer and this is nothing against vs. Phi. They be superiors to Princes in feeding the flock of Christ ergo they be their superiors Theo. That sequele is not good In building Masons be superiour to Princes in sayling Mariners in fighting Souldiers be these men ergo simplie superiour to Princes I trow not Phi. Preaching the word dispensing the Sacraments pardoning the sinnes or men which are the Bishops charge be things far greater higher than any that Princes haue Theo. The perfection operation of these things which you name depend not on the wils of men but on the power of God therefore the honor estimation of them must serue for the praise of Gods glorie not for the increase of mans pride The Ghostly worke is Gods the bodilie seruice is the Priests wherein Iudas the thiefe Simon the sorcerer and Demas the renegate may chalenge as much as Iames the iust Peter the zealous and Iohn the faithfull the three pillers of Christs church Per ministros dispares Dei munuâ— equale est quia non illorum sed eius est By ministers far vnlike the gift of God saith Augustine is the same because it is not theirs but his Christ sent him that betraied him with the rest of his Disciples to preach the kingdom of heaueÌ„ to shew that the gifts graces of God are bestowed on theÌ„ which receiue the same with faith though he that deliuereth them be as bad as Iudas The things which God giueth saith Chrysostom caÌ„ not be made perfect by the holines of the Priest for all is done by his heauenly grace Only the Priests office is to open his mouth but it is God that worketh all the Priest doth only accomplish the external signe or act Men saith Ambrose in the remission of sinnes ministerium suum exhibeÌ„t non ius alicuius potestatis exercent do their seruice but exercise no right of authority They pray God giueth the seruice is by man the gift is froÌ„ the heauenly power Preaching the word is a worthier part of Apostolike dignity thaÌ„ ministring the sacraments by the witnes of S. Paul himself saying Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the gospel And yet of preachers the scripture saith Neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth but God that giueth the increase So that neither in the word nor sacraments you may chalenge any thing to man but only the corporal seruice which is common to the godly with heretiks hypocrits the rest is proper to God may not be ascribed to men without iniurie to him that is the true author of them mighty worker in theÌ„ And therefore the reason which you draw from the perfection of Gods graces in the Church to the preferring aduauncing of the Bishops person before the Princes is very vitious because the subiection reueÌ„ge due to the sword is imparted to the Princes person the dignitie vertue of the word sacraments is not to the Bishops Phi. The Priests commission is higher than the Princes why should not the priests person be aboue the Princes The. The priest hath his coÌ„mission as a seruant to cal for subiection obedience not vnto himself but vnto his Lord Master that sent him And this subiection because it is giuen to God infinitely exceedeth that which Princes may looke for But what is this to the Priests person who must preach himself to be The seruant of meaner men thaÌ„ Princes make himself The seruant of al men if he note wel the words of his commission and not striue with Princes for superioritie Phi. For their persons I wil not greatly staÌ„d with you but certainly their power is aboue the princes The. You â—un so fast that you forget where you should be We were debating who should direct princes in matters of faith you be slipt from that entring a new questioÌ„ who shal correct theÌ„ where the former is yet vnfinished Phi. You did coÌ„fesse that princes must obey Bishops so long as they speak truth The. And you would not deny but princes might refuse bishops if they swarued froÌ„ faith Phi. But who shal be iudge whether they swarue froÌ„ faith or no Theo. That is the question which I said was not yet resolued If Bishops teach truth surely princes must obey theÌ„ I mean the word of truth in their mouthes If they go froÌ„ truth theÌ„ princes must auoide theÌ„ To this we both consent but the doubt is whether trueth bee tyed to some certaine Persons or places where Princes may find it whence Princes must fet it or else whether Princes as all others must vse the best meanes they can to discerne true Preachers from false and so be directed by such as they thinke to be sent from God Phi. You would haue Princes and others leane to their owne iudgements and follow their owne fansies We would haue them sticke to the Church and looke to those Pastours whose faith can not faile Theo. Such Pastours bee worth the following if you can point vs to them Phi. Peters fayth can not fayle follow that faith and you can not misse the trueth Theo. He that keepeth Peters fayth in deede can not want the trueth because Peter beleeued the truth but we bee nothing the nearer for this Pauls fayth was likewise trueth and so was the faith of Matthew Iames Iohn Iude and others but who must be credited what fayth Peter and the rest preached Shall we take that at your hands by report or at their owne mouthes by writing Phi. If their writings were not darke or might not bee wrested the Scriptures were the best witnesses of their doctrine but now their successours must rather be trusted than euery man suffered to take what fayth he list out of their writings Theo. Rather so than worse doth not answere my question but must we trust their successours in matters of faith against or besides their writings Phi. Against their writings we must not besides their writings we must For many things are beleeued which are not expressed in the scriptures The.
like danger Phi. Succession alone is not sufficient to keepe men in the right faith Theo. If you ioyne trueth and holines with it as Ireneus doth no doubt they bee markes of faithfull and Godly Pastours but succession of it selfe doth neither priuilege the Teachers from error nor conduct their hearers vnto trueth because there haue beene thousands in the Church whose opinions you may not alow though you cannot disproue their elections Phi. Admit that and how then Theo. If Bishops singled may erre why not Bishops assembled which you call Councels What assurance hath their meeting to keepe them from erring Phi. The promise of our Lord where there be two or three gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them Theo. Doth our Sauiour speake only of Bishops and Councels or els of all faythful persons resorts gathered to prayer preaching or any other good intent Phi. The wordes be general and therefore belong as wel to councels as other conuents Theo. Indeed the words be generall and therefore belong no more to Councels than to any other Christian Conuents And did they specially pertain to Councels as they do not a Councell of two or three by the purport of the very wordes hath as much assurance of trueth as a Councel of three hundered It is not the number but the name in which they be gathered that guydeth and directeth them vnto trueth Phi. If our Lord haue promised to assist three gathered in his name howe much more will hee assist three hundered Theo. And yet three may see the trueth when three hundred may misse it Which I speake not to deface religious and Godly Councels but to stay the multitude from presuming their fansies to bee true religion when they bee nothing neere Phi. May Councels erre Theo. Why not Phi. What Councels Theo. Yea Councels Rebaptising of heretikes was defended by Cyprian and a Councel of Bishops with him and as Eusebius reporteth out of Dionysius decreed In maximis Episcoporum Synodis in very great Councels of Bishops The Arrians in twentie sixe yeres gathered and framed sundrie Councels for their purpose at Tyrus Ierusalem Philippi Sirmium Ariminum Seleucia Cōstantinople and two at Antioch In the Councel of Millan Aboue three hundered of the west Bishoppes consented that Athanasius should be thrust from his Bishoprike and only fiue sayd nay To the wicked edict of Basiliscus against the Councel of Chalcedon subscribed fiue hundred Bishops Gregorie Nazianzene was so out of loue with the Councels of his time that when he was sent for he praied Proropius to haue excused to the Emperour for sicknes and addeth I to write you the trueth am determined to forbeare all Councels of Bishops because I haue not seene any good euent of any Councel but rather an encrease than a redresse of our euils So that a number of badde Bishops may doe much hurt euen in Councels and the better part is not alwaies sure to be the greater Phi. Particular Councels haue erred but neuer generall Theo. If particular councels may erre why may not general what differēce find you between Prouinciall and general Councels but only the number of Persons that bee called and places whence they bee called Now what warrant I pray you haue three hundered Bishops more than two hundered or the Bishops of some countries more than the Bishops of other Countries that they cannot erre If trueth goe by tale particular Councels haue often matched and passed many generall for number of Bishops The second and sixt generall Councels had present at either but one hundered fiftie Bishops the third had but one hundered as Beda writeth and as it appeareth by their subscriptions not aboue one hundered fiftie whereas the Councel of Sardica had three hundred and so had the councel of Millan and the fourth sixt Councels of Carthage had aboue two hundered Bishops in either of them If it goe by countries then shew vs which Countries haue this priuiledge that their Bishops can not erre and which haue it not For as yet we see no cause why trueth should be tied to some numbers or nations and not to others and before we may grant them that progatiue we must see great cause and good proofe Phi. Wee doe not hold that generall Councels are defended from error by reason of any number or nations there gathered but it is wee say more likelie that many men assembled out of diuers nations shoulde light on trueth than a fewe out of one Theo. You come with likelyhoodes when wee seeke for certaineties Can you shew forth any graunt from God that generall Councels shall not erre Phi. If generall Councels might erre the church might erre which is not possible Theo. As though none were of or in the Church but onely Bishope or all the Bishops of Christendome without exception were euer present at any Councel or the greater part of those that are present might not strike the stroake without the rest When 300. are assembled in Councel and 149. take one part and 151. the other is this your profound learning that the odde voyces which make vp the greater part can neuer erre or doth the whole Church erre when falsehood hath for her selfe tenne or twelue Bishops more than trueth hath Phi. If a Councel once geue iudgement in matters of fayth who can reuerse it Theo. The rest present or absent may lawfully contradict the Councel if it wade besides trueth or against the faith When the fathers in the great Councel of Nice were about to decree that Bishops Priestes and Deacons should not vse their wiues Paphnutius alone rose vp in the midst of their Councel and freely contradicted it The same Paphnutius when secrete enemies laboured in the Councel of Tyrus wrongfully to depose Athanasius caught Maximus the Bishop of Ierusalem by the hand and willed him to rise and forsake that conuenticle of euill men In the Councel of Millan when 300. had consented to the deposition of Athanasius Dionysius Eusebius Paulinus Lucifer and Rhodamus but fiue against fifteene skore openly and plainly withstood it The second Councell of Ephesus was reiected by many godly Bishoppes that were not present as iniurious and wicked and Leo himselfe writeth of the famous and generall councell of Chalcedon Tanquam refutari nequeat quod illicite voluerit multitudo as though that might not bee refused which a multitude hath vnlawfully decreed And making there no more account of their number though there were aboue sixe hundred fathers in that Councel he saith Nulla sibimet de multiplicatione congregationis Concilia blandiantur Let no councels flatter themselues with the great number of persons assembled Phi. You are the first that euer were of this opinion that generall Councels might erre Theo. Your owne fellowes haue beene of that opinion before vs. Panormitane the best of your canonists and Proctour for Pope
doe that which by right we can And Cyprian himselfe did not vse the word in that sense when he saide of a Bishop Iudicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterum iudicare hee may not bee iudged of an other since himselfe may not iudge an other And euen in his Epistle Nequâ— potest illis esse frons ad nos accedendi They can not haue the face to come vnto vs. Phi. You may thus shift out any thing Theo. It is no shift to tell you that non potest doth not euer signifie an absolute impossibilitie Nothing is more vsuall neither in sacred or prophane writers no nor in common speech than that construction of the word which we bring you Non possum quin exclamem I can not but crie out saith Cicero and facere non possum vt nihil ad te dem literarum I can not but write vnto you Where is no simple necessitie in either but an vrgent occasion only The Scriptures euerie where vse the word in like sort God saith Non potero celare Abraham quae gesturus sum Can I hide from Abraham that which I am about to doe Iacobs sonnes answere Sichem and his father NoÌ„ possumus facere quod petitis We may not do that which you request Of Iosephes brethren the text saith Nec poterant ei quicquaÌ„ pacificè loqui they could not giue him a faire word Iudas speaking of his brother Beniamin Non potest puer relinquere patrem suum and after Non possum redire adpatrem absente puero The lad can not leaue his father I can not returne to my father without him So Iephta saide to his daughter I haue opened my mouth to the Lord aliud facere non potero and I can not otherwise doe When Asaell persued Abner and would not leaue him Abner said depart least I be driuen to kill thee and then can not shew my face to Ioab thy brother Adonias to Bethsaba the mother of Salomon Speake I pray thee to king Salomon neque enim negare tibi quicquam potest for he can denie thee nothing The man of Iudah saide to the Prophet that dwelt in Bethell Non possum reuerti I can not go backe with thee though presently he did it Infinite are the places both of the olde and new Testament where the word is so vsed In the Gospell he that was in his bed when his friend spake to him said Non possum surgere I can not rise and yet he did The ghâ—st that maried a wife answered Non possum venire I can not come and yet he might The master saide to his seruant Thou canst be steward no longer when he ment he should not The Iewes â—aid of Christ This is an hard speech who can indure it which yet his Apostles did And Christ himselfe saide to his kinsmen Non potest mundus odisse vos The world can not hate you meaning it hath no cause to hate you Non potest oculus dicere manui The eie can not say to the hand I haue no neede of thee S. Paul meaneth if the eye will say truth So himselfe saith Non possumus aliquid aduersus veritatem We can do nothing against the truth that is we may or will not So saide the Sonne of God to the church of Ephesus Scio quia non potes sustinere malos I know thou canst not abide them that are euill A thowsande like there are in euery part of the Scripture but these are enough to perswade any sober mind that we bring no new nor strange interpretation of Cyprians words but such as is familiar and frequent in the bookes of God and mouthes of men Phi. The words perhaps may be so taken if that were proued to be Cyprians meaning in this place Theo. The wordes standing indifferent to both constructions yours and ours wee shall quickly see which of them commeth neerest to Cyprians meaning The sense which you make besides that it is absurde in it selfe it neither serueth the worde nor matcheth the circumstances of this Epistle nor agreeth with the maine iudgement of Cyprian in his other writinges and that which is most of all it flatly dissenteth from S. Paul who would neither warne the Romanes to feare without cause nor threaten theÌ„ with thinges impossible Phi. Proue this and expounde the place how you list Theo. Both CypriaÌ„ Paul name generally the Romanes not seuerally the Bishop of Rome from the rest Next habere accessum noteth not any corruptioÌ„ springing or not springing within theÌ„selues but only resort of others vnto theÌ„ Thirdly Cyprian complaineth that this was done and toucheth the vnshamefastnesse of heretikes for doing it which you would presse as impossible to bee done Fourthly the thing which those perfidious persons sought at Rome was not any mutation of the faith but letters of fellowshippe and communion which the Bishops of Africa denied them for their sundry disorders Last of al repeating and commending the warines of the Romanes in shunning the poyson of heretiks he shutteth vp his letter with wordes very like the former and declareth the true meaning of that he spake before Let our most beloued brethren hereafter stoutly decline and forbeare all speach and talk with such men Though I know our brotherhood there at Rome garded with your foresight and watchfull enough of themselues nec capi haereticorum venenis posse nec decipi can neither be taken nor deceiued with the venemous deuises of heretikes The right cause then why the Romanes in Cyprians time could not be caught with the baites of heretikes was not Peters priuilege or impossibilitie to er as you fondly dreame but the wisedome of Cornelius directing them and the peoples care neither to speake nor eate with any such men And this diligence remaining it was not possible that the impietie or infidelitie of others should haue accesse vnto them Other opinion of the Romanes Cyprian neuer had and as for the Bishop of Rome that he might and did erre if the wordes of Cyprian to Pompeius against the letters of Stephanus Bishop of Rome be not plaine enough in the iudgement of any reasonable man wee yeelde you the whole In reading the letters of the Bishop of Rome you may more and more perceiue saith Cyprian his errour which defendeth the cause of heretikes against the church of God And so likewise he saith of Stephanus haeresin contra Ecclesiaâ— vindicat he bolstereth heresie against the church Sua praua falsa defendit defendeth his euill and false assertion I respect not which of the twaine had the better side Stephanus or Cyprian but onely whether Cyprian had that opinion of Stephanus and other Bishops of Rome that they coulde not erre and if you haue but common sense you must say no. Much lesse did Cyprian euer meane to saie that the people
greater part of those which professe christianitie or some speciall places or persons must for euer be directed vnto all truth and preserued from all error this can not be concluded by these wordes Phi. To teach all truth and preserue in truth and from errour the holy Ghost is promised and perfourmed onely to the church and the chiefe gouernour and generall councels thereof Theo. In deede you take vpon you like Gouernors to appoint what the son of God shal meane who must haue the holy Ghost as if the matter were in your hands not in his Phi. Do we take vpon vs to limit the holy Ghost Theo. What else do you when of your owne heades you restraine the words of our Sauior as you liâ—t Phi. As we list Theo. Our Sauiours words are When that spirit of truth commeth he shal teach you al truth This say you is promised perfourmed only to the church the chiefe Gouernor the Pope and generall Councels thereof As if You in S. Iohns Gospel did signifie none but the Pope the chiefe Gouernor and such Bishops as the Pope will admit to his conferences which you call the generall councels of the church and what is this else but to diuide the holy Ghost as you thinke good Phi. The rulers of the church must needs haue the holy Ghost Theo. Meane you all or some Phi. The most part of them Theo. How proue you that to be Christes meaning that the most part of them which can procure themselues miters or rather catch vp Bishoprickes shall be sure of the holy Ghost in such measure that they shall neuer mistake the saith nor any parte thereof Phi. If they should erre the church should erre Theo. You run from bad to worse Your own law wil shew you the falsenes peruersnes of your Rhemish obseruations and expositions Quaero de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hic dicitur quod non possit errare Side ipso Papa certum est quod Papa errare potest Respondeo Ipsa congregatio fidelium hic dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse I demaund of what church it is ment when it is saide as here that the church can not erre If of the Pope himselfe it is certaine that the Pope may erre I answere the congregatioÌ„ of the faithfull is here called the church and that church can not chose but continue The spirit of truth is not promised to the Pope nor to his councels but to the faithfull whether they be seuered or assembled and they shall not erre that is they shall not perish in errour as the wicked do but shall either be recouered from their errour or find mercy for their ignorance Phi. May the whole church erre Theo. If wee shoulde graunt you that the whole church can not erre to wit that all the faithfull on the earth at one time can not bee deceiued in any necessarie point of faith but that Christ for his promise sake will preserue truth amongest them what is this to the Pope or his Cardinals or Conuenticles to whom you conuey the holy Ghost by inheritance Phi. Neuer delude vs with ifs but tell vs whether you think the whole church may erre or no. Theo. In matters of faith wee thinke it can not Phi. If the church can not er the Gouernors of the church can not The. Leaue trifling and fall to reasoning The whole church can not erre ergo what Phi. Ergo the Pastors Preachers can not erre Theo. Conclude you all or none Phi. To say no Pastour can erre were apparent madnesse Theo. And the next which is all Pastours can not erre doeth you no pleasure For the Bishop of Rome may erre so may the rest of his mitred and twiforked creatures yet many good Pastours and Preachers keepe fast to the faith Howbeit this conclusion doth not follow vpon my confession The whole church I graunt can not er that is all and euery the faithful can not er therefore all Pastours can not er this is no kind of consequeÌ„t For some of the faithful may be directed vnto truth they no pastors nor preachers many preachers may be preserued from errour they no Bishops many Bishops may be kept in the faith and they not assembled a great number of those that be assembled may bee rightly affected and yet not the most part of them and the greater side may be wel disposed and yet not the Bishop of Rome whom you make to be the moderator and guider of all councels And therefore your argument is very childish The whole church can not erre ergo generall councels can not erre and specially the Pope which later part your best friendes haue not onely refuted as false but also detested for incredible and shamefull flatterie Phi. So say you Theo. So say they Alfonsus that wrote bitterly against Luther when he came to this point dealt plainely in these wordes Non credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem Papae assentatorem vt ei tribuere hoâ— velit vt nec errare possit I can not thinke any man to be so impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to attribute this vnto him that he can not er Phi. Alfonsus hath no such words Theo. You say truth Alfonsus now hath not but Alfonsus had those wordes in his former editions And this commendeth your cunning that you can curtaile the writinges of your fellowes leaue out what you list when you new print them Phi. It was his owne correcting in his seconde edition Theo. Whether it was his doing or yours we care not the wordes remaine in the olde Printes to the manifest condemnation of your follie and flatterie in this behalfe And in his new copies though he qualifie his termes hee holdeth flatly the same opinion Omnis homo errare potest in fide etiam sipapa sit Euerie man may erre in faith euen the Pope himselfe And so you heard your owne gloze before affirme It is certaine the Pope may erre The same is confessed by the best of your side both canonistes and diuines Panormitane saith Concilium potest condemnare Papam de haeresi vt in cap. Si Papa Distinct. 40. vbi dicitur quod Papa potest esse haereticus de haeresi iudicari A councell may condemne the Pope of heresie as appeareth in the 40. Distinct. cap. Si Papa Where it is saide that the Pope may be an heretik iudged of heresie Lyra saith Multi summi Pontifices inuenti sunt apostatasse à side Many Popes haue proued apostataes Augustinus de Ancona Papa est deponendus pro haeresi ad CoÌ„ciliuÌ„ spectat PapaÌ„ in haeresi deprehensum condeÌ„nare vel deponere The Pope may be deposed for heresie A couÌ„cel may condemn or depose the Pope deprehended in heresie Antonius Archbishop of Florence Pro haeresi Papa congruè ipso facto
Why then shoulde the loose life or false doctrine of some Bishops preiudice others either in the same office with them or in the same place before and after them since the things bee needefull though the men be sinâ—ull The chaire is not the worse though the Bishoppe may erre But you stande in contention with vs that the Bishoppe of Rome can not erre and nowe you say hee may erre without preiudice to his office and Seate which wee graunt For his charge to teach and power to bind common to him with all Bishoppes is not abolished nor abated though some did or hereafter should abuse it In the meane time this shaketh the Popes Tribunall which you giue him ouer the whole Church For if he may erre in fayth which you confesse then can he not be supreme iudge of all others in matters of fayth lest the whole church should bee bound to forsake her faith which shee may not vppon one erroneous iudgement of his which is possible and easte to happen Phi. Not possible Popes may erre personally but not iudicially that is they may erre in person vnderstanding priuate doctrine or writings but they neither can nor euer shall iudicially conclude or giue definitiue sentence for falshoode or heresie against the Catholike faith in their Consistories Courts Councels Decrees Deliberations or consultations kept for decision and determination of such controuersies douts or questions of fayth as shall bee proposed vnto them because Christes prayer and promise protecteth them therein for confirmation of their brethren Theo. What prayer or promise of Christ is it that you speake of Phi. I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not Theo. Are you in your fiue wittes to make such constructions of Christes wordes Phi. Why so Theo. Where lyeth faith in a mans heart mouth or hands Phi. What a wise question that is aske it not for very shame Theo. Nay answere it with shame enough Or if you will not S. Paul will Corde creditur we beleeue with the heart sayth he and confesse with the mouth So that if faith be not in our lippes much lesse in our fingers Phi. Who euer doubted of that Theo. Then is there no doubt but your deprauing the prayer and promise of Christ will soone bee perceiued of al men For if Christ prayed for Peter and as you racke it for his successours that their fayth shoulde not fayle Ergo the true faith of Christ must alwayes be kept in their hearts though their mouthes faile as Peters did when hee denyed his master with his lippes whom in hart he knewe to bee the sonne of the liuing God Now you turne it cleane contrarie You graunt the Popes heart may fall from faith to infidelitie and heresie but his mouth you defend shal be kept from pronouncing it as if Christ had prayed not for Peters hart where his faith remained but for Peters mouth which failed thrise before the cocke crewe notwithstanding his masters prayer and promise that very night This is absurd enough and yet the rest is more absurd when you graunt the Pope may erre in person that is both with heart and mouth but if hee once get on his robes and ascend his Tribunall he can not erre As if Christ had prayed not for the men but for the walles neither for the Persons but for the Places which is direct against the words of our sauiour For he sayth not I haue prayed for thy Tribunals Courtes and Consistories that they shall not erre but I haue prayed for thee noting his person that thy faith that is the perswasion of thine heart beleeuing and trusting in me shall not vtterly faile but the sparkles of my grace remaining in thee shall renue thee by repentance Christ prayed for the person not for the place How then can you say that the Person may erre but not the place Phi. The Person shall bee stroken with feare as was Vigilius or preuented by death as was Anastasius that hee shall not be able to accomplish his wicked intent in open place Theo. Call you that the prayer of Christ for the Popes fayth or the plague of God vpon him for his infidelitie Phi. Cal it what you will God will not suffer him to giue definitiue sentence for heresie against the faith Theo. Shew vs the warrant that God will not suffer it and wee are answered Phi. The promise of our sauiour that Peters faith should not faâ—le Theo. Then this you make to be the effect of Christes woordes I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth shall not fayle that is notwithstanding my prayer for thee thy successours may be heretikes idolaters Apostataes and ruÌ„negates from me but I wil strike them with feare or peruert them with death that they shall not in open Court by definitiue sentence iniect â—y Church Are you not religious interpreters of the Scriptures when you delude them and interlace them with such commentaries Phi. Caiphas by priuilege of his office prophesied right of Christ though according to his own knowledge and faith he knew not Christ. And why may not the Pope haue the like priuilege Theo. Balaams Asse reproued the madnes of his master Why should not the Popes Asse haue the like priuilege Phi. You scoffe at our reasons you refell them not Theo. They neede no better refutation For out of a particular fact that is rare and vncertaine you conclude a generall and constant Rule God vsed the mouth of Caiphas the high Priest without his meaning to declare the necessitie and vtilitie of Christes death Hence you would inferre that no high Priest could erre in iudgement and consequently not the Pope as being belike successour to Caiphas that put Christ to death By the same cuÌ„ning you may conclude God vsed Balaams mouth against Balaams will to blesse Israel therefore no false Prophet can haue a lying spirit in his mouth Or God stirred vp the spirit of Daniel when he was a very child to coÌ„uince the two iudges of their vnrighteous proceeding against Susanna therefore children cannot want the spirit of direction in iudgement Or Pilats wife perceaued by her dreames that Christ was innocent therefore weomens dreames are alwayes true Phi. These illations be very foolish Theo. Yours is scant so good For in your example God ouerruled the hie-Priests mouth in such sort that in giuing the Iewes wicked and haynous counsel to kill the sonne of God his words receaued a double sense One cruel bloudie perswading them to murder the author of that new doctrine for feare least the Romanes should take it as an occasion to destroy the whole nation which was Caiphas mind and purpose The other confessing that his death should saue the people from destruction which declareth the vertue and force of his Passion Which he neither ment nor knew but God so tempered his tongue that in writing his furious malice against Christ his wordes stood indifferent for both constructions
such as be worthie Phi. No. Theo. Then do you giue the same power to the Pope which God claimeth to him-selfe to displace the wicked from their thrones Phi. But vnder God Theo. If your holy father do this without a particular and precise warrant from God hee doth it not vnder God but as well as God that which is in this case done without God is against God But on with your example of Samuel Saul was deposed of his kingdome by Gods appointment and sentence which Samuel pronounced vnto Saul from the mouth of God Ergo what Phi. Ergo king Saul was deposed Theo. Grant he were by whom was it done by God or by Samuel Phi. God prescribed the sentence but Samuel pronounced it Theo. In whose name did Samuel speake in Gods or his own Phi. In Gods Theo. Said he more than God commaunded him Phi. I thinke not Theo. Then God spake the worde and God gaue the iudgement against Saul only Samuel was sent to tell Saul so much that was sore against Samuels will as appeareth by his mourning for Saul which God reproued in him And now to turn your own exāple on your own head I trust God hath as much right to depose Princes as the Pope Phi. What then The. Did all Israel Iudah sinne in obeying Saul so many yeares after hee was deposed by God and an other annointed in his place Phi. They did it for feare because Saul kept the kingdom by tyrannical force notwithstanding his deposition Theo. Did Dauid sinne in seruing Saul long after himselfe was annointed Phi. He durst not doe otherwise Theo. When Dauid had Saul alone in the caue and might haue slain him did he well to spare him Phi. He might lawfully haue killed him as S. Augustine deduceth but he would not Theo. Of that anon in the meane time was it a lie in Dauid to call him his master and the Lords annointed after his deposition Phi. He called him so in respect he had bin so though presently he were not so Theo. Nay Dauid affirmed y◠at that present he was so The Lord saith Dauid keepe me from laying mine hand on him For he is the Lords annointed And after shewing that this was his dutie and not his curtesie when he founde him asleepe one of his Captaines would haue slain him he said Destroy him not for who can lay his hand on the Lords annointed be giltles Where Dauid maketh it no fauor to spare him but a sin to touch him And to the messenger that brought him news of Sauls death How wast thou not afraide saith Dauid to put foorth thine hand to destroy the annointed of the Lord And commaunding the fellow to bee thrust through Thy blood saith hee bee vpon thine owne head for thine own mouth hath witnessed against thee saying I haue slaine the Lords annointed If all Israel obeyed Saul notwithstanding the sentence of God pronounced against him if Dauid himselfe after his annointing serued honored Saul as his master called counted him the Lords annointed to the houre of his death abhorring it as a sinne in himselfe to lay hands on him seuerely punishing it in an other that did it How can you warrant rebellion against Princes or make it a meritorious act to murder them whom the Pope without all authoritie frō God presumeth to displace Phi. Dauid might lawfully haue killed Saul as S. Austen sheweth against Adamātius but he would not The. The words of Dauid are plain to the cōtrary speaking of Saul himselfe Who can lay his hand saith he on the Lordes annointed be guiltles He could not be guilty but of a sinne it had bin therfore no lawful but a sinful deed for any man Dauid himselfe not excepted to haue killed Saul in respect he then was so continued till he died The Lordes annointed Phi. S. Augustine saith Dauid might haue killed Saul without feare His words be Dauid had his enemie persecutour king Saul in his power to do with him what hee woulde and hee chose rather to spare him than to kill him Hee was not commaunded to kill him neither was hee prohibited Imo etiam diuinitus audierat se impunè facere quicquid vellet inimico Yea rather hee had hearde at Gods mouth that hee might freelie handle an enemie how he would and yet so great authoritie hee conuerted to curtesie Theo. Adimantus helde opinion that the olde Testament was contrarie to the newe because the Lawe as hee thought permitted reuenge and allowed men to kill their enimies where the Gospell commaundeth vs to praie for our enimies and to loue them as the wordes of our Sauiour doe witnesse This obiection Sainct Augustine refelleth by shewing that the killing of the Nations which God commaunded proceeded of loue not of hatred and that the iust of the olde Testament loued and fauoured their enimies when it was expedient for them so to do as namely Dauid that spared king Saul his enimie and persecutour though he might easilie haue slaine him Philand Sainct Augustines worde is impunè hee might freely haue doone what hee woulde to him Theoph. Whether that were Sainct Augustines perswasion or an aduauntage taken vppon Adimantus assertion the place it selfe doeth not expresse of the twaine I thinke the later to bee the truer For this was Adimantus erronious position that the Lawe licenced the Iewes to kill their enimies and you may not well charge Sainct Augustine there-with least you bring him againe within the compasse of the Manichees errour Sure it is Sainct Augustine doeth not grounde his speech on this that Saul was deposed and therefore might haue iustly beene destroyed which is our case but on the permission of reuenge which the Lawe of Moses seemed to graunt Dauid towarde his enimie as well as all others towardes their enimies marie that was no right exposition but a misconstruction of the Lawe sufficient to refute Adimantus because it was his owne but not rashly to bee fathered on Sainct Augustine in respect of his learning and credit otherwise in the church of God For the lawe of God gaue no man leaue to kill his enimie but that precept was to bee referred to the Magistrate to whome God gaue the sworde lawfully to kill such as were by his Lawe adiudged to die which our Sauiour doth not prohibite in the new Testament but reproueth the Iewes for hauing this false conceit of Gods lawe that euery priuate person might hate his enimies and loue his neighbours they corruptly expounding neighbours for friendes and acquaintance and assureth them that to loue their enimies and pray for their persecutors which hee then prescribed them was no new addition but the ancient and true intention of Gods law These wordes then Dauid had heard by the Lawe of God for speciall reuelation from God to Dauid Sainct Augustine knewe none that hee might doe freely what hee would to an enimie are assumed
against Adimantus as part of his owne confession and former obiection and conclude that either Adimantus mistooke the meaning of the law as in deede hee did or that Dauid perfourming the precept of Christ when hee spared his enimie gaue example that others vnder the Lawe shoulde doe the like and so the Law neither waie repugnant to the Gospell as his conclusion imported And if any thinke it much Sainct Augustine should pitch himselfe on other mens wordes as they were apparant truethes hee must remember hee dealt with the Manichees that receiued no Scriptures but such as they listed and therefore to presse them with their owne position was a neerer waie to confounde them than to loade them with Scriptures which they regarded not and that maketh Sainct Augustine giue sometimes not the soundest solution hee coulde but the readiest to stoppe their mouthes with their owne assertions Otherwise Sainct Augustine was plainely resolued that Dauid so much esteemed in Saul the holinesse of his regall inunction euen vnto his death that hee trembled at heart for cutting the lappe of Sauls garment Quaero si non habebat Saul sacramenti sanctitatem quid in eo Dauid venerabatur nam eum propter sacrosanctam vnctionem honorauit viuum vindicauit occisum Et quia vel panniculum ex eius veste praescidit percusso corde trepidauit Ecce Saul non habebat innocentiam tamen habebat sanctitatem non vitae sed vnctionis If Saul had not the holinesse of the sacrament I demand what it was that Dauid reuerenced in him For the sacred and holy vnction of a king hee honoured Saul liuing and reuenged his death on him that saide hee slue him And because himselfe had cut but the lap of Saules coate hee was strooken and trembled at heart for the fact Behold Saul was not innocent yet had hee the holinesse not of life but of his annointing Phi. If Dauid might not lawfully haue slaine Saul Dauid might not beare armes against Saul for the putting himselfe in armes proueth hee was either lawfull king or a manifest rebel against the king which I thinke you will not affirme Theo. Dauid was neither king as yet when hee did this nor rebell against the king Hee put him-selfe in armes not to seeke the kingdome nor to subdue the vsurper as you vainly suppose hee fledde to saue his life as euery subiect may by your doctrine doinges yea though life be not sought Phi. Howe coulde Dauid bee annointed if Saul were not first deposed Theoph. You misconster Samuels wordes For by them the Scepter was not taken out of Saules handes but his seede reiected from inheriting the kingdome Philand Nay Samuel sayde vnto him God hath cast thee awaie from being king And againe The Lord hath rent the kingdome of Israel from thee this day hath giuen it to thy neighbor What can this import but he was personallie deposed from the gouernment Theophi The present possession of the kingdome was not denyed him but the inheritaunce of it to him and his issue By a king Samuel ment not one that shoulde gouerne during his life for so did the Iudges of Israel before Saul that were no kinges but one that should haue the kingdome to him and his after him by waye of inheritaunce For that was it which the children of Israel respected when they required a King which was not a Gouernour for the time but a setled succession in the regiment as other Nations had This was it that Samuell saide vnto Saul when he first reproued him Thou hast doone foolishly thou hast not kept the commaundement of the Lord for haddest thou kept it the Lord had now established thy kingdom vpon Israell for euer But now thy kingdom shal not continue This was it that Samuel ment the seconde time when he more sharpely rebuked Sauls disobedience Because thou hast cast awaye the worde of the Lord therefore hath he cast away thee from being king And againe The Lord hath rent the kingdome of Israel from thee this daie and hath giuen it to thy neighbour not meaning his person shoulde bee degraded but the kingdom remoued both from his line and from his tribe Phi. This is your priuate sense for the wordes sound that he should not bee king ouer Israell Theo. Sainct Augustine him-selfe expoundeth these verie wordes as I do Iste cui dicitur spernit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel dirupit Dominus Regnum ab Israel de manu tua hodie quadraginta annos regnauit super Israell tanto scilicet spacio temporis quanto ipse Dauid audiuit hoc primo tempore regni sui vt intelligamus ideo dictum quia nullus de stirpe eius fuerat regnaturus Saul to whome it was sayde the Lorde will cast thee away that thou shalt not bee king ouer Israell and the Lorde hath rent the kingdome from Israell out of thine hand this daie euen hee raigned fourtie yeares as long as Dauid him-selfe and this hee hearde in the verie beginning of his raigne that wee shoulde vnderstand it therefore to be spoken because none of his stocke should raigne after him And hadde not Sainct Augustine goone cleare with vs the circumstaunces of the Scriptures doe thus lymitte the wordes of Samuel For Dauid was then a verie young boie or as the text sayeth a little one keeping sheepe when hee was annointed hauing neither age experience nor strength fit for the present vndertaking of the kingdome Next Dauid neither claymed nor pretended any right to the Crowne during Saules life but serued and obeyed Saul as his liege Lorde and Master whiles hee lyued and so confessed him to bee Thirdly Saul him-selfe neuer obiected this vnto Dauid that he sought the kingdome from him but from his sonnes for so he said to Ionathan As long as the sonne of Ishai liueth vpon the earth thou shalt not be established nor thy kingdō And the priests that were charged with treason for helping Dauid did not answere as you do that Saul was an vsurper Dauid the right king but Who is so faithful among all thy seruants as Dauid goeth at thy commandement witnessing for Dauid that he behaued himselfe as a faithfull subiect vnto Saul not as a claimer of the crown from Saul Thus al the Tribes of Israel conceiued constred the wordes of Samuel For when they came to make Dauid king after Sauls death they said In time past when Saul was our king thou leddest Israel in out the Lorde saide vnto thee thou shalt feed my people Israel and thou shalt be captaine ouer my people Israel So came all the elders of Israel and annoynted Dauid king ouer Israel according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Samuel The text it self alleadgeth Gods own words Samuels act not for the present possession but for the rightfull succession of the crowne that after Sauls death
it did belong to Dauid Phi. The annointing of a second king is it not the deposing of the former Theo. God often times annointed him that should succeede as when hee willed Elias to annoint Hazael king of Syria Benhadad his master yet liuing likewise to annoint Elizeus the Prophet in his own roome whereby neither Benhadad was deposed from his kingdom nor Elias depriued of his ministerie but â—uccessours appointed to them both Phi. You see in what sort also Ieroboam king of Israel had a special Prophet sent to him to denounce the intended iudgementes of God against him his Posterity for his schisme and separation of his people from the old ancient true worship of God in Ierusalem for erecting a new altar in Bethel in which al schisme and diuision from the Apostolike See is properly prefigured for creating of a wicked clergie out of AaroÌ„s order I meane new hungrie base inordered Priests the patern of heretical ministers thrust vp out of the aray orderly succession creation of Apostolike priesthood a crime so highly afterward both in him and his stock according to Gods former denunciation reuenged that none of his house was left to pisse against a wal Yet hee fondly sought to apprehend the man of God to kil him for bringing this newes which he accounted high treason against his Regalty Theo. You promised to proue that Princes might bee lawfully deposed by Priests now slipping cleane from the question you shew that God threatned destruction to wicked princes charged his Prophets to go to them tel them so much from him to their faces Who euer doubted of this or which way draw you this to make for your purpose If God may iustly reuenge the sinnes of all men euen of Princes themselues and oftentimes doth wil you thence inferre that Priests or Prophets may depriue Princes of their kingdoms Phi. A priest denounced Ieroboam to be a wicked schismatike Theo. He was a Prophet no Priest that cried out against the Altar of Bethel in Ieroboams presence spake not one worde of Ieroboams schisme or deposition but onely that king Iosiah should sacrifice the Idolatrous Priests burne their bones on that Altar which came to passe 300. yeares after Ieroboam was dead Such mighty reasons you bring to iustifie the deposing displacing of Princes by the Bishop of Rome that when all is saide your own glosing interlacing besides the text is the best ground of your argumeÌ„t That Ieroboams erecting a new Altar in Bethel properly prefigured our diuision froÌ„ the Apostolike See so you call Rome that his new hungrie base inordered priests are a paterne of our ministers these be the blasts of your spirit caÌ„kers of your mouth they touch not vs but in your deceiued exaspered fansie We haue forsaken the struÌ„pet that made drunk the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her fornication are gone out of her lest we should be partakers in her sins receiue of her plagues otherwise we haue diuided ouer selues neither from God nor his church That the clergie of England is vpthrust hungrie base is but the vnloding of your disdainful stomakes in deed your boy-priests haue a brauer fashion to ruffle in their silks and colors think themselues no cast ware as if the sight of Rhemes or Rome did by by make them Iosephs betters in dignity AbrahaÌ„s equals in grauity for our part wee are that wee are by the grace of God wee hope in his mercy his grace in vs shal not be in vaine But what is this to the question whether the Pope may depose princes or no you began with a matter which you neuer came neere now you be clean besides For what doth Gods threatning or punishing of Ieroboam concern the Popes deposing degrading of princes God repaied the wickednes which Ieroboam committed with fearful plagues on him his whole house after him Ahias the prophet did not spare to tel Ieroboams wife that God would do it not leaue one of his line to wet a wal Euery preacher may do the like that is they may protest assure princes that Godwil not leaue their sins vnpunished both with temporall eternall plagues yet euery preacher may not depose princes Yea the preacher of God may do the like to the pope himselfe and yet you thinke it no reason that euery preacher should depose the Pope Much lesse wil it follow that your holy father may thrust princes from their seates because the Prophets of God in old time reproued princes for their Idolatries Ph. Ozias also or Vsia king of Iuda puffed vp with intolerable pride as the scripture saith not coÌ„tented with his kingly souerainty but presuming to execute spiritual priestly function was valiantly by Azarias 80. priests with him assailed thrust out of the temple by force At what time for that he threatned the priests of God resisted them with violeÌ„ce he was stroken with a filthy leprosie so not only thrust out of the teÌ„ple but by their authoritie seuered also from al companie of men a special figure of the priests power to excoÌ„municate for heresie as wel princes as others in the new law finally the regiment of his kingdom was committed to his sonne A cleare example that priests may vse armes represse impietie by forcible waies where it may serue to the preseruation of religion and honor of God Theo. Vzziah presuming to burn incense on the Altar of God which was the priests office was stroken with a leprosie liued as a leper in an house apart froÌ„ meÌ„ to the day of his death A faire warning for princes not to wax proud against God nor to vsurpe thinges interdicted them by the law of God But that Azarias the priest and 80. of his brethren valiantly assailed the kinges person and thrust him out by force or that the regiment of his kingdom passed from him as depriued of his right and descended to his sonne these be your additions and imaginations the text hath no such things Azarias his brethren withstood the king but in wordes rebuking him for the breach of Gods law which they might not manfully assailing the Magistrate nor laying violent hands on him to thrust him out of the temple as your martial termes do import If the scripture it selfe do not content you repeating the words wherewith Azarias resisted the king heare Chrysost. conclusion vpoÌ„ this place After the Priest had reproued the atteÌ„pt the king would not yeeld but offered armes shilds speares vsed his power then the priest turning himselfe to God I haue done saith he my duty to warn him I can go no farther Nam Sacerdotis est taÌ„tum arguere for it is the priests part only to reproue freely to admonish with words not to assaile
superficial it skilleth not refel it or receiue it Theo. Marke the strength of your argument Needlesse companie with idolatrous wicked persons is prohibited ergo the necessarie subiection to Princes which God commandeth may be refused Phi. We say not needelesse companie but all companie Theo. S. Paul by that worde excludeth not charity much lesse duetie but barreth only that familiaritie which may be relinquished without breach of either Phi. That is your paraphrase not S. Pauls Theo. Weigh the wordes of S. Paul better and your selfe will bee of the same minde with me Thus he saith I wrote vnto you by letters that ye should not keepe companie with fornicatours and I ment not simplie with the fornicatours of this worlde or with the couetous or with extorsioners or with idolatours for then must you goe out of the world But now haue I written to you that you shoulde not bee companions with such If anie man that is called a brother be a Whoore-master or couetous or an idolater or a railer or a drunkard or an extorter eate not with such an one To eate with a man is familiaritie that may be forborne without contempt of Christian Charitie or dutie and that the Apostle willeth them to refraine teaching the Thessalonians to what end and in what sort he would haue it doone If any man obay not our sayings note him by a letter and haue no companie with him that he may be ashamed yet count him not as an enimie but admonish him as a brother When as yet there were no Christian magistates to keepe men by feare from offending S. Paul chargeth the Christians to shew their zeale in shunning the companie of vnruly persons at meate and other familiar meetinges thereby the rather to make them ashamed and to reduce them to Christian and comly behauiour Which precept was general for all disorders We commaund you brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that you withdraw your selues frō euery brother that walketh inordinately not after the institution which you receiued of vs. Phi. For smaller offences this might be but for heresie S. Paul saith A man that is an hertike after the first and second admonition auoide And so doth S. Iohn If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine receiue him not into your house nor say God saue you vnto him If we may not so much as salute them doe you thinke we may serue them or obey them Theo Were you in debt to an heretike would you not pay him his own because you must not salute him Phi. Debt is dew whether he be Turke Infidel or heretike therefore reason he haue his owne but I must not do that which I neede not Theo. And whether thinke you the truer debt that which groweth by our act and consent or that which is imposed vppon vs by the will and commaundement of God As when S. Paul saith Owe nothing to any man but giue to all men their due Do you not think this as good debt as if it were in coyne Phi. If it be their due Theo. We owe it not if it be not due but if it be must we not render that which is due to all men be they Turks infidels and heretikes Phi. To heretiks nothing is due Theo. Doth not the seruant owe faithful diligence to his master notwithstanding his master be an infidel or an heretik Phi. If the master become an heretik the seruant is ipso facto made free Theo. By whose law Gods or mans Phi. By the ciuill lawes of auncient Emperours Theo. But before those lawes were made by Princes might seruants by Gods law refuse their masters for idolatry or heresie Phi. For idolatrie he might not whatsoeuer for heresie The. If God wil haue christiā seruāts obediēt subiect to their masters in al things to please thē though they be infidels enimies to the faith why not likewise to them that are deceiued in some points of faith The like we aske of man and wife Might the husband forsake his wife or the woman her husband for these causes Phi. For infidelitie they might Theo. And what for heresie Ph. The case is not ruled Theo. Yeas that it is Our Sauiour forbiddeth all men to put awaie their wiues except it bee for adulterie Now adulterie is not heresie And this was Pope Caelestinus his errour which Innocentius the 3. cōdemneth Therfore the case is ruled both by Gods Law and by your own Decretals Phi. They may not bee diuorced Theo. Then must she continue still his wife and is by Gods lawe bounde to bee subiect vnto him and to loue him though he be an heretike or an infidel And so are the children bound to cherish honor and obey their Parentes by the Lawe of God notwithstanding they be Ethnikes or aliens from the faith And therefore these prohibitions Eate not with them keepe them not companie salute them not discharge not seruants children nor wiues for yeelding that duetie to their masters parentes and husbandes which God hath commaunded but cut off onely that familiar and friendly greeting saluting conuersing which amongest brethren is requisite but to wicked and vngodly persons may without sinne be denied Phi. What then is your answere Theo. S. Paul forbiddeth voluntarie companie not necessarie duetie S. Iohn those familar and friendly salutations which argue good liking and fauour to the parties and may bee forborne not that publike subiection to Magistrats which God hath inioyned vs whether we will or no. Phi. Ought we to flatter Princes if they be heretik◠Theo. We may flatter no man in that which is euill yet must we giue euill mē that which God hath allowed them The places which you bring barre no kinde of duetie prescribed by the law of God neither of seruauntes to their masters nor of children to their parentes nor of wiues to their husbandes though their masters parentes and husbands be heretikes much lesse doe they prohibite submission to Princes which God exacteth before these domestical duties and commaundeth all men Apostles and Bishops not excepted to giue feare honour subiection and tribute to Princes as their due when Princes as yet were pernicious idolaters and barbarous persecutors of the faith faithfull And who that hath any regard of trueth will preferre your crooked shapelesse consequēts before the manifest doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Giue to Caesar the things that be Caesars You must bee subiect whosoeuer resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God Honour the king and submit your selues whether it be to the king as the chiefe excelling or vnto the Gouernors as sent by him For so is the wil of God These be flat plaine precepts which you can not ouerthrow but with an euident direct and speciall release The directions which the Apostles gaue to shame the disordered
opinion is common but not currant with vs If you meane to proue it you shall haue the longer and stiller audieÌ„ce Phi. S. Peter being but a meere spiritual officer and Pastor of mens soules yet for sacrilege and simulation stroke dead both man and wife S. Paul stroke blind Elymas the Magician So did he threaten to come to his contemners in rod of discipline So did be excoÌ„municate a Principal person in Corinth for incest not only by spiritual punishment but also by bodily vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement As he corporally also corrected and molested with an euill spirit Himeneus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie Finally he boldly auoucheth that his power in God is to reuenge al disobedience and to bring vnder all loftie hearts to the loialtie of christ and of the Apostles and Sainctes in this life Nescitis quoth he quoniam Angelos iudicabimus quanto magis secularia knowe you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular matters Theo. Such dissolute mariners were neuer like but to make such desperate aduentures You shoulde proue that spirituall Pastours haue power to sease the goods and possessions and chastise the bodies of such as they excommunicate and you shewe where God afflicted those for their sinnes which the Apostles cast out of the Church either with euill spirites or some corporall plague or death as hee sawe cause which is not pertinent to your purpose Can you not distinguish the finger of God from the factes of men Or see you no difference between miraculous vengeance from heauen and iudicial processe on earth God strake Ananias dead for tempting him in Peter and Elymas for resisting him in Paul May Preachers therefore putte out mens eyes and murther such as beleeue them not In deede you practise this new kinde of preaching but not by warrant from Christ or his Apostles Philand Did not Peter kill Ananias and Sapphira with his worde Theo. And since you can not do the like with your words you will take helpe of your handes Phi. With wordes or handes so they bee slaine all is one Theo. Not so The one is a miracle wrought by God the other is a murder committed by man which God prohibiteth and of all other thinges ought to bee farthest from the Preachers of peace Phi. Peter did so Theo. Peter reproued them for tempting the holie Ghost but the hande of God and not of Peter inflicted the punishment Reade the place Then saide Peter Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou shouldest he vnto the holie Ghost Thou hast not lied vnto men but vnto God Nowe when Ananias hearde these words saith the Scrâ—pture hee fell downe and gaue vppe the Ghost I aske not what faâ—t of Peters you finde that shoulde hasten the death of Ananias but what one worde purporting any such thing can you shewe vs in all that Peter saide to Ananias Phi. In his wordes to Sapphira wee can For hee saide to her The feete of them that haue buried thine husband are at the doore and shall carrie thee out Theo. Did Peter by these words kill her or foretell her that God would doe to her as hee had doone to her husbande Phi. Which say you Theo. Peter we say neither desired nor inflicted that iudgement on them but onely signified what God would doe The like we saie for Paul when Elymas was stroken blind He warned that Sorcerer what should befall him from God but himselfe did neither enuie nor iniurie the Sorcerers eyes His wordes were Wilt thou not cease to peruert the streight waies of the Lord Now therefore behold the hand of the Lord is vpon thee and thou shalt be blind not seeing the Sunne for a time Paul denounced Paul imposed not that corporall chastisement on him The deede was Gods who may iustly take from his enemies not onely their eies but their breathes and spirits when he wil and in what sort it pleaseth best his righteous and sacred wisedome Phi. But Paul himselfe corporallie corrected and molested with an euill spirite Himineus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie So did he excommunicate a Principal Person in Corinth for incest not onely by spiritual punishment but also by bodilie vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement Theo. You drawe the word of God to your fansies by turning doubtes into certaineties antecedentes into consequentes mans actions into Gods iudgementes That the Apostle deliuered Himineus and Alexander vnto Satan and so the incestuous Corinthian whom you of your owne head without any witnesse call a Principal Person in Corinth because the slide you saw was easie from Principall to Princes is a matter out of question but that he corporally corrected and molested them with euil spirites these be your additamentes wherewith you thought to lengthen the text to your own liking Phi. S. Paul gaue iudgement of the Corinthian that he should bee deliuered vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh And how could the flesh be destroied without bodily vexation affliction The. This phrase for the destruction of the flesh hath diuerse expositions therefore vpon a doubtful kinde of speech you can not build an vndouted conclusion S. Ambrose expoundeth the place thus The Apostle decreed that by the consent in the presence of all men he should be cast out of the Church Cum eijcitur traditur Satanae in interitum carnis Et anima enim corpus intereunt His casting him out of the Church is the deliuering of him to Satan to the destruction of the whole man which is nothing but flesh For both soule and bodie perish And lest you shoulâ— thinke it much that the soule is called fleshe he giueth this reason Victa anima libidine carnis fit caro the soule once ouercome by the lustes of the flesh becommeth flesh and is in the Scripture so commonly called the lusts of the flesh deliuereth the soule defiled with it and also the body to hell Phi. But S. Paul addeth that the spirite may bee saued in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ which can not stand with this exposition that both fleshe spirit were deliuered vnto perdition Theo. The same father will tell you that the spirit may be referred not to him that was excluded but to the rest that remained in the church as if S. Paul should haue saide I haue decreed to cast this vncleane person out from among you to his iust condemnation that the grace of Gods spirit may be preserued in the rest of you to the day of iudgement The same Sainct Augustine followeth What spirite doeth the Apostle affirme shoulde bee preserued when he saieth I haue deliuered that man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh c. The destruction of the flesh ment in this place is a man addicted to pleasures and fleshly delightes purchaseth hell to himselfe For by such sinnes the whole man becommeth
three admonitions and the last publike after the which if that take not place we shal be excused before God if we no longer accept him that did vs wrong in the number of our brethren Let him be to thee as an Ethnike and a Publicane that is sayth S. Augustine Noli illum deputare iam in numero fratrum tuorum nec ideo tamen salus eius negligenda Do not accompt him in the number of thy brethren and yet his saluation must not bee neglected For the Ethnikes themselues that is heathen men and Pagans wee doe not recken to bee our brethren and yet we seeke to saue them By this you may doe well to erect a Court where euery subiect may sewe his Prince for priuate iniuries and to make your selues Iudges of all such matters that if the Prince refuse your order you may take his Crowne from him Is not this thinke you good diuinitie for a Christian Common-wealth Phi. If hee that will not heare the Church in priuate offences betweene man and man must bee taken and vsed as an heathen how much more he that will not heare nor obey the Church in publike and haynous sinnes against God Theo. Take the place howe you will of priuate or publike iniuries or sinnes against man or against God no such thing is consequent as you would seeme to inferre If hee heare not the Church whosoeuer whensoeuer in what cause soeuer graunt all this that your antecedent may bee the freer from checke or chaunce what will you conclude Phi. He must bee to vs as an heathen Theo. And what then must heathen Princes bee depriued of their Crownes and Scepters Was not Caesar an heathen when our Sauiour willed all men to giue to Caesar the thinges which were Caesars Was hee not an heathen Magistrate before whome Christ stoode when hee sayde Thou couldest haue no power ouer mee vnlesse it were giuen thee from aboue Were they not heathen Princes to whome Peter and Paul required and charged all Christian Princes to bee subiect without all resistance Did not the Church of Christ taught by them so to doe submit her selfe for the space of three hundered yeeres to heathen Princes and those terrible and most bloudie tyrants Phi. We deny not this Theo. You can not If then disobayers of the Church must be vsed no worse than heathens and publicanes ergo they must neither bee spoiled of their goodes nor afflicted in their bodies nor remoued from their seates if they be Princes For these things by Gods Law the Church might not offer to Pagans nor Publicans Phi. This that Christ saith if he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publicane is by the iudgement of S. Augustine more grieuous than if he were slaine with the sword consumed with fier or torne with wilde beastes Theo. And why because the iudgement of God to the which he is reserued shall bee more heauie to him than any humane torments can be And this maketh rather against you than with you For if the neglecter of the Church shal be so grieuously punished at Gods hands why doe you challenge to your selues the corporal correcting and chastising of such as disobay the Church And so Saint Augustine expoundeth himselfe It is by and by added saith he by our Sauiour Amen I say vnto you What you bind on earth shall bee bound in heauen that we should vnderstand how grieuous a punishment it is to bee left vnpunished by man and to be reserued to the iudgement of God Phi. The Church hath decreed that heretikes shall not beare rule ouer Catholikes and this voice of the Church all men are bound to heare vnlesse they will be counted for Pagans and Infidels Theo. First the Church can make no such decree next the Church of Christ neuer made any such Decree Phi. May not the Church make that Decree Theo. Shee may not Her power concerneth the soules of men and not their bodies and neuer goeth beyond the word and Sacraments Shee may not intermeddle with the temporal states and inheritances of Priuate men against their willes much lesse with the thrones and swords of Princes The Church cannot giue leaue that children shall disobay their Parents nor seruants their Masters nor weomen their husbandes because God hath already commanded they shall obay whose precepts the Church is with al reuerence to receiue and with all diligence to obserue and not to frustrate or hinder the least iote of his heauenly will and Testament If any particular places or persons attempt the contrarie they cease to be the Church of GOD in that they wilfully reiect and change the worde of God S. Augustine saith well Non debet ecclesia se Christo praeponere The Church may not preferre her selfe before Christ. Neither may we beleeue the true Churches them selues vnlesse they say and doe those things that are consonant to the Scriptures Yea we must accurse the Angels in heauen if they should do otherwise The whole Church oweth the same dutie to all and euery the precepts of God that ech priuate person doth And therfore shee may not dissolue nor disappoint the least of them Now the Church her selfe is commanded by the mouth of Christ and his Apostles to honor and obay Princes For these precepts be general touch the whole church Giue to Caesar the things that be Caesars Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Submit your selues to the king as the chiefest For so is the will of God neither Monke Priest Prelate Pope Euangelist or Apostle exempted as in the place where I haue already shewed Ergo shee hath no right to dishonour or depose Princes nor to licence their subiects to resist them at her will and on her warrant which is the grounde that you build on Phi. They be but flatterers of Princes that so say or heretikes that so thinke that the ministers of Christes most deare spouse of his very mysticall bodie his kingdome house on earth whom at his dâ—parture hence he did indowe with most ample commissioÌ„ and sent foorth with that authoritie that his father before gaue vnto him haue no power ouer Princes to denounce or declare them to be violators of Gods and the Churches Lawes nor to punish them either spiritually or temporally not to excommunicate them nor to discharge the people of their oth and obedience towards such as neither by Gods Law nor mans a true Christian may obay Theo. If we knewe not your accustomed brauerie you might somwhat trouble vs with your insolent vanities but now we haue so good experience of your fierce lookes and faint harts that we neede not feare your force Bring somwhat besides your own conceit that the Pope may depose Princes and then call vs flatterers and heretikes at your pleasure If not take heede you proue not presumpteous and stately rebels against God and man I winne you be the
catholike church that heretikes shoulde bee put to death And therefore the ancient Fathers did not extend these preceptes to heresie as you doe or else they thought them-selues and the church of Christ not bounde to the iudiciall part of Moses lawe which properly concerned the Iewes Common-wealth and expired at the comming of our Sauiour But admit this place were ment of heresie which is not so when God saith that Prophetes shal be slaine and thou shalt slea the inhabitants of that citie with the edge of the sworde and destroie it vtterly doeth he speake to priuate or publike persons To priuate men he saide thou shalt not kill ergo this precept hee shall bee slaine is directed to the Magistrate to whome God gaue the sworde for this purpose that hee should take vengeance of the wicked in his name and according to his law Phi. What if the Magistrate him-selfe bee the partie that so sinneth and should be put to death shall he escape Theo. That is the case which you take in hande to proue that the people may punish the Prince offending as wel as the Prince may the people Phi. Either the people or none must do it Theo. And since the people may not doe it it is euident that God hath reserued the magistrate to be punished by himselfe and not giuen the people power ouer their Prince Dauid committed adulterie Salomon eâ—ected Idolatrie both offences being death by Gods lawe Might the people therefore haue put Dauid Salomon to death In many christian common-wealthes rapes thestes murthers be capitall crimes and punished by death shall the people therefore take their Princes if they be culpable in any of these and by their owne lawes chop off their heads I think you be not so mad to put the sword in euerie mans hand that first will vse it Phi. Then Princes haue impunitie to doe what they list without feare of Lawes Theo. Princes appoint penalties for others not for themselues They beare the sworde ouer others not others ouer them Subiectes must be punished by them and they by none but by God whose place they supplie Saint Cyrill saith rightly Nemo leges Regum impunè reprobat nisi Reges ipsi in quibus praeuaricationis crimen locum non habet Prudenter enim dictum est impium esse qui regi dixerit iniquè agis No man may breake the lawes of Princes without punishment but the Princes themselues who may not be charged with the transgression of their owne Lawes For it was wisely spoken he is wicked that sayeth to a king thou art an offendour And if it bee a monster in nature and policie to suffer the children to chastise the father and the seruantes to punish the Master what a barbarous and impious deuise of yours is this to giue the Subiectes power of life and death ouer their Princes Sticke not to these thinges if you bee wise least Children and Seruauntes thinke it more neede you bee purged for Phrensie than answered by Diuinitie Phi. Neither pertaineth this to poore men onely but to the Gouernours and Leaders of the people most of all As wee see in the booke of Numbers where Moses by the commaundement of God caused all the Princes of the people to bee hanged vppon Gibbettes against the Sunne for communication in sacrifice with the Moabites and the rest of the people euerie one by the hande of his neighbour to bee put to the sworde for the same fault wherein Phinees the Priest of God by sleaing a chiefe Captaine with his owne handes deserued eternall prayse and the perpetuitie of his Priesthood By Moses also his appointment the faithfull Leuites slue 3300. of their neighbours brethren and friendes for committing idolatrie and forsaking the true God Mary in all this as you see by the examples alleadged the Prophet and Priestes must direct them for the cause and action that they erre not of phantasie partialitie pride and pretence of Religion as heretikes and rebels do but the quarrel must be for the olde faith seruice and Priesthood against innouation and directed and allowed by those which by order and function haue charge of our soules Theo. Can you see no difference betweene Nobles that bee Subiectes and the Prince that beareth the sworde Moses the chiefe Magistrate was commaunded by God to hang vp the heades and captaines of the people for committing whoordome with the daughters of Moab and bowing down to their gods and so hee did Your conclusion is ergo the people may doe the like to their Magistrates You may hang this reason on a hedge for the goodnesse of it Your antecedent hath two sufficient warrantes which your conclusion lacketh First God precisely commaunded that kinde of reuenge to bee taken and secondly the Magistrate was the reuenger Howe can you then vpon this infer that Subiectes may do the same since Subiectes be no magistrates and haue a streit commandement from God not to laie hands on his annointed Phi. Phinees the Priest of God slue Zimri the Prince of the house of Simeon with his owne hands and thereby gat the perpetuitie of his Priesthood Theo. Phinees had for his warrant afore he did the deede the voice both of God and the Magistrate For Moses had charged the Iudges of Israell before Zimri came with the woman of Midian into the tentes Euery one slaie his men that ioyned vnto Baal Peor And the Magistrate commaunding as in this case you see he did it was lawful for Phinees or any other priuate person to execute that sentence Phi. Why then was Phinees so highly commended and recompenced at Gods handes Theo. Not for attempting to kill without commission as you imagine but for his readinesse to accomplish the will of God and worde of Moses with his owne handes in the sight of them all and hastning in his own person to do that execution though he were the chiefe Prince of the tribe of Leuie and sonne to Eleazar the high Priest whose zeale for his seruice God so imbraced that he willed the office of the high Priest after his fathers death to remaine to him and his line for euer Phi. The Leuites before that slue 3300. of their neighbours brethren and friends for committing idolatrie and forsaking the true God Theo. Why shoulde they not when as God and the Magistrate appointed them so to doe Moses gaue them the charge in these words Thus saith the Lord God of Israel put euerie man his sworde by his side and goe to and fro from gate to gate through the host and slea euery man his brother and euery man his companion and euery man his neighbor And the children of Leui did as Moses had commanded and there fell of the people that day about three thowsand men What fact can be more lawfull than where God prescribeth what shall be done and he that beareth the sword authoriseth others to do it Phi. The Priestes you see made this
Their owne words testifie they were christians for when Iouinian the next day after Iulians death was chosen Emperour by them refused the place because he thought the most part of the souldiers to be Gentiles they cried al with one common voyce and confessed themselues to be christians Against Valens the church of Christ had forces abundant if shee would haue sounded or vsed them For all the tyme of his raigne not onely the West Emperours were Catholikes first Valentinian and after him Gratian but Procopius at Constantinople taking armes against Valens and the Gothes detayning all Thracia from him gaue the Christians great aduantage to haue shaken him cleane out of the East Empire if their willes had beene answerable vnto their strength Valentinian the yonger infected with Arianisme Maximus a rebell of this land thrust quite from the West Empire made him flie into the East partes and had not Theodosius a Catholike Prince conquered that Tyrant and restoared the yong Prince to his Scepter againe he had lost his Crowne for euer Where you see not only what forces the Catholikes had but howe farre they were from deposing hereticall gouernours that woulde hazard their liues to restoare them And what thinke you was the force of all the christians in the worlde when the people of one Citie falling into a sedition for matter of Religion so preuayled and passed all the power of resisting that Anastasius the Emperour was faine to come to an open place without his Crowne and by heraults to signifie to the people that he was readie with a very good will to resigne the Empire into their handes At the sight of whom the people moued with that spectacle chaunged their mindes and besought Anastasius to keep the Crowne and promised for their partes to be quiet Yet was Anastasius both an heretike and an excommunicate person if your owne words before or stories otherwise may be trusted Not therefore disabilitie but dutie not lacke of competent forces but a reuerent regarde of the Apostles Doctrine kept the Primatiue Church of Christ from resisting her Princes Shee neuer determined shee neuer attempted any such thing shee might often tymes haue repelled them from their Seates and woulde not but taught all men to submitte themselues and rather to bee crowned as martyrs for enduring than to bee punished as rebels for inuading their Princes For they that resist shall receiue iudgement which not onely the auncient Christians but the very Barbarians did confesse Athanaricus king of the Gothes when hee came to visite Theodosius Sine dubio inquit Deus terrenus est Imperator contra quem quicunque manus leuare nisus fuerit ipse suâ— sanguinis reus existit No doubt sayth hee the Emperour is the God of the earth against whom whosoeuer will offer to lift vp his hand is guiltie of his owne blood Phi. Yea the quarel of Religion and defence of innocencie is so iust that heathen Princes not at all subiect to the Churches Lawes and discipline may in that case by the Christians armes bee resisted and â—ight lawfully haue beene repressed in tymes of the Pagans and first great persecutions when they vexed and oppressed the faithful but not otherwise as most men thinke if they would not annoy the Christians nor violently hinder or seeke to extirpate the true fayth and course of the Gospel Though S. Thomas seemeth also to say that any heathen king may be lawfully depriued of his superioritie ouer Christians Theo. What S. Thomas seemeth to say wee care not so long as we know what S. Paul sayth and that is You must bee subiect not onely for feare of wrath or lacke of force when you can not choose but euen for conscience sake though you were able to resist If your schooles haue gotten any other doctrine than this looke you to that wee bee the disciples of Christ and not of Occam Scotus or Thomas men may by this perceiue what your schoolemen would aduenture in other pointes of Religion that in so cleare a case of conscience and obedience they woulde flatly contradict the holy Ghost Heathen Princes may not bee resisted by their Christian subiects of them Saint Paul wrate when hee sayde Whosoeuer resisteth power resisteth the ordinance of God and of them Christ spake when hee charged vs to giue vnto Caesar the things which are Caesars They might not therefore lawfully haue beene repressed in the tymes of the Pagans and first great persecutions when they vexed and oppressed the faithfull because sufferance made their subiects martyrs before God whome resistance would haue doubbed for rebels against God and man If your meaning bee that by Christian Princes had there been any such in those dayes they might lawfully haue beene repressed and pursued with armes you alter the question and touch not our case Wee reason not what Christian Princes may doe to heathen Tyrants but what duetie Christian subiects must yeelde to their Princes bee they Pagans or others that beare the swoorde And for that wee haue the manifest voyce of Gods spirite which I haue often repeated and against the which wee giue eare to no creature man nor Angel That voyce the church of Christ diligently remembred and constantly followed as Tertullian witnesseth Wee are disfamed sayth hee concerning the Emperours maiestie but neuer yet Albinians Nigrians nor Cassians Albinus Niger and Cassius being rebels in his tyme could bee found to be Christians A Christian is enemie to no man much lesse to the Prince whom he knoweth to be appointed of God so of necessitie must loue reuerence and honour him and wish him safe with the whole Romane Empire Therefore wee sacrifice for the health of the Emperour but vnto our God and his God and with chast prayer as GOD hath commaunded So that wee pray for the Emperours health more than you asking it of him that is able to giue it And God forbid we should take those thinges which we suffer in euill part since wee desire to suffer them or imagine any reuenge against you which wee waite for at Gods leasure Yet needefull it is wee lament your case since not a citie of yours shall escape at Gods hande for the shedding of our blood And againe in his Apologie for all Christians Thou that thinkest we haue no care of the welfare of our Princes looke vppon the woordes of GOD I meane our bookes which neither wee suppresse and many chaunces bring to your eyes Knowe that there wee are commaunded for the plentifull encrease of our charitie to pray to God for our enemies and to wish wel to our persecutours Yea namely and plainely he sayth Pray for kings for Princes and powers that all things may bee peaceable vnto them For the Empire can not bee shaken but wee also must bee partakers of the fall And after some woordes But what speake I more of the religion and pietie of Christians towardes
as you affirme you may but with reuerence and humilitie serue God before the Prince and that is nothing against our oth Phi. Then is not the Prince supreme Theo. Why so Phi. Your selues are superiour when you will serue whom you list Theo. As though to serue God according to his will were to serue whom we list and not whom Princes and all others ought to serue Phi. But you will be iudges when God is well serued and when not Theo. If you can excuse vs before God when you mislead vs we wil serue him as you shall appoint vs otherwise if euerie man shal answere for himselfe good reason he be master of his owne conscience in that which toucheth him so neere and no man shall excuse him for Phi. This is to make euery priuate man supreme iudge of religion Theo. The poorest wretch that is may be supreme Gouernour of his owne hart Princes rule the publike and external actions of their Countries but not the consciences of men and therefure this thwartling is to no purpose Phi. By what authoritie then in the first Parliament of the Queenes highnesse raigne was the determination decision and definition of truethes or of heresies and errors of the true worship of God and the false attributed to that Court of the states no lesse or rather more than to the foure first or any other general Councel to which the deciding of such things is there granted with this limitation so far as they can warrant their doings by the expresse wordes of Canonical Scriptures and no farther but to the Parliament absolutely decreeing at the same time that nothing there determined should be counted heresie errour or schisme what order decree sentence constitution or law so euer were to the contrarie the holy Scriptures themselues not excepted Theo. It is no wonder to see you quarel with the court of the Sates that are so busie with the Princes Crowne And therein as in the former your behauiour doth not change For entring with a manifest vntrueth and keeping on a course of emptie and haughtie wordes which is your glorie you tell vs at length with pride enough that our Lawes be strange and vnnatural dealings proceedings dishonourable to her MAIESTIE and the Realme against Gods expresse commaundement lymiting his constant and permanent trueth to mortall mens willes and fancies violent disorders which to all our posteritie must needes breede shame and rebuke vniust and therefore bind not in conscience repugnant to the dignitie and priuiledges of the Church against the oth of the makers and in deed no Lawes at all the makers lacking competent power authoritie and iurisdiction to proceed iudicially and authentically to heare determine and define 〈◊〉 giue sentence in any such things as be meere ecclesiasticall with a number of those bold and stately bragges hauing neither proofe of your part nor reproofe of ours but only pretending certain legalities quiddities solemnities of humane iudgements which in Gods cause be very ridiculous and in matters of faith more than superfluous For God will not haue his trueth depend either on the numbers or qualities of persons and when his word is offered we may not stand staggering till the Pope and his Cardinals please to assemble and there iudicially and authentically heare and determine what they thinke good which I winne they wil neuer against themselues Christ sent not iudges with iudicial processe but a few disciples with the sound of their voices to conuert the world the Prophetes that taught the people of God and reproued both Priests and Princes vsed no legall nor authenticall proceedings but a bare proposing the will of God to such as woulde beleeue The Kings and Princes before Christ that subuerted Idols and refourmed religion in their realmes relyed on their Princely Power and zeale for the doing of that seruice and not on the ceremoniall and sententiall acts and decrees of Priests or Prophets The Christian Princes take which you will that first receiued and after restored the faith in their Empires and kingdomes tied not them selues to the voices and suffrages of the Clergie that were in present possession of their Churches but often times remoued them without Councel or common consultation You may do well to correct S. Paul where he saith faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God and to adde faith commeth by iudiciall cognition and competent iurisdiction of such as haue legall meanes to deliberate and pronounce of God and his trueth Phi. Would you haue such disorder and confusion suffered in the Church that euery man should follow what he list Theo. I would not haue such presumption or wickednesse brought into the Church that Christ or his worde should be subiected to the wils or voices of mortall men for though the whole world pronounce against him or it God wil be true and all men shall be liars Phi. No more would wee Theo. Why then restraine you trueth to the assemblees and sentences of Popes and Prelats as though they must bee gently entreated and fayrely offered by Christ before he might attempt or shoulde expect to recouer his owne Phi. Wee would haue things done orderly Theo. Call you that order where Christ shall stand without doores till your Clergie consent t◠bring him in Phi. God is not the author of confusion but of peace Theo. It is no confusion for one familie yea for one man to serue God though all the families and men of the same realme besides will not Ioshua sayd to the whole people If it seeme euill vnto you to serue the Lorde choose you this day whome you will serue but I and myne house will serue the Lorde Elias was left alone for any that he sawe willing to serue God in Israel and yet that abated not his zeale Micheas alone opposed him-selfe against foure hundreth Prophetes with what iudiciall authoritie can you tell Ieremie assured the Priests and Prophetes of Ierusalem that God would forsake them and that hee did without any legall meanes that wee can read Amos spared neither Ieroboam the King nor Amaziah the Priest and yet he was but a simple heardman and not so much as the sonne of a Prophet Iohn Baptist had no competent iurisdiction ouer the Scribes and Pharisees that sate in Moses chayre and yet hee condemned them for a generation of vipers The Councels where Peter Steuen Paul and other of the Disciples were conuented accused and punished lacked none of your iudiciall formalities and solemnities and yet the Apostles stoutly resisted and vtterly contemned both their deliberatiue and their definitiue sentences In deede your forefathers assaulted our Sauiour him-selfe with that very question as also they did Iohn before him and the Apostles after him When the Lord was teaching in the temple the chiefe Priestes and the elders of the people came vnto him and sayde by what authoritie doest
through their rehearsall by consenting to their wordes be stirred or moued to depend on God The Priest therefore in his church seruice though he direct his heart to God yet doeth hee open his mouth for their sakes that are present that they may be both kindled and guided by the sounde and sense of his wordes to ioyne with him in offering to GOD one agreement of heart and voice which is the cause why publike prayer was ordained And euen at this day in your Masse the Priest speaketh not one worde in his owne person but in euery praier both warneth the people to pray with him and speaketh in their persons as well as in his own For example Let vs praie let vs giue thanks we beseech we offer we praise we blesse we adore which argueth that at the first institution of your owne seruice the people did were bound to marke and vnderstand the Priests wordes with answering Amen to acknowledge and confâ—â—m his prayers to be their desires and requestes vnto God though now you shut vp their eares mouthes that they can neither vnderstand you nor knowe what to answere you but only open their eyes to beholde your gestures as if it were not a place for praier but a stage for dumbe shewes to delight the senses Phi. You make certain petite reasons against vs for the seruice in the vulgar tongue but had they beene sufficient do you thinke the church of Christ would haue taken vp the contrary custome for these fifteene hundreth yeares Theo. I thinke shee would not by her church seruice I proue shee did not Phi. You proue the people vnderstood the seruice by course answered and consented to that which was sayde in the church but this doth not proue that the prayers were in any other tongue besides the Latine Greeke or Hebrewe which is our assertion Theo. This is it which I tolde you before that finding the people did vnderstand the diuine seruice in the Primatiue church and that no praiers were counted publike vnlesse they had the consent answere of the whole multitude we neede not care in what toungs this was done The Hebrew Greeke Latine Armenian Indian Persian Syrian Gothian tongâ—es are they not all alike to God Must not barbarous Nations be edified by their praiers as well as the ciuiler or learneder sort of men There is no respect of persons with God is there of tongues Phi. The three learned tongues were dedicated in our Sauiours crosse the rest were not Theo. Who set vp those titles on the crosse the Lord which suffered or Pilate which condemned him vniustly to death Philan. What though Pilate set them vp Theo. If Pilate were a wicked Pagan and his fact wickedder in proclaâ—ming the Sonne of God for a Traitour and an aspirer to the Crowne of Iurie in Hebrewe Greeke and Latine letters what reason can this be why God will not or shoulde not bee serued in any other tongue but in one of these Haue you no better examples than Caiphas to vphold the Popes Tribunall and Pilate to commend your Latine seruice Phi. Yeas we haue the church of God Theo. Then why conceale you that and bring foorth Pilates impietie to prescribe a rule in the church of God against the Apostle Phi. The tongues were good though his fact were euill Theo. And dare you say that any tongue in the world is not good Phi. Good they bee all but not so good as any of these to serue God in Theo. Recoile you back againe to that errour that God is an accepter of tongues Phi. You call it an errour Theo. So is it and that a verie grosse errour For God accepteth the zeale of the heart not the sound of the mouth and though to vs there is some difference in the perfection and pleasantnesse of the speech to God in deuotion of praier there is none He saith Origen that is Lord of all tongues heareth those that praie in any tongue For God the gouernour of the whole world is not as one that hath chosen the Greeke or some other barbarous tongue and is ignorant of the rest or neglecteth those that speake vnto him in any other tongue And since he hath made all tongues requireth not the sounde of our mouthes for himselfe but for our selues it is wilfull folly to say that prayers bee sanctified or accepted to God in one toung and not in all tongues alike Phi. Still I say the Church of God hath no such custome which Saint Paul himselfe laieth downe for a sure direction in all church matters Theo. Take you the negligent abuse of late yeares in some places for the custome of Gods church Or doe you thinke it pietie to pretende any custome of your owne against the commaundement of God Phi. Any thing which the whole Church doeth practise and obserue throughout the world to dispute thereof as though it were not to bee doone is most insolent madnesse as S. Augustine verie notably saith in his 118. epi. Theo. S. Augustin doth not say that you may prefer custom before the Scriptures or change the auncient custome of Christes church in making her praiers in a vulgar and knowen tongue with a newer order of your owne in tying the people to a strange and vnknowen language either of those by the verdict of Augustine in this verie place is that most insolent madnes which you would seeme to fasten on others And yet you miserably racke this place of Augustine For of two parts you dissemble the first that you may pull the second to your purpose and in the seconde you leaue out two conditions which your Author addeth and were the text truely cited your application is so false in the sight of all men that none but mad men would venter on so desperate an assertion as you haue doone For that the whole church of God throughout the world euer had or at this day hath her seruice in an vnknowen tongue or in Latine well you might vtter it in a dreame but neuer sober man said it being broad awaked well aduised The wordes of S. Augustine being consulted of the rites and ceremonies of the Church not of the doctrine or faith of the church are these If the authoritie of the Diuine Scripture prescribe in any of these rites and ceremonies what is to bee doone I answere there may bee no doubt but that we must doe as we reade Similiter si quid horum tota die per orbem obseruat Ecclesia The like I say if any of these rites bee obserued of the whole church thoroughout the whole world at this present day for to dispute that we should do otherwise is most insolent madnesse The scripture is first to be respected obeied if that prescribe no certainty the custom of the vniuersall church is to be folowed in those rites which are neither against the faith nor good
diuided from our world when he commeth to any forwardnesse in Religion seeketh for this place which he knoweth only by hearesay and by relation of the Scriptures what shall I speake of the Armenians Persians Indians Ethiopians of Egypt that is hard by and hath such stoare of Monkes or of Pontus Cappadocia Caelesyria Mesopotamia and all the swarmes of the East They haue diuerse languages but one religion There are here almost as many Quires that sing the Psalmes in their seueral tongues as there be diuersities of nations Sainct Augustine vrgeth this which you defende that GOD shoulde not bee praised in a barbarous tongue as a manifest inconuenience against them that woulde not haue the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsed to expresse the nature and substaunce of the Trinitie If one substaunce of the Father the Sonne and the holie Ghost may not bee vttered in the Greeke tongue ergo neither is it fitte that God shoulde bee praised in a barbarous tongue but if the later be vsed why not the former And that the later was vsed hee sheweth in these wordes Vna rogatur vt misereatur à cunctis Latinis Barbaris vnius Dei natura vt à laudibus Dei vnius nec ipsa lingua barbara sit vt Latinis aliena The one nature of one God is praied vnto by all the Latines and Barbarians to bee mercifull to them in so much that the verie barbarous tongue is not excluded from the praises of one God as belonging to the Latines more than to the Barbarians In Latine we saie Domine miserere Then belike this mercie ought to bee asked of that one God the father the Sonne and the holy Ghost but onely in the Hebrewe or Greeke tongue or at least in the Latine tongue and not in any barbarous tongue Marie if it bee lawfull not onely for the Barbarians in their language but for the Romanes conquered and compelled by the Goaâ—hes to learn their speech to say sihoraarmem which is as much as Lord haue mercy on vs why should it not be lawfull for the councels of the Fathers that were assembled in the Land of Grecia to cal one substance of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost in their owne tongue homousion Thus much S. Augustine confessing that God was and might bee praised and prayed vnto in a barbarous language as well as in Hebrew Greeke or Latine and repeating a peece of the church seruice in the Gothian tongue which not onely them-selues vsed but the Romanes were forced to receiue in steede of Domine miserere when their citie was taken and surprised by the Gothes for Kyerie eleison which Gregorie two hundred yeres after borowed of the Grecians was not as yet in Sainct Augustines time vsed in the Church of Rome The very sauage people that offered vnto Diuels when they were conuerted vnto Christ were not denied to haue their Psalmes and prayers in their rude and vnpolished tongues as S. Hierom reporteth of the Bessians and others The passion and resurrection of Christ the tongues and letters of all Nations doe sound I speake not of the Hebrewes Greekes and Latines which Nations the Lord did dedicate in the title of his crosse that the soule is immortall and hath his being after the dissolution of the body the Indian the Persian the Goth the Aegyptian can largely discourse The wild Besâ—ians and they which goe cloathed in beastes skinnes for lacke of other apparel sacrifised men to the Ghostes departed stridorem suum in dulce crucis fregerunt melos haue turned their barbarous and fearefull noise into the sweete melodie of the crosse Other particulars might be brought but the report of Sainct Basill shall suffice for the generall order of praying and singing obserued as hee saieth in all the churches of God and therefore in those Nations and Countries where the common people coulde no Latine Greeke nor Hebrew but of force were driuen to vse their naturall language though it were barbarous before they could either vtter their own minds or vnderstand what others sayd The people with vs rising in the night goe to the house of prayer and with continuall teares making their confession to God and at length rising from prayers they sette them-selues in order to sing Psalmes Where being diuided into two partes they sing by courses eche side after other and so with varietie of Psalmes and prayers interserted they spende the night as soone as the daie breaketh all of them in common as it were with one mouth and one heart offer to the Lord a psalme of confession euery one of them making the woordes of repentance proper to him-selfe In respect of this order then if you refuse vs you must also refuse the Egyptians the people of either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lybia Thebais Palestine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arabians Phoenicyans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syrians the Armenians Babylonians other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 borderers on Euphrates generally al with whome vigils prayers and common psalmodies are esteemed And that this order of singing the Psalmes was generall throughout the whole Church of Christ were the people Iewes Grecians Romanes or Barbarians the woordes immediatly before doe witnesse To that accusation wherein we are blamed for the psalmodies I haue this to answere that the maner and fashion of singing Psalmes which is here with vs is agreeable and consonant to all the Churches of God If these words be true then not only the Egyptians South Indians Arabians and Syrians whom this Father nameth but the Persians East Indians Armenians Iberians Scithians and all other Nations had the same order of praying and singing in their Churches by the mouthes and voyces of the simple and vnlearned people And consequently either all the Christian men weomen and children in the world could speake and vnderstand one of the three learned tongues which is a ridiculous false and impious imagination or else eche nation had their publique prayers and Psalmes in their seuerall and barbarous tongues which is the point you would needes haue prooued before we passed any farther Phi. That was then the manner of the Church but since this which we vse hath beene thought by the wisest and godliest to bee most expedient and it is certainely seene to bee nothing repugnant to S. Paul Theo. You lacke good neighbours to helpe you that you bee forced so shamefully with your own mouthes in godlinesse and wisedome to preferre yourselues before the learned and Catholike fathers of all antiquitie Wee shewe you the auncient and vniuersall custome of Christs Church proportioning her prayers by the rule of S. Paul and directing them wholy to edifie the vulgar and simple people as much as might bee by plaine precept from God himselfe as they conceiued the Apostles speach you tell vs that you haue not onely chaunged that order of your owne authorities but that you haue conferred with some godlier and wiser
but let a man examine himself and so eate of this bread and drinke of this cup that is before hee eate of this breade and drinke of this cup and he shall find that contentious and riotous persons such as they were in their feastes bee no sit ghestes for that heauenly Supper And yet to vs it is all one whether it were before or after at their bankers and feastes it was ministred and eueÌ„ serued at their tables as S. Augustine noteth in these words Non debent fratres mensis suis ista miscere sicut faciebant quos Apostolus arguit emendat The brethren ought not to haue these mysteries serued at their tables as they did whome the Apostle reprooueth and refourmeth And had not the Lordes Supper beene abused among them what needed the rehearsall of the first institution to the which because the Apostle recalleth them it is euident they were fallen from it Nowe abuses in this place S. Paul mentioneth none but drunkennesse dissention and defrauding the poore and since drunkennesse and deceiuing the poore as you auouche can not agree to the Sacrament it followeth that dissention was the thing which defaced the Lordes Supper among them in that they would neither at coÌ„mon meats nor at the Lordes Supper sit al together but sort them selues in factions and companies as they fauoured and friended eche other This was the fault which S. Paul first rebuked when hee beganne to redresse the thinges that troubled the Church of Corinth They contended about Baptisme saying I am Pauls and I am Apollos and I am Cephaes and their dissention so increased and came to that sharpnes that they woulde haue their tables in the Church and euen the Lordes Supper also eche company by them selues The false Apostles sayth Ambrose had sowen such discorde among them that they stood striuing for their oblations Hierom saith In ecclesia conuenieÌ„tes oblationes suas separatim offerebant Meeting in the church they deliuered their oblations to seueral companies according as euery man fansied the parties And againe Nemo alium expectabat vt communiter offeretur No man expected one an other that the oblation might be common And S. Paul as Chrysostom thinketh brought the Table Supper where the Lord himselfe was and at which sate all his Disciples euen Iudas the Traytour for an example to shew them that that is rightly iudged to be The Lordes Supper quae omnibus simul conuocatis concorditer communiter sumitur which is receiued in common and with one consent of all assembled together Yea S. Augustine affirmeth that The Apostle speaking of this Sacrament saith for which cause brethren when you assemble together to eate expect one an other Your obseruations therefore are first false when you say these circumstances can not agree to the holy Sacrament For euen these which you name as most vnlikeliest are applied by the fathers to the Lordes Supper Expecting one an other you heard S. Augustine referre directly to this Sacrament Deuouring of all by the rich and drunkennesse S. Hierom expoundeth likewise of the verie same mysterie The Apostle sayth one is drunke and an other hungrie for this reason Quia superuenientibus mediocribus volentibus sumere Sacramenta deerant quoniam ab illis qui obtulerant oblationes in communi conuiuio fuerant cuncta consumpta Because the meaner sort comming after the rich mynding to receiue the Sacraments there was nothing left to minister the Sacrament withall they that brought the oblations deuouring all in their common banket Haymo sayth One is hungrie that is hee which for pouertie is not able to bring wheaten bread and wyne to bee consecrated for the Communion an other to witte the riche and wealthie man is drunken and surfeyteth as well with other meates as with the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. Next did some of them not agree to the sacraments of the Lordes table as surfeyting deuouring and drunkennesse yet other circumstaunces as schismes not expecting one an other may and doe very fitly serue for the Lordes Supper as you see by the iudgement of those Fathers whom I haue named Thirdly did no circumstaunces of their disorders agree to the right institution of the Sacrament yet so long as Saint Paul refelleth their doinges in the Church as vnseemely for the sacred mysteries there prepared and receiued what reason haue you to deny that Saint Paul meaneth the sacrament where hee sayth when you come together if you fall to filling your bellies and despising the poore as you doe in your feastes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You can not or this is not the right way to eate the Lordes Supper For this is plaine to him that hath but halfe an eye that Saint Paul checketh them as vnwoorthie partakers by these their abuses of the mysteries of Christ and interpreteth the plagues which some of them felt to bee Gods scourges for their loosenes in that behalfe and therefore with great reasons might hee beginne to reprehend them as vnâ—it approchers to the Sacrament and vtter so much in these woordes when you come together this is not the way to eate the Lordes Supper or to haue accesse to his table to make schismes at your feastes in the Church with excesse in your selues and reproche to others Phi. If you will needes haue the Sacrament called the Lordes Supper keepe you that name and wee will keepe ours as more auncient and Catholike by the testimonie of Saint Augustine S. Ambrose and the rest whome I cited before for the antiquitie of the blessed Masse Theo. Hee that wil boldly deny a trueth will easily affirme a falsehood S. Augustine in all the works that be vndoubtedly his neuer so much as once named the Masse The Sermons de tempore which you produce are collected out of other mens writings as well as his and many of them found vnder the names of other authors and fauour litle either of Austens learning or phrase as Erasmus confessed when he first surueyed them S. Ambrose hath the woorde once and so haue two Prouinciall Councels of Africa Leo hath it twise which is all that you can finde in sixe hundreth yeres till Gregorie the first came and vsed the woorde somewhat oftener yet none of these cal the Sacrament or Sacrifice by that name as you would haue it but rather expresse by that word the auncient order of the primatiue church in sending away such as might not be partakers of the Lords table as in place where I noted before And that Missa with the fathers doeth signifie not the Masse but leaue to depart before or after the communion your owne fellowes wil instruct you whom you may not wel distrust as being with you though you trust not vs that are against you Polydore repeateth and alloweth the same with these woordes Mihiverò prior ratio probatur vt
magis apposita The former diriuation of the word Mâ—ssa pleaseth me better as the likelier and not that it should signifie a sacrifice and be deriued from the Hebrew word Missà as Reuchline woulde deduce it And therefore he sayth Idem igitur mos a nostris etiam seruatur vt peractis sacris per Diaconum pronuncietur Ite missa est quod idem est ac ilicet id est ire licet The same maner is obserued of our men that at the ende of diuine seruice the Deacon should say ITE MISSA EST which is as if he sayd YOV MAY DEPART And that missa was vsual for missio he sheweth out of Cyprians epistles where he sayth remissa for remissio Rhenanus another of your friends giueth the like obseruation in his notes vppon the 4. booke of Tertullian against Marcion Hodie in fine Sacri Leuita pronunciat Ite missa est id est missio est quod olim in initio dicebatur antequam inciperentur videlicet ipsa mysteria Hinc iuxta vulgi consuetudinem Ambrosius missas facere dixit Propriè missa erat tempore Sacrificij quando Cathecumeni foras mittebantur At this day the Priest pronounceth at the end of his seruice Ite missa est that is go you haue leaue to depart which in the primatiue church was sayd in the beginning before they came to the celebration of the Sacraments Thence Ambrose vsed the word missam facere according to the vulgar custome of those tymes For properly missa was when the conuerts not yet baptized were sent away in the time of the sacrifice that is at what time the rest addressed themselues to be partakers of the Lords table And that missa was common for missio hee proueth by Tertullian and Cyprian in his booke de bono patientiae and epist. 14. And lest you shoulde thinke this to bee a phantasticall assertion of his without all ground or authoritie such as the most of your obseruations are hee telleth you that this mysterie of antiquitie is related in Isidores Lexicon And in deede so it is For Isidore sayth Missa tempore Sacrificij est quando Cathecumeni foras mittuntur clamaÌ„te Leuita si quis cathecumenus remansit exeat foras inde missa quia sacrameÌ„tis altaris interesse non possunt qui nonduÌ„ regenerati nascuntur Missa was about the tyme of the sacrifice when the learners and such as were not yet baptized were sent out of the Church the Leuite crying if any Cathecumene bee heere let him depart and thence is the word missa because they can not be present at the Sacrament of the Altar which are not yet regenerate And I thinke for very shame you would not séeme to be so foolish as to take missam Cathecumenorum which the fourth councell of Carthage doth mention in the place alleaged by your selues and likewise S. Austen in those very sermons which you cite as his for your Masse or Sacrifice For how can fit missa Cathecumenis stand either for the sacrament or sacrifice since the persons named were not baptized and consequently not to be admitted to any of the Church mysteries So that graunt the word missa were found oftner in the Fathers than it is you can thence conclude nothing for your Masse which you rudely and vnaduisedly thinke to be all one with their missa or missarum solemnia where in déede it is as contrarie to that which they spake of as poyson to an wholesome potion For missa with them did signifie the sending away of such as might not communicate with the rest at the Lords table the masse with you is the reall and actuall sacrificing of the sonne of God to his father and the setting of the people to gaze on the Priest whiles he alone deuoureth all and falsifieth the very words and actions of Christes institution Phil. Nay you falsifie both the words and déedes of Christes institution and though you gather out of Isidore and others that Missa in the ancient Fathers was the demising of such as might not be present at the Sacrifice and missa Cathecumenorum by no meanes can be our Masse yet touching our Sauiours institution of the blessed Sacrament we come néerer to this example than you do you missing it in most points that be essentiall and we following all his actions that are imitable Theop. What essentiall points do we misse Phil. Almost all Theop. Reason you named some Phil. You do not imitate Christ in blessing the bread and wyne nor in vnleauened bread and mingling water with wine nor in saying the words of consecration ouer the bread and wine you vse no confession before nor adoration of the blessed Sacrament at the receiuing of it A number of like defects there are in your communion which cause it to be no sacrament but common bread and wine Therfore imperet vobis Deus and confound you for not discerning his holy body and for conculcating the blood of the new Testament Theop. Kéepe your burning and cursing deuotion for your selues your manquelling and masse-mongring rage hath as much affinitie with Michaels praier beséeching God the diuell might be restrained as fiercenes and furie hath to patience and pietie If we haue altered any part of Christes institution curse on in Gods name and let your curses take effect But if the celebration of our mysteries be answerable to his will and word that first ordained them you curse not vs whome you would hurt but him that your cursed toongs can not hurt which is God to be blessed for euer and whose euerlasting curse will take hold of you if you relent not the sooner for your proude defiance and stately contempt of his truth in respect of your massing reuels and mummeries Philand Nay you are contemners of his true body and blood in this reuerent blessed and holy sacrament and breakers of his institution and therefore his curse will light on you Theop. Uaine spéech doth but spend time shew first wherein we breake Christes institution and for the truth of his presence in this Sacrament if we teach otherwise than the Scriptures and Fathers do warrant vs we are content to heare and beare the curse which blind zeale hath wrested from you Philand We shewed you euen now what things they were wherein you swarued from Christes institution Theoph. You must both repeate them and diuide them that we may the better discusse them Phil. I will Christ tooke bread into his hands applying this ceremonie action and benediction to it and did blesse the very element vsed power and actiue words vpon it as he did ouer the bread and fishes which he multiplied and so doeth the Church of God and so do not you if you followe your owne booke and Doctrine but you let the bread and cup stand aloofe and occupie Christes words by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed to
forefinger with twenty such nicefinities curiosities haue neither foundation nor relation to Christs action nor institution nor to his Apostles doctrine nor doings who knew their masters meaning and continued their masters example with words gestures reuerent sufficient to satisfie his heauenly will and precept for this matter Phi. You doe not so much as vse any words vpon the elements but let the bread and the wine stand aloofe as if you were afraid to touch them Theo. In déede we blesse with our hearts and voices not with our fingers and therefore we make our account that our praiers are as forceable and as effectuall at sixe féete length as at six haires bredth And to deal friendly with you that blessing with mouth taketh no place except the hand be also winding turning the patene and chalice after your maner we can not beléeue it afore we sée some reason for it sorcerers and coniurers haue such circumstances but we hope you be not of their Seminaries Phi. Did not Christ take the bread likewise the cup into his hands Theo. Yes verily He could not BREAK it with his hand vnles it were in his hand neither could he GIVE it out of his hand afore he TOOKE it into his hand Phil. Then Christ TOOKE the bread so the cup into his hands before he did consecrate so you do not Theo. You would say before he did distribute For breking giuing which wer the ends of his taking are parts of distributiō not of cōsecration Phi. What blasphemy haue we heer did Christ distribute before he did cōsecrate the bread Theo. You be so busie about blessing the host and the chalice that you charge the sonne of God in his doings and the euangelists in their writings with blasphemy Phi. Nay we charge you with blasphemie for saying that Christ gaue vnconsecrated bread and wine to his disciples Theoph. Doth not the Scripture say the same Iesus taking bread and giuing thanks brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and saide take ye eate ye this is my bodie And taking the cup and giuing thanks he gaue it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament c. He tooke bread brake it and gaue it to his disciples bidding them take it and eate it before he said this is my body Now if these words this is my bodie be the words of Consecration ergo distribution went before Consecration and when Christ did consecrate the bread was in his disciples and not in his owne hands Phil. But he blessed as we call it or as you terme it he gaue thanks before he brake it Theop. That thanksgiuing or benediction was not consecration as your selues confesse and would séem to prooue by an whole heape of fathers and therfore in spite of all that you do or can say Christ did consecrate by word of mouth whē the disciples had the bread cup in their hands Phi. Would you haue the priest then not at al to touch the elements Theo. When we diuide them we cannot choose but touch them as Christ did Mary they may be sanctified by prayer and made Sacraments by repeating the words of Christ though at that instant we touch them not And therfore your vnsound quidities that Christ blessed the very element and vsed power actiue words vpon the bread and ouer the bread which we doe not but let the bread and wine stand a loofe and occupie the words of Christ by way of report and narration applying them not at all to the matter proposed these nice and new found quddities I say be méere fooleries since the words of Consecration take their effect not from our fingers or gestures but from Christs mouth and commandement that we should do the like Phil. You neuer apply these words this is my body more than the whole narration of the institution nor recite the whole otherwise than in historical maner and for that cause you make it no Sacrament at al. Theo. Can you tell what you say Phil. Why doubt you that Theo. Because it is a wicked and blasphemous lie for the priest to say this is my bodie otherwise than by way of rehearsall what Christ said And therefore your braines be more than distempered if you would haue vs or any other Christian ministers to say it otherwise than by report what Christ saide and commanded vs to do in remembrance of him Phil. Doe you thinke we meane the priest should say of his owne person this is my bodie Theo. If you do meane it Bedlem is a fitter place for you than either Rhemes or Rome Phil. You may be sure we do not Theo. Why then reprooue you vs for repeating the words of Christ by way of rehearsall what he did and saide Phil. You should apply them to the matter proposed Theo. How By praier precedent and consequent or by glozing and interlacing Christs wordes with ours Phil. You should actiuely and presently apply them to the elements of bread and wine Theo. I must aske you the same question that I did before The wordes were spoken by Christ in his own person and cannot actiuely and presently be pronounced by any priest but by way of report what Christ saide without apparent and horrible blasphemie And therefore the application of them in our words must either go before them or after them and not exactly with them much lesse to be comprised in them Phil. We tell you you doe not apply them actiuely and presently Theo. We tell you you knowe not what you say The words of Christ this is my body this is my blood mauger all the diuels in hell must be pronounced in no mans person but only by way of repetition what Christ at his last supper said in his owne person and your Iesuitical nouelties of actiuely and presently be so far from the soundnes of faith and substance of truth that your selues are not able to expound what you speake Phil. Yes that we are Theo. So it should séeme by the readinesse of your answere What then is the present and actiue application which you striue for or which way is it made By word of mouth or intention of hart The Priest when he saith this is my body cannot iointly with those words vtter any other words of his owne to apply them Intention of heart cannot alter the sense of the spéech but only direct before God the purpose of the speaker And vnlesse the meaning of the Priest be to recite the words of Christ by way of repetition I sée not how you can excuse either the Priests hart or mouth from outragious and monstrous impietie Phil. We haue a present and actiue application of the words which you haue not Theo. What is it Phil. The Priest intendeth to doe as Christ did and therefore vttereth the words distinctly and aduisedly ouer the elements that are in his hands and vnder his eies
that water is no necessarie part of this Sacrament The Gospell in plaine spéech reporteth of our Sauiour that he dranke the fruit of the vine His owne words are I say vnto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine which surely saith Chrysostom yeeldeth wine and not water Your owne Schooles conclude flatly with vs against you Non est aqua vino miscenda de necessitate Sacramenti To mingle water with wine is no necessarie point of this Sacrament Water by the position of your owne Schooles is not necessary then of consequent arbitrary that is euery church hath ful liberty to vse wine alone as Christ did with out danger of departing or dissenting frō the primatiue church though they for some respects delaied their wine with water and the Sacrament is as perfect and as consonant to Christs institution without the mixture of water as with it Phi. That Christ vsed wine we do not deny but we auouch that he also mingled it with water Theo. We knowe you auouch it but we would sée you proue it Phi. Cyprian saith it Theo. Cyprian saith it not he saith rather the contrarie Inuenimus vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit We finde it was wine which the Lord called his blood And againe Cum dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est vtique sed vinum Wheras Christ saith I am a true vine surely the blood of Christ is not water but wine And againe he saith that Noë typum futurae veritatis ostendens non aquam sed vinum biberit foreshewing a figure of the truth that should follow dranke not water but wine Phi. Not water alone but mixed with wine Theo. Then all that Cyprian either pretendeth or alledgeth Christ institution for is the hauing of wine not of water and though he vse the words mixtus and miscere very often yet his meaning is to proue by scripture the adding of wine not of water to the Lords cup. Phi. He nameth both wine water as I haue shewed you Theo. And as I haue answered you both were lawful and then vsed in the church but Christs institution is vrged by him for wine and not for water and though he call the cup mixtus mingled because there might be and were then both in vse yet the scriptures which he citeth concerning this Sacrament and the figures which he bringeth make cléerely for wine and not for water And therefore that Christ mingled water at his last Supper or commanded vs so to doe can not be prooued by Cyprian nor any other learned and ancient father but that the church of Christ tempered her wine with water though not in all places nor at all times as your boasting vaine serueth you to affirme that we grant may be proued by Cyprian and others and was euer confessed by vs mary that is not our question You charge vs with the breaches of Christs institutiō in which and in euery part of which there is an absolute necessitie that you should proue if you could tell which way to do it but your loftie words and weake proofes haue no coherence you speake it in state as if it were more than Gospell and when you come to bring foorth your proofes you wrest a poore place of Cyprians and so take your leaues Phil. We bring you S. Iames Masse which in expresse termes affirmeth that Christ after Supper taking the cup and mingling it with wine water sanctified it blessed it and gaue it to his Disciples Theop. Of Iames Masse I haue spoken before In such rotten records neither receiued nor regarded in the Church of Christ till errour and ignorance grew so great that the Pastours could not or would not discerne fables from truths and forgeries from sincerities lieth the summe of your late Rhemish religion but take back your Monkish corruptions and let vs haue likely testimonies for that you say or none you may alleage S. Iames Gospell which is yet extant with as good credit as S. Iames Masse and so the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas Andrew Barnabas and Bartholomew or if those like you not the Acts of Peter Philip and Andrew and the Reuelations of Paul Steuen and Thomas for these be of the very same mint and stamp that Iames Masse and the Apostles canons and constitutions are but knowe you Sir that as Heretikes and other idle persons forged these things in their names so the Church of Christ euer reiected them as false and hereticall and suffered no christians to ground their actions or doctrines on such corruptiōs Phil. Sainct Basils Masse confirmeth the same The words are Likewise taking the cup of the fruite of the grape mingling it giuing thanks and blessing and sanctifieng it he gaue it to his holy Disciples Theoph. A pigge of the same sow They that would offer to broach their fansies in the Apostles names would neuer sticke at the Fathers works It is easie to put Ambrose Austens Basils and Chrysostoms names to any thing and yet the word which is vsed in Basils Liturgie doth not conuince the mingling of water with wine and Chrysostoms Liturgie doth apparently shew that water was mingled with wine for the people long after consecration and yet before distribution which argueth my saying to be most true that they delaied their wine for sobrietie they did not mixe it for any mysterie Phil. Sainct Basill I am sure saith Miscens Christ mingling the wine gaue it to his disciples Theo. The Gréek words for miscens mixtus if they come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not alwaies signifie the mingling of water with wine but generally the tempering or pouring out of wine for him that shall drinke though none other kind of liquour be added to it Erasmus giueth that obseruation vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Sainct Iohn so vseth it whē he sayeth He shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mixed or poured without mingling into the cup of his wrath where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being without mixture is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is mingled or rather infused into the cup of Gods wrath Upon which spéech Erasmus noteth Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur quod infunditur in calicem bibituro etiamsi non aqua diluatur aut alio potus genere The Grecians call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when any thing is powred into a cup for him that shall drinke though it be not delaied with water or any other kind of liquour In this sense manie of the Fathers that wrate in Gréeke may vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet no mingling with water can be inferred vpon those words as your interpreters ouer gréedily imagine Phil. You pare the words of Saint Basils Liturgie but Saint Iames Masse is so
your pelting quarelles in the eyes of all men that euer reade the wordes of Christ if your owne Schooles in eyther or any of these thinges which you oppose goe not cleare with vs that they bee no partes of Christes institution wee will yeelde to the fault and correct that ouersight If they doe then let your friends conceiue what truth there is in your mâ—uthes and what credit is to bee giuen to your wrangling obseruations sent vs lately from Rhemes wherein without all shame and care you refute not vs but your selues and your owne conclusions that you might say somewhat against vs before the simple and vnlearned were it otherwise neuer so false or foolish and euen contrary to your own Principles But you did well to beginne first you sawe howe plainely you were to bee taken tardie with many wilfull and ineâ—cusable breaches of Christes institution and therefore you thought it safest to make the salie first on vs that whiles we were occupied in defending our own we should desist from impugning your Masse which is nowe nothing else but an heape of sinnefull deuises and abuses inuented by Satan and broached by Antichrist to deface and frustrate the Lordes supper Phi. Who can abide your blasphemies against the blessed Masse Theo. Call you that blâ—ssed where besides your fruitlesse prayers and superstitious ceremonies your prinâ—â—e halfe commâ—nion subuerteâ—h â—he Lords instâ—tution your sacrifice derogateth from his death and bloodshedding your adoration of bread wine conuinceth you of hainous open Idolatrie Phi. Thâ—se words declare your fury Theo. Those deedes shew foorth your pieâ—â—e Phi. You can not proue so much as one of these things which you obiect Theo. If we moue not euery one of them we will acquite you from them all Phi. That shall you neuer do Theo. So must you say though it bee neuer so plaine but to the point Where learned you thaâ—â—he Priest might celebrate the Lordes Supper openly in the church witâ—â—â—â— any man to communicate with him the people standing by and gasing on hâ—m The Gospell is against you for Christ took bread and when hee had giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue it to the Disciples you breake the bread in your priuate Masse for fashions sake but to whom doe you giue it Giuing is a part of the Lordes supper as wel as breaking If it bee needefull to breake the bread because Christ did so wee conclude it as needfull to giue thâ— bread because he did both and the bread is broken as Augustine affirmeth to be diuided In vaine then is it broken if it be not giuen This the wordes that next insue confirme Accipite edite take ye eate ye The wordes bee plurall ergo they bee neither truly repeated nor dulie followed except others receiue with the Priest For his person and action is wholy singular and so perforce you must either chaunge the wordes of Christs institution which is no way lawfull or increase the number of communicants which euerteth your priuate Masse We are all partakers of one bread saith Paul describing thereby the Lordes Supper and with you no man is partaker besides the Priest When you come togither to eate the Lords supper tarie one for an other that ye come not together vnto condemnation which the Apostle spake of this Sacrament as you hearde out of Augustine To liâ—le purpose stay you for them which shall eate nothing when they come The Lordes supper ought to be common to all because he gaue the Sacramentes equally to all his Disciples that were present and your Masse is priuate to the Priest alone Call you this an imitation of the Lordes Supper or a perfourmance of his will when you frustrate the very wordes which hee spake and neglect the chiefest thing which himselfe did at his table Doe this sayth Christ in remembraunce of mee that is neither omit nor alter you this institution but in all pointes doe that which I did before you which you doe not therefore as yet we see not how you can excuse your selues from a plaine contempt of Christ and his ordinance Phi. Is this all you can say Theo. This is more than you yet haue answered or as I think can for all your crakes Phi. It is answered with a word The. Such a word it may be that it will worke miracles but in the meane time how keepe you Christs institution Phi. All the circumstances of time person and place which in Christes action are noted neede not to bee mitated As that the Sacrament shoulde bee ministred at night to men onely to only twelue after supper and such like because as S. Cyprian epist. 63. nu 7. S. Aug. epist. 118. nu 6 note there were causes of those accidentes in Christ that are not nowe to bee alleadged for vs. Theo. That which you say is true but it serueth not your turn The circumstances of time as whether at night or in the morning of place as whether in church or in chamber of person as whether men or women twelue or any other number these things we grant be wholy in different The reason is The Lord neither in his speech nor in his actions which he commaunded vs to imitate did comprise any of these particulars He tooke bread he gaue thanks he brake it and eate it saieng this is my body The cup likewise he tooke and when he had giuen thanks he gaue it them drinke ye all of this this is my blood of the new Testament Do this in remembraunce of me These things be essential parts of the Lords supper commaunded by him to be followed of vs. These if you neglect you neither obey his precept nor celebrate his supper but prophanely and wickedly thrust his ordinance out at doores that your owne deuises may take place Phi. His words this is my body this is my blood of the new TestameÌ„t c. are essentiall parts of this mystery and so are the elements for in these two consist the matter and forme of the sacrament The. And what are his acâ—ions be not they likewise essential parts of his supper Phi. What actions meane you Theo. Giuing thaÌ„ks breaking giuing eating drinking wtout which it is not the Lords supper Phi. These be certain accidents which our Sauior then vsed they be not of the essence of the sacrament Theo. With what words did he command vs to continue this memoriall of him Phi. Do this for a commemoratioÌ„ of me Theo. Let it be in remeÌ„brance of me or for a coÌ„memoration of mee whether you wil so you take not commemoration for Dirges which Christ needeth not since he liueth raigneth in the glory of God his â—ather the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the remembrance of me but the first part of the sentence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do ye this Phi. It is so what then Theo. He that charged his Apostles
in them all others to do what he did taught them that his actions were essentiall to his Supper as well as words He did not wil them to say this but to doe this in remembrance of him Phi. Do you not thinke the repeating and vsing of his words to be necessarie in the celebration of the Sacrament Theo. Yeas but I adde that his actions are as necessary Phi. There is difference betweene the making of a medicine or the substance and ingredience of it and the taking of it Theo. There is but wheÌ„ the medicine is neuer so well made if it be not ministred to the patient the making of it is vtterly vaine Phi. Yet the making of it is not the ministring of it Theo. The one is the end of the other and therfore without the ministring the making is superfluous Phi. Then taking and eating is not the substance or being or making of the sacrament or sacrifice of Christs body and blood but it is the vse application to the receiuer of the things that were made offered to God before Theo. Neither did I say that eating and drinking were the substantial partes of the sacrament but of the Lords institution Phi. As though the sacrament were not our Lords institution Theo. Christes institution containeth as well the vse as the matter or forme that must be vsed A supper is not only the meate prouided but also the act of eating that which is prouided so the Lords institution or Supper imploieth the vse and action as well as the word and elements Phi. The vse of it is to be a sacrifice as well as a sacrament and in a sacrifice offering is rather required than eating Theo. That is the way to correct the son of God who saide not take this and offer it but take this and eate it Eating which Chrâ—st commaunded you neglect offering which â—e did not commaunde you esteeme and yet you would bee followers of Christ. Phi. Did not Christ say to his Disciples Do this Theo. You knowe we presse you with that saying of his Phâ— Doe this that is offer this Theo. So you say but where saith Christ so Phi. Doubt you whether this bee a sacrifice Theo. We talke not what names the Lordes supper may be called by but what wordes Christ vsed Phi. Hâ— sâ—ide Doe this Theo. To wit that which he did before for so the demonstratiue bindetâ— the sense Phi. And what if Christ sacrificed himselfe as he sate at table Theo. 〈◊〉 must come to that issue or else your sacrificing is cleane without Christs commaunding Phi. Christ himselâ—e seemeth to mention some such thing when hee sayeth This is my body which is not which shal be broken for you And this is my blood which is shed not which shall be shed for many for remission of sinnes If this were not a sacrifice wâ—at was it Theo. It was the foreteâ—ling of that which was then at hand presently to ensue Phi. Christ vsed the present and not the future tense Theo. And yet the suffering which hee specified by the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood was not present but the next day on the crosse If you teach that Christs blood was really shed at the table for remâ—ssion of sinnes you must put him twise to death make the later death which was on the crosse to be vtterly idle For where remission of sin is there needeth no more sacrifice for sin If theÌ„ remissioÌ„ of sins were obtained by the actual shedding of Christs blood at his last supper his death crosse the next day were superfluous If forgiuenes were not obtained ouer night but that the Lord the next day was to shed his blood for our sinnes then spake he before hand of that which the next day should follow his speech in the present tense noteth nothing but that hee had euen then giuen him-selfe ouer to death for our sakes which immâ—dâ—atly they should beheld No act of Christes therefore at his last supper importeth any reall sacrifice that he then made but he did institute a Sacrament of thankesgiuing and coâ—maunded vs by eating and drinking to bee partakers of his bodie that was wounded and bloode that was shedde the next daie for the remitting and pardoning of our sinnes So that you must either retayne eating and drinking at the Lordes table or else renounce both the beneâ—it of his passion and memoriall of his death with an open neglect of his last Will and Testament Phi. Wee do retaine it and as you know by our canons we bind all priests that consecrate to communicate in both kindes Theo. Let the decrees of men alone do you bind them to it by the words of Christ Phi. We do though the punishment bee expressed in the canons and not in the Scriptures Theo. It in punishment enough to bee guiltie of the body and bloode of Christ a greater you can not impose make your canons as seuere as you will Phil. Yet you see we binde them to communicate Theophil You should breake Christes institution if you shoulde doe otherwise Philand And therefore wee doe that which I tell you Theophil Then eating and drinking are necessary partes of Christes institution Philand Of his action they are partes but not of the Sacrament Theophil Neither doe I say that they are partes of his bodie blood but of his example and ordinance Philand Wee graunt Theo. And the neglecting of those actions which Christ in his person perfourmed before vs is a breach of his institution as well as the changing or omitting of his wordes Philand In the Priest it is Theo. Of the Priest wee speake for Christ charged him and not women or lay-men to doe as he did Phi. Then wee agree to your last position that if the Priest do not obserue Christes actions as well as Christes wordes he transgresseth Christes institution Theoph. Then your Priestes are all guiltie of violating Christes institution Phi. Doe they not eate and drinke at the Altar as hee did Phi. That Christ himselfe did eate and drinke at the ministration of the Sacrament is not expressed in any part of his institution though some wordes that followe after declare he dranke of the same fruite of the vyne which the rest did but the whole course of his actions speeches stood in deliuering the mysteries vnto others He tooke bread that hee might breake it hee brake it that hee might giue it he gaue it that they should eate and so his wordes declare which are both plurall and spoken to others take ye eate ye not singular or to himselfe Though therefore your Priest take and eate for his part yet since Christ brake the bread that it might bee diuided among others bid them take and eate it is certaine your Priestes neither doe as Christ did nor as hee commaunded his Apostles to do nor as the very wordes of Christ which he repeateth do
precepts eate ye drinke ye but in al respects the cup was deliuered at the same time to the same persons when the bread was So that you must either exclude the people from both which I trust you dare not or admit them to both which is the very point that we presse you with Heare what a man of your side thinketh as well of this consequent as of your halfe communion There be some false catholikes that feare not to stop the reformation of the church what they can These spare no blasphemies least that other part of the Sacrament shoulde bee restoared to the lay people For say they Christ spake drinke ye all of this onely to the Apostles but the words of the Masse be these take and eate ye al of this Here I would know of them whether this were spoken only to the Apostles then must laymen abstaine likewise from the element of bread which to say is an heresie yea a pestilent and detestable blasphemie It is therefore consequēt that both these words eate ye drinke ye were spoken to the whole Church I will not take this aduantage that your owne fellow doth proclaime you for false Catholikes heretikes and horrible blasphemers God giue you grace to see whither you be fallen and whence This for your liues you cannot shifte but these two precepts eate ye drinke ye by the tenor of Christs institution must be referred to the same persons and so both or neither pertaine to the people Surely the wordes which our Sauiour vsed in deliuering the cup are more generall and effectiue than when he gaue the bread Drinke ye all of this and they all dranke of it take it diuide it among you This cup is the newe Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you Now the Lord shed not his blood for the Priest onely but also for the people neither was the new Testament established in the blood of Christ for the Priestes sake but as well for the redemption of the people Then as the fruites and effects of the blood of Christ are common to the people with the Priest so should the cup also which is the communion of his blood shed for the remission of the peoples sins be diuided indifferently betweene the Preist and people There is saieth Chrysostome where the Priest differeth nothing from the people as when wee must receiue the dreadfull mysteries For it is not here as it was in the olde Lawe where the Priest eate one part and the pleople an other neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those thinges which the Priest was but now it is not so but rather one bodie is proposed to all and one cup. Phil. The church then might like that the people shoulde haue the cup as the church after did mislike it for many and weightie causes but how proue you that Christes precept extendeth vnto the people Theo. Wee can haue no better interpreter of Christes speech than his Apostle that was best acquainted with the true meaning of our Sauiour Wee haue sayth he the minde of Christ and that which I deliuered you I receiued of the Lorde So that hee did not correct but onely report the Lordes ordinaunce and in deliuering both kindes to the whole church of Corinth priest and people without exceptiō the teacher of the gentiles did neither swarue frō the first institutiō nor right intentiō of Christ his master The cup of thāksgiuing which we blesse is it not the communion of Christes blood The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christs body Ye can not drink the cup of the Lord the cup of diuels Ye can not be partakers of the Lordes table and of the table of diuels Can you frame vs a reason out of these wordes of Sainct Paul to dissuade the Corinthians from eating and drinking such things as the Gentile there sacrificed to Idols not confesse that they dranke of the Lords cup It is not possible For this is Sainct Paules argument You can not drinke both the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels the cuppe of thankes giuing which wee blesse and you all drinke of is the communion of the Lordes blood therefore you maie not drinke of the cup of diuels YOV CANNOT DRINKE BOTH inferreth they did and should drinke one which was the Lordes cup not the cup of diuels els Paul should haue said you maie drinke neither not the cup of diuels for they might haue no fellowship with diuels neither the Lordes cup for that is reserued for the Priest by your doctrine but both saith Paul you cannot drinke ergo they must drinke one which was not the cup of diuels Againe the cup which they dranke not could to them be no Communion For nature teacheth vs that to be partaker of a cup is to drinke but the Lordes cup was to them the communion of his blood ergo they dranke of the Lordes cup. My collection is so cleare that the vulgar translation which you are tied to by the Councell of Trent putteth these verie woordes in the text Omnes de vno pane de vno calice participamus we all are partakers of one bread AND OF ONE CVP. Ambrose Hierom Bede Haymo and others found it so consequent to S. Pauls former woords and coherent with his maine reason that they sticke not to keepe this addition de vno calice in their verie terts on which they comment So that out of question Paul taught the Church of Corinth to distribute the Lordes supper to the Christians in both kindes and that as he saith he receiued of the Lorde And who◠that hath anie shame or sense left reading the next Chapter that followeth where Christes institution is fullie proposed and largelie debated by S. Paul will or can doubt but the Lorde at his last Supper ordained both kindes for all the faithfull As often saith Paul to the whole Congregation as ye shall eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shewe the Lordes death till he come Whosoeuer shall eate this bread drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lorde Let a man therefore not speaking of this or that man but of euerie man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. And least you should want a generall affirmatiue to iustifie this our exposition take these woordes of S. Paul and quiet your selfe By one spirit are we all Baptized into one bodie whether we be Iewes or Grecians bond or free and WE ALL HAVE DRVNKE into one spirit Can you looke for directer or plainer woordes All Iewes and Gentiles bond and free not onelie dranke but by drinking were made partakers of one and the same spirite uen as by baptisme they were grafted into one bodie Then if Christ himselfe deliuered both kindes at his last Supper
Ea demum est miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipere nec supra creaturam corpoream oculum mentis ad â—auriendum aeternum lumen leuare non posse That is a miserable bondage of the soule to take the signes or Sacramentes as you doe for the thinges themselues and not to be able to lift vp the eye of the mind aboue the corporal creature to perceiue the eternall brightnesse Of adoration he saith Rectè scribitur hominem ab angelo prohibitum ne se aedoraret sed vnum Deum sub quo esset ei ille conseruus It is very wel recorded in the Scriptures that a man was prohibited by an angel to adore him but only God vnder whom he himself was a fellow seruant vnto God And therefore he saith Ecce vnum Deum colo Behold I worship adore none but God and thence he deriueth the name of religion Quod ei vni religet animas nostras Because it relieth our soules on him alone So that veneration you may giue to sacramentes adoration you may not and yet you finely conuey the one into S. Augustines text iointly with the other as if they were both fouÌ„d in his words which they are not Phi. He saith singular veneration Theo. You say so but he sayeth not so His words are Veneratione singulariter debita with that veneration which is due onely or singularly to this Sacrament Phi. And what is that but adoration Theo. If you might be iudges it should be nothing else but S. Augustine sayth Not to be contemned is the veneration due vnto it Contemptum solum non vult cibus ille that meate misliketh onele contempt that is either to bee dayly receiued without regard or to be still refused vpon pretence of vnworthynesse And that being the case of which S. Augustine disputeth your cunning serueth you in steede of examining theÌ„selues before they receiue it which S. Augustine meaneth to set the people not at all to receiue it but to fall downe and adore it with diuine honour in Christes place which is as wilfull a contempt of his ordinaunce and as shamefull an abuse of his sacramentes as can be committed Phi. The same father in an other place saieth of the Sacrament No man eateth it before he adore it Theo. Are you not desperatly set thâ—t to defile your selues with open idolatrie will force the Fathers to fit your â—umours against their owne speeches S. Augustine saith of Christes fleshe which hee tooke of the virgine Marie Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit No man eateth that fleshe of Christ vnlesse hee first adore it you make no more bones at the matter but strike THE FLESH of Christ out of Sainct Augustines wordes and referre adoration to the corporall creature which the Priest holdeth in his fingers Is not this trowe you sounde dealing in the greatest mysteries of our saluation and imminent peril of your damnation purposely to shut your eyes least you shoulde see the truth or agnise the rashnesse of your newe founde adoration What haue Sainct Augustines wordes to doe with your adoring the mysticall signes when hee directly nameth the flesh of Christ which is both eaten with the spirite and adored in the spirite yea the very eating of it is the adoring of it since it is not eaten but by beleeuing hoping and reioycing in it which are the chiefe branches of Gods diuine honor Phi. As though the fleshe of Christ were not really closed in the forme of bread and corporally eaten with the mouth of man Theo. One errour must needes drawe on an other or rather your reall and carnall presence is the groundworke of all your errors and abuses in the Masse Phi. The deniall of it is the high way to all your heresies and blasphemies against the doctrine of the church and for our partes till you leaue that wee looke for no better at your hands Theo. Looke to your own feete least whiles you watch our hands your legges slip into the pit of destruction Phi. Wee bee past all feare of that Theo. And so be those that are past all recouery but yet for the sauing of other mens soules if not of yours we will first weigh the proofes of your adoration after not sticke to suruay the partes of your Transubstantiation Go on therefore with your former authorities Phi. S. Ambrose saieth We adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries Theo. Uerily and so doe wee but the mysteries and sacramentes themselues wee doe not adore neither did Sainct Ambrose euer teach any man to adore them Phi. I see you mistake vs. You thinke we adore the formes of bread and wine where in deede we doe not but rather we adore Christ the sonne of the lyuing God and second person in Trinitie in those mysteries as Saint Ambrose sayeth or as wee speake more vsually vnder those formes of breade and wine Theo. I mistake you not I knowe you adore that which is locally and really inclosed within the compasse of your host and chalice supposing it in matter and substance to bee the glorious body of Christ apparelled with accidents of bread and wine as whitenesse roundnesse sweetenesse moystnesse and such like proprieties of bread and wine but your foundation wee say is false and therefore your building must needes bee ruinous Christ is present in the mysteries not by the materiall substaunce of his body closed within the formes of bread and wine but by a diuine and spirituall vertue and efficience not mixing 〈…〉 but entering the hâ—rtâ— of the faithâ—ull and nourishing them with his spirit and grace to eternall life the elementes abiding in their proper and former essence and substance And therefore when you adore them as if they were Christ in nature and substaunce which in trueth they are not you worship not Christ but giue his honour to creatures and in steede of washing your sins away by the death and blood of Christ you kindle the wrath of God against you by mystaking his sonne and adoring the elementes with diuine honor in lue of Christ. Phi. Tush we regard not these wordes of yours we haue assurance from Christ himselfe that it is his body and so long wee passe not for any thing that you can alleadge or obiect against vs. Theophil But if you misconster his wordes to make a deade and corruptible creature to bee the seconde person in Trinitie and giue it that honour which is due to the glorious and immortall God what assuraunce can you haue that Christ Iesus will put vp this reproach at your handes and not auenge himselfe on you as on proud idolateâ—s Phi. Are you well in your wits to vrge vs so often with open Idolatrie where as wee shewe you so plaine proofes of our defence Theo. Plaine quoth you In good faith they bee such as no meane Scholer woulde stumble at Christ you proue
And therefore though the wordes cary a double sense yet we admit them both so you adore Chriâ—t and not the creatures of bread and wyne in his steed which Nazianzene was farre from allowing and his sister from doing For speaking in the same place of the mysticall elements which you woulde haue the people to adore as Christ he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any where about her she found part of the figures of the sacred body and blood which her hande had layd vp in stoare watering that with teares not adoring it with diuine worshippe shee departed presently cured of her disease That which you affirme to bee the real and natural flesh and blood of Christ shee had about her as many men and weomen vsed in the primatiue church to carie the same about them and yet shee did not adore that which she had in her hand but him that is serued and honored on the Altar or table of the Lord. Phil. You pare these places with certaine circumstances I know not how But S. Denys the Apostles scholer made a solemne inuocation of the Sacrament after Consecration in these woordes But thou O diuine and most holy Sacrament shewe thy selfe plainely to vs and brighten the eyes of our mynde with thy singular light that can not bee couered You aske proofe for adoration of the Sacrament wee shewe you where the Apostles scholer prayed to the blessed Sacrament in expresse woordes and higher adoration than prayer there can bee none What woulde you more Theo. Wee woulde haue you regard if not your consciences before God yet your credites before men Phi. Doe wee not so thinke you when wee ioyne with Saint Pauls scholer and teach the people to doe as hee did Theo. O wicked and wilfull corruption Phi. Corruption Why What Wherein Theo. The prayer which hee maketh to the sonne of God you wrest to the corporall and externall creatures Phi. No sir that shift will not serue His woordes bee But thou O diuine and most holy Sacrament which hee spake after consecration and yet you will not acknowledge them you bee so furiously bent against the blessed Sacrament Theo. After consecration what 's that Was hee at masse when hee made this prayer Phi. Hee made this inuocation of the Sacrament after Consecration Theo. Did ye euer read the woordes Phi. Twenty times Theo. Where was the host when hee made this prayer Phi. What can I tell To the host he made it Theo. Was he praying at the Altar or writing in his studie when he vttered these wordes Phi. What is that to vs Theo. You say hee prayed to the host and that after Consecration where hee good man was busie at his booke and beseeching God to lighten his vnderstanding that hee might write the trueth Phi. Wheresoeuer hee was hee sayth O thou diuine and most holy Sacrament Theo. Did hee write in Latin or in Greeke Phi. In Greeke What then Theo. The woorde Sacrament is not Greeke Phi. No. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greeke woorde but that in Latin is the Sacrament Theo. Graunt the Greeke woorde were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are there no mysteries besides the Sacrament Philand Yeas There are mysteries that are not the Sacrament Theoph. You shall otherwise not only enlarge the limits of your masse to containe your seuen Sacramentes but also multiplie the number of your seuen sacramentes to seuen thousand times seuen For al secrets and wonders in heauen earth and hel which passe the reach or knowledge of the naturall or regenerate man bee mysteries Phi. In deede a mysterie is a secrete as well as a Sacrament Theo. And that in euil things as well as in good As the mysterie of iniquitie the mysterie of the woman and beast on which the whore of Babylon sate Phi. All this is true Theo. And as in euill so in good thinges Saint Paul sayth often The mysterie of God and of Christ. As when hee signifieth to the Colossians his care for them to know the mysterie of God euen the father and of Christ and so the mysterie of fayth of the Gospel of Godlynes and such like Phi. Uery wel Theo. As these be mysteries because they be secrets aboue our natural capacitie though reueiled vnto vs by God in his word so is the nature of God a most incomprehensible mysterie namely the mysterie of the blessed trinitie which is neither expresseable in our words nor conceiueable with our heartes Phi. This we doubt not of Theo. So is there the mysterie of Christes incarnation of his death and passion of his resurrection and ascension and of a thousand such which Christ calleth the mysteries of the kingdome of God and Paul meaneth when he saith Let a man so esteeme vs as the Ministers of Christ and disposers of Gods mysteries And for that cause the whole Gospel is called a mysterie hid since the world began and from all ages but nowe made manifest to his Saints Phi. This is not to our purpose Theo. I thinke it bee not you haue vtterly peruerted the wordes of Dionysius if that bee his worke and those were his wordes which you alleage and nowe you are loth to see it Phi. Conuince vs before you condemne vs. Theo. What other conuiction neede wee than your own conclusioÌ„ Dionysius speaking to Christ saith at lest as you suppose Thou diuine and most holy mysterie replenish the eyes of our soules with thy singular and vnextinguished light You because the word mysterie when it is applied to corporall and externall creatures doeth sometymes signifie a sacrament haue robbed Christ of his honor and giuen it to the element of bread and slaundered that writer whatsoeuer hee was for an open Idolater like to your selues Are not the people well holpe vp to trust such gamsters as you bee that leade them to so daungerous impietie with such manifest impudencie Phi. Your railing vayne is come vpon you Theo. And what vaine is come on you that will rather make a shipwracke of your owne and other mens saluations than you will seeme to relent from your errors Phi. It is no error The. It is an impious and haynous error and you bolster it vp with as euill wicked meanes that is by corrupting and forcing other mens writings to beare out your doings Phi. Dionysius in that whole chapter treateth of nothing but of the Sacrament Theo. And the Sacrament consisting of two partes an earthly and an heauenly the heauenly part of the sacrament is Christ. Why might hee not therefore make his prayer vnto Christ to direct his pen before hee assayed to treat of those mysteries Phi. So hee did but yet intending to pray to Christ hee speaketh to him in the Sacrament Theoph. It is one thing to pray to the sacrament as you though falsely say S. Denys did and an other thing to pray to him that is euery where present in that hee
is God and hath a speciall kinde of operation by the power and grace of his flesh and blood in the sacred mysteries as hee is man vnited in the same person with God And yet these wordes doe not import him to bee in the sacrament Certainely Christs diuine and humane nature were most woonderfull mysteries before this Sacrament was ordayned and all the wordes that your author vseth if they were as you cite them are onely these Thou diuine and most holy mysterie which agree to Christ without any respect of the Sacrament more properly and truly than to your host or chalice Philand Yet they may bee taken as spoken to the sacrament and therefore wee did not peruert them we did but preferre that construction before the other Theo. That is where diuine honour was giuen to christ you deriue it from him to the host Phi. Not from him but finding him truely and corporally present in the sacrament there we honor him where we find him Theo. Your doings we know but Dionysius words haue no such sense Philand They may haue and that sufficeth vs. Theo. But if by them you will prooue so great a matter as this is which we nowe haue in hand they must necessarily enforce your exposition and not indifferently beare an other as well as yours or rather better This answere might suffice if Dionysius had vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you suppose he did but now his text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But O most diuine and holy expiation or Sacrifice reueiling the enigmaticall couerings which are figuratiuely adiacent vnto thee bee opened clearly vnto vs Or if any man like rather to haue it an Apostrophe to a thing lacking life such as the learned are well acquainted with and the Scriptures often vse he may interprete it neerer to the right signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and say but O most diuine and sacred rite or institution referring it to that manner and order of celebrating the Lords supper which Christ first ordayned and may properly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Howsoeuer it is euident hee maketh no inuocation of the host or chalice nor speaketh to them but calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aenigmaticall vayles or integuments figuratiuely adherent or annexed to the perfection of the mysteries Phi. Runne you for refuge to the Rhetoritians Theo. As though the scriptures were not full of the like speaches Ioshua sayd Thou sunne stand stil in Gibeon and thou moone in the valley of Aialon And so the man of Iudah O Altar Altar thus sayth the Lord behold And Esai him-selfe beganne his prophesie with Heare O heauens and hearken O earth Phi. Those were speaches not prayers as this is Theoph. They bee all imperatiue moodes as well as this and so is that saying of Dauid Lyft vp your heades ye gates and bee yee lift vp you euerlasting doores and the king of glory shall come in which yet is no prayer to the doores The moode of it selfe is not precatiue except the person bee such as wee must not commaunde but onely intreate and beeing vsed to thinges without life it sheweth the desire of our heart touching them not any supplication vnto them And therefore you doe not onely the diuines but also the Grammarians wrong when you conclude an inuocation of the Sacrament out of Dionysius woordes because the verbes bee imperatiue For the woord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contayneth the whole action institution and celebration of the Lordes Supper yea the inwarde grace as well as the outwarde elements and Dionysius might say to Christes ordinance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bee opened vnto vs without inuocation of the host or Chalice as well as Dauid sayde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be you lifted vp to the gates and yet made them no Gods Phi. Yet by this place you see Christ is couered with the formes of bread and wyne as with garments and that is woorde for worde our opinion Theo. Adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figuratiuely as your author doeth and then both your reall presence is ouerthrowen and the doctrine which wee teach clearely established For wee confesse that Christ worketh in vs and presenteth himselfe vnto vs in these mysteries as it were in certaine vayles and couerings Which mystically by way of signification and spiritual operation containe and clothe his grace and truth but not really nor by material or corporall inclusion as you affirme and so himselfe expresseth his mynd in this very chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reuerent or venerable signes by which Christ IS SIGNIFIED and emparted vnto vs being set on the Altar Christ is signified and receiued by these signes and figures and to him not to the sacrament spake Dionysius if that were his worke but that Christ is locally or substancially closed within the formes of breade and wine or that hee prayed to the host and Chalice Dionysius hath no such sense nor wordes Phi. To Christ hee spake we doubt it not mary when he was couered with signes and figures of bread and wyne Theo. Signes and figures the auncient fathers doe not take for shewes and accidents as you doe but for substantial and vsuall creatures such as you may not adore Phi. We say no. Theo. Of that anon in the meane tyme well you may thinke that had you beene in Dionysius place you would haue prayed to the Sacrament but his woords import no such matter Philand Why shoulde not hee as well as the rest of the godly The whole Church crieth vpon it Domine non sum dignus Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world haue mercie on vs. Theo. Whome meane you by the whole Church your selues or all the Godly since Christ Philand Neuer aske that question they did as wee doe and wee doe as they did Theo. If you speake of your selues then here is the witnes of your owne mouth that you CRY VPON IT I meane on your host which in substance is a base and corruptible creature O Lorde O God O Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the worlde haue mercie on vs. What greater sinne did they commit which sayde to a stocke thou art my Father and to a stone thou hast begotten mee whom the holy Ghost hath traduced for a memorable and yet detestable crewe of Idolaters Whether it is greater to bee a father or to be a God to beget or to take away the sinnes of the world They sayd the one you say the other who can forbid the banes but that you shoulde be coupled with them if not preferred before them as more outragious in dishonoring God than they were Phi. Doe wee not this to Christ and is hee not woorthie of it Theoph. Why then doe you cry on it and not on him Philand Wee be perswaded that when wee call on it wee call on him Theo. So were they that
on his flesh and that they might thenceforth learne that the flesh of which he spake was celestiall foode from heauen and spirituall nourishment which hee giueth Augustine Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy bellie BELEEVE AND THOV HAST EATEN To beleeue in him this is to eat the liuing bread HE THAT BELEEVETH EATETH He is inuisibly fedde because hee is inuisibly regenerated He is inwardly a babe inwardly new In what part he is renewed in that part is he nourished Bernard that in respect of antiquitie liued but yesterday can teach you the meaning of this place When they heard him say except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud they saide this is an hard speach and departed from him And what is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud but to communicate with his passions and imitate that conuersation which he ledde here in flesh The text it selfe doth in sight conuince so much The Lord often times expoundeth his owne wordes purposly to this effect Worke not for the meate which perisheth but for the meate which dureth to eternall life and this is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent I am that bread of life he that commeth to me not by walking but by beleeuing shal not hunger he that beleeueth in me shal neuer thirst Hunger and thirst are no way quenched but with eating and drinking Then how can the beleeuer but still hunger and still thirst except we graunt that he which beleeueth both eateth and drinketh Verily verily I say vnto you except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you He then which hath life per consequence eateth the flesh of christ and drinketh his bloud but he that beleeueth hath eternall life as our Sauiour affirmeth in the same place with no lesse vehemencie Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life ergo he that beleeueth eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloud of Christ. For if eating and drinking in this place were referred to the mouth and teeth how could Iudas or any other of the wicked that is once partaker of the Lordes table perish The wordes of Christ be plaine Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and are dead If any man eate of this bread he shal liue for euer whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life But the wicked notwithstanding the corporal chamming of this Sacrament die the death of sinners ergo they neither eat the â—lesh of Christ nor drink his bloud not because their teeth or iawes faile them but by reason they want faith which is the right and proper instrument of spiritual eating Since then man beleeueth with his heart vnto righteousnes as Paul teacheth not with his iawes nor lippes ergo the soul of man which only beleeueth only doth eate the flesh of Christ and our bodies which haue no meanes to beleeue can neither eate nor drinke in that sort and sense that our Sauiour there speaketh of You cannot with honestie steppe from so manifest both Scriptures and Fathers as these bee that I haue brought or if you can dally with so good and graue witnesses in so weightie matters I trust the Godly will bee fully resolued that the manner of eating Christs flesh and drinking his bloud which the Lord himselfe first proposed in the sixt of Iohn was not LITERALL NOR CORPORALL as the Capernites vnderstand him and were deceiued but ALLEGORICALL AND SPIRITVALL ALLEGORICALL in respect of the words which be not there precisely taken in their vsuall signification for grinding with the teeth and straining downe the throate but figuratiuely spoken and import as much as confessing imbracing with hart and inward affectioÌ„ SPIRITVAL because not our mouths but our minds not our bellies but our spirites are nourished with the flesh and bloud of Christ and that not by chewing or swallowing but by remembring and beleeuing that his bodie was wounded and his bloud shedde for our perfect and eternall redemption Now the Lords Supper is correspondent not contrarie to the first of Iohn as we saw before by the verdit of the fathers confession of your selues therefore the Lords table teacheth no literall nor carnal but a spirituall mysticall eating of the â—lesh of Christ and drinking of his bloud which you cannot obserue so long as you presse the letter of these wordes Take eat this is my body For taking and eating in the Supper bee corporall actions euen as breaking the bread and deliuering the cup are Then if the wordes this is my bodie bee literall the consequent is ineuitable that the flesh of Christ is really taken with hands actually brused with teeth corporally lodged in the belly But this error the Lorde in his own person confuted and the Catholike fathers refell as impious irreligious and haynous ergo the wordes of the Supper this is my body bee not literall but rather aunswerable to the doctrine proposed in the sixt of Iohn which is nothing lesse than literal Phi. You make but a double manner of eating Christes flesh where you should make a triple A carnal spirituall and Sacramentall A carnal which the capernites dreampt of when they supposed they should haue eaten raw flesh to sight and tast as they did other meates A spirituall by faith and vnderstanding in which sort euery good man may eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud at any time without the mysteries A Sacramentall as when wee eate the flesh of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine though we neither see nor â—ast flesh or blood Of these three sortes the sixt of S. Iohns Gospell refelleth onely the carnall which the Capernites grossely fell to when they heard our Sauiour speake of the Sacrament Theo. I blame you not if you bee loath to be counted Capernites They were reproued by our Sauiour as grosse mistakers of his speach and lewde forsakers of his fellowship but would God you were as willing to leaue their error as you be to refuse their name Phi. Wee be farder than you from their opinion And you be rather Capernites that aske how can he giue vs his flesh to eate and will not beleeue any eating of Christes bodie with the mouth except your eyes and tongues maie first discerne and tast the same Theo. We aske not him how he can doe anie thing that he will but wee aske you how you know that both his will and his worde are changed since he rebuked the Capernites for their grossenes Phi. We doe not say that either his will or his word are chaunged Theo. Then the doctrine of eating his flesh and drinking his blood which he delâ—uered in the sixt of Iohn remaineth in the same force and strength that it did at first when he reuealed it to his disciples Philand It doth
example without warrant of God or man Phi. Theodoret hath set you vppe in your Ruffe but I would you knew it in this case we care neither for Theodoret nor you if that were his opinion as it is yours Theo. And who hath put you into your ruffe that you not only despise that learned and auncient Bishoppe but the whole Church in him which then so beleeued and you cannot auoide at this day except you will bee Eutichians Phi. The Maior is not altogether so sâ—und as you thinke it Theo. Yet did Gelasius and Theodoret confound that error with that comparison and S. Augustine long before thâ—m did vrge the same This is it that wee say this is it that by all meanes we labour to confirme to witte that the Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things the visible kinde of elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ the Sacrament and the thing of the SACRAMENT euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man for so much as euery thing containeth the nature and trueth of those things of which it consisteth By which rule it is certaine there musâ— be in the sacrament the nature truâ—th and substance of bread and wine euen as in Christes person either nature hath his trueth and substance without confusion or distraction Phi. We haue fathers to the contrary if the time did serue to produce them as anon I will In the meane while what is this to Leo Theophil Leo in few words abbridgeth the sumâ— of this reason and saith the followers of Eutiches doe in vaine with their mouthes receâ—ne the Sacrament since with their hartes they doe not beleeue the tâ—ueth of Christs humane nature and answer AmeÌ„ to no purpose so long as they dispute against that which they would seâ—m to enioye by receiuing the seale and pledge thereof in the church with others Phi. This is your Commentarie besâ—des the text his wordes are The selfe same bodie which wee beleeue with faith is receiued with mouth Which you cannot interprete to be mâ—ant of the bread For the breade is not beleeued with hart and against the trueth of Christs bodie not against the bread did the followers of Eutiches dispute Theo. Doth Leo â—aie the selâ— same bodie Phi. He saith Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur that is receiued with the mouth which with our faith is beleeued and that cannot be the bread The. Much lesse maie it be the natural bodie of Christ. For then Leo had mightilie confirmed not confuted Eutiches opinion His error was that the humanitie of christ after his ascension was swallowed vp of his diuinitie and so changed that it was now no naturall bodie Against this if Leo should haue opposâ—d your reall presence in the Sacrament where Christs body is without quantity shape circumscription distinction of partes and all other conditions of a naturall body he had beene a Proctour â—or Eutiches impiety not a confuter of it Neither could Eutiches himsâ—lfe haue wished a better defence for his heresie than the confessâ—on â—f such a bodâ—e as you imagine in the sacrament and therfore you haâ—k that HOC ilfauouredly when you make Leo rather a consenter with Eutiches than a disprouer of him with your fantasticall presence which is an approbation and no refutation of Eutiches error Phil. What a slander this is that the reall presence should be a refuge for Eutichâ—s error Theoph. Such a slaunder as with all your cunning you shall neuer wipe awaie Phi. Doe we not affirme the substance of Chrisâ—es humane flesh to be in the Sacrament The. Such a substance as Eutiches him selfe imagined hauing neither proportion of shape nor position of parts nor repletion of place nor anie condition incident to a naturall bodie but the godly fathers were farre from vrging such a substance against Eutiches They pressed him with the bodilie shape circumscription extension and perfeâ—â—ion of Christes flesh as well in all other requisites as in substance and to prooue this amongst other arguments they brought as I haue shewed the Sacrament for a resemblance and demonstrance of both natures in Chrisâ— that as the bread after consecration keepeth his quantity quality shape and substance notwithstanding it be vnited and annexed to the heauenly grace that worketh in the sacrament so the bodie of Christ after his assumption retaineth his former perfection proportion figure and substance loosing no poinâ—â— nor part of his humane nature but only replenished with immortall glorie This must be Leoes Hoc if he will do any good with alleaging the Sacrament against Eutiches as I haue proued by Austen Gelasius and Theodoret Otherwise if he do but mention your real presence he openeth the gappe and leuelleth the way to Eutiches furie and runneth headlong against the rest of his fellow seruants and successours that vsed the same argument to confute Euâ—iches with a manifest contradiction of your reall presence Phi. I bring you Leoes wordes Theo. Leoes wordes haue nothing in them to crosse that sense which I establish Hoc signifieth any thing and hath no relation to Christes flesh in the sacrament but to the proportion rather betweene Christ the sacrament in that they beleeued no other thing of Christ than they saw with their eyes receiued with their mouths in the Sacrament to wit the perfect shape substance of bread after Consecration consequently they must holde the same opinion of Christs humanitie after his ascension Phi. If you vse this trade you may peruert all the fathers writings and make what sense you list to their sayings Theo. Peruert them no more than we doe and you shall neuer euert the maine doctrine as you haue doone We measure â—heir wordes by their owne warrant and suffer nâ—t a phrase here and there which may bee well reuoked to their rules to vndermine the chiefe grouâ—des of their faith Phi. No more doe we Theo. Why then rage you to heare vâ— say that these few places which you haue brought for eating christs bodie with your mouthes and iawes may be referred to the signes called by those names as well as to the things themselues Phi. You take vpon you to bee Iudges and to pronounce at your pleasures when the wordâ—s shall belong to the one and when to the other so that no father shall say any thing against your heresie but yet will by and by turne it and wind it I knowe not whither Theo. Nothing more hindereth the search for trueth than a desire to lye We shew you the general admonition of the fathers themselues that after consecration they call the visible signes no longer by their woonted names but by the names of those things whose signes they are and whose vertues they haue This Rule we say is then to take place when the speach which we find in a father if it should be referred to the things themselues would be both absurd and repugnant to
the bosome of the Catholike Church as you terme it to obay their Prince against the censures of your Church Phi. I haue hast in my way Theophilus and I haue said as much as I wil at this time Theo. I can hold you Philander no longer than you liâ—t but yet remember this as you ride by the way which I reiterate because both your Seminaries shall think the better of it that as many as you reconcile so long as you teach this for a point of faith that the Pope may depose Princes and must bee obayed in those his censures of all that will be Catholikes so many both heretikes against God and traytors against the Prince you hatch vnder the hoode of religion and also that the thinges now reformed in the Church of England are both catholik and christian notwithstanding your fierce bragges and fiery wordes lately sent vs in your RHEMISH Testament To the KING euerlasting immortall inuisible vnto GOD which is only wise be honour and praise for euer and euer Amen The speciall contents of euery part The contents of thâ— first part The Iesuits pretenders of obedience Pag. 2 The causes why they fledde the Realme 5 The proofes and places of their Apologie 7 Forcing to Religion 16 Two Religions in one Realm 21 Toleraunce of error 26 Toleraunce of error in priuate places and persons 27 Compulsion to seruice and Sacraments 29 Exacting the oth 30 Their running to Rome 35 This Lande receiuing the faith from Rome 40 Preachers sent from Rome with the Kings consent 41 Preachers not conspirators froÌ„ Rome 41 Howe the Fathers soughte to Rome 42.48 Athanasius at Rome 44 Chrysostomes request to Innocentius 51 A forged Bull against Arcadius 53. Chrysostomes banishment 55 How Saint Augustine sought to Rome 56 How S. Basil sought to Rome 58 S. Ieroms letters to Damasus 60 The Rocke on the which the Church is built 62 S. Cyprian lately corrupted 65 Gratian suspected 66 Peters person laide in the foundation of the Church 67 Theodoret and Leo. 67 The Bishop of Rome resisted 68 Paul resisted Peter 69 Polycarpus resisted Anicetus 70 Polycarpus resisted Victor 70 Cyprian resisted Stephanus 71 Flauianus withstoode foure Bishops of Rome 72 Cyrillus withstoode the Bishop of Rome 72 Councels resisting the Byshop Rome 73 The Councell of Africa resisted the Byshop of Rome 74 Forged Decretals 76 The councel of Ephesus threatning the Legates of Rome 78 The Councell of Chalcedon against the Bishop of Rome 79 The Councell of Constantinople against the Bishoppe of Rome 81 CorruptioÌ„s in the CanoÌ„ lawe 81 The Brytons resisting the Bishop of Rome 82 The Grecians detesting him 83 The Germans deposing him 84 His owne Councels depose him 85. Fraunce resisting the Pope 92 Paris appealeth from him 94 The french King resisting the Pope 95 The Kinges of England against the Pope 97 Our resistaunce more lawefull than theirs 104 Peters dignitie not imparted to the Pope 104 S. Ieroms praise of Rome 105 The manners of Rome since his time 105 The manners of Rome in his time 106 S. Cyprian forced to make for Rome 106 S. Augustine forced to make for Rome 107 From Peters seate is from Peters time 107 The intent of the Seminaries 108. High experiments of Popes 112 High experiments of the Popes clergie 114 The Iesuits slaunder England and Scotland 118 What the Iesuits worke teach in this land 119 The Pope succeedeth his Auncestors neither in seate nor beliefe 12â— The contents of the second part The Princes power to COMMAVND for trueth 124 Princes be gouernours of countries Byshops be not 127 Byshops by Gods lawes subiect to Princes as well as others 128. The Prince by Gods law charged with Religion 129 Princes may commaund for religion 133 Constantine commaunding for Religion 134 Constantius commaunding Bishops in causes ecclesiastical 135. Iustinian commanding for causes Ecclesiasticall 137 Charles commanding for causes Ecclesiasticall 139 The lawes of Charles for causes Ecclesiasticall 140 Ludoâ—ikes lawes for causes Ecclesiasticall 144 Ludouikes lawes visitors 144 What is ment by SVPREME 146. Supreme is subiect to none on earth 146 Princes subiect onely to God 147. Princes not subiect to the Pope 147. The Pope subiect to his Prince 148. Constantine superiour to the Pope in causes ecclesiastical 150 Emperours superiour to the pope in causes Ecclesiasticall 152 The Prince superiour to the Pope 160 Ieremies words expounded 160 How Prophets may plant and roote out kingdoms 161 Howe Kinges must serue the Church 162 How Byshops are to be obeied 164 How the Church is superiâ—ur to Princes 167 What is ment by the Church 168. The Prince not aboue the Church 171 Princes haue power ouer the persons of the Church 172 The woordes of S. Ambrose to Valentinian 173 The behauiour of S. Ambrose towards Valentinian 174 Valentinian refused to be iudge betweene Byshops 177 Valentinians fault 178 Theodosius searched and established the trueth 178 Princes decreeing for truth 179 Athanasius Osius Leontius 179 Athanasius reproued Constantius 180 Athanasius expounded 181 Why Constantius was reproued 182 Osius words examined 188 Leontius discussed 189 What Hilarie misliked in Constantius 190 Kings commended in the scriptures for medling with religion 191 Moses â—oshuaes example 192 King Dauids care for religioÌ„ 193 Princes charged with the whole law of God 194 Asa Iehosaphat Ezekiah perfourmed that charge 193 Manasses Idolatry repeÌ„tance 196 Iosiah reformed religion 197 Nehemiah correcteth the high Priests doings 197 Princes medled with religioÌ„ 198 Princes vsed to commaund for religion 198 God commaÌ„deth by their harts 199. Princes commanding for Religion 200 Princes haue ful power to command for trueth 202 Princes may prohibite and punish error 203 To commaund for causes Ecclesiasticall was vsuall with Princes 204 To commaund Bishops for causes Ecclesiasticall was vsuall with auntient Princes 206 The Iesuites purposely mistake the Princes supremacie 213 The Iesuits cauelling absurdities against the Popes power 221 This land oweth no subiection to tribunals abroade 228 This lande not subiect to the Popes tribunall 229 What subiection the Pope requireth 231 The Pope maketh it sacrilege blasphemie to doubt of his tribunall 231 A right Rhomish subiection 232 Patriarks of the west 233 Patriarks subiect to Princes 234 This Realme not in the Popes Prouince 135 The Patriarkeâ—dome dissolued 235 The words of the oth examined 236 It is easie to plaie with wordes 237 Princes gouerne with the sword Bishops do not 238 Princes only beare the sword in all spirituall things causes 238. Princes supreme bearers of the sword 240 Supreme gouernour displaceth not Christ. 241 Princes may not commaunde against the faith or Canons 242. Gregorie shamefully corrupted 243. Spirituall men aâ— matters 244. Carnall things called spirituall 245 Carnall thinges made spirituall to increase the Popes power and gaine 245 Carnall things made spirituall 246 Princes charged with spirituall things 247 Princes chiefely charged with things truly spirituall 247 Princes charged at Gods hands with things spirituall not
in Henrie 3. anno 1241. Bernardes report of the Romanes in his time Bernardus de consideratione ad Eugenium lib. 4. What examples of vertue deuotion the Romane institution hath giuen If we should say as Bernard doth I deeme you would be angrie S. Hieroms report of the madnes of Rome Hieron praefat lib. 2. in Episto ad Galaâ—as Idem in Esaiae Cap. 2. Idem ad Princip Marâ—elle Epitaph Idem aduersus Iâ—â—ianum li. 2. Idem praefat in lib. Dydimi despiriâ—â— sancto Cyprian and Augustine forced by the Iesuites to make for Rome Cypri epist. 55. vel li. 1. epist. 3. Apolog. Cap. 1. August de vtilitate Credendi Cap. 17. From the Apostles See is from the time the Apostles sate or taught in the church August de vtilitate credendi Cap. 17. August in Psalmo contrae partem Donati Idem contrae epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti Cap. 4. From not in the Apostles seate In our dayes the Pope claimeth a new found power ouer the church and Prince Apolog. Cap. 2. The intent of the Popes Seminaries What things were misliked in the Seminaries Apolog. cap. 3. The Iesuites know not the Popes intention and yet they take part with him against their Prince Apol. Cap. 3. Iesuits drawers of childreÌ„ from their Parents and subiects from their Prince Apolog. Cap. 3. Apolog. Cap. 3. What is it to be the slaues of men if this be not Campion in his 2. article Campion Parsons did aske leaue of the Pope to agnise her maiestie for lawful Queene vntil the Bul might be put in execution Or if these be not sufficient the late defence will serue for all In his 40. motiue And that your defence of English Catholikes expressely doth Apol. Cap. 3. Apolo chap. 3. Experiments of Popes and their clergie out of the reports of their owne friends Martin Polo in an 898.907 Platina in Stepha 6. Sergio 3. Luitpr and Ticinensis li 6. ca. 6. 7. Martin Polon in anno 986. Platina in Bonifacio 7. Platina in Syluestro 2. Platina in Benedicto 9. Martin Polon in anno 1042. Beno Cardinalis de vita gestis HildebraÌ„d Abbas vrspergensis in anno 1228. Ibidem Math. Paris in anno 1213. Baptist. fulgo lib. 9. Agrippa de Leâ—â—â—inio orat ad Louâ—nienses Vuesseluâ— GroÌ„nigensis tract de Indulgenâ—ijs Baptist. Mant. Alphon. lib. 4. Pontan tumulorum lib. 2. in tumulo Lucretiae Alexan. 6. filiae Acti Sannazar epigram lib. 1. 2. * Bernard supra Cant. serm 33. The Iesuites promise high experiments of their Romane institution the patternes whereof if any man will see let him â—ead these complaints of their owne fellowes Sermo ad Clerum in concil Rhâ—mensi congregatum inter opera Bernardi Idem sermo ad Pastores in Synodo congregatos Albert. in Ioh. Cap. 10. Opusculi tripartiti parte 3. Cap. 7. reperitur in tomo conciliorum 2. Holcot in lib. Sapientiae lectio 182. Platina in vita Marcellini Mantua Calaemitatum lib. 3. Ibidem Mantuan ecâ—oga 5. * Idem factorum lib. 2. de carnispriuij consuetud * Idem Syluarum lib. 1. Auentinus annalium Bolorum lib. 6. praefat Marcel Palin Zodiaci vitae lib. 5. in Leone Idem lib. 6. in Virgine Idem lib. 9. in Sagittario Oratio Cornelij Epi. Bitonti 3. Dominica aduent in concil Triden habitâ— Experiments confessed in the late Councâ—l of Trent Mat. 24. 2. Tim. 3. Apolo chap. 2. The main drift of their Apologie was to flatter the Pope to magnifie theÌ„selues and to dissemble their wickednes against the Prince with colourable pretences and speaches which they haue fully performed * Apol. Cap. 3. The Iesuites haue a commission to bely whom they list without controlemeÌ„t Mat. 10. Apolog. Cap. 3. Apolog. Cap. 3. An ignorant boy with a whispering report mig soone worke this conuersion Such teachers such conuerts See Throckmortons coÌ„fession 〈…〉 own 〈…〉 they 〈…〉 superior 〈…〉 voice 〈…〉 oracle 〈◊〉 heauen 〈◊〉 them These two 〈◊〉 they 〈…〉 The Iesuites wilâ—e innocents though they teach it to be lawfull for subiectes to resist and murther their Princes The dispensation of Campion and Faâ—ioâ—s hath those expresse wordes Epist. 8. ad Demeâ—riadem Their succession interrupted Platina in Syluestro 3. Idem in Damaso 2. Idem in Benedicto 4. IdeÌ„ in Ioan. 10. Distinct. 40. c. Non est facile Apoc. cap. 4. sect 1. Aug. Epist. 166. Aug. epist. 166. Princes commanding for truth must be obeied The Iesuites play with the name of the church Act. 20. The Church of God is the people of God The Church neuer taken in the Scriptures for the Priest alone The Iesuites steales from the Church to ChurchmeÌ„ and from theÌ„ to the Pope By the Iesuits diuinitie the Prince shall commaund what pleaseth the Pope They be two distinct questions who shall commaÌ„d for truth and who shall direct vnto truth The Iesuites would make men beleeue that we teach the Princes will to be the rule of faith Neuer man of our side affirmed any such thing If the world can witnesse thus much for vs then is this a colde cauill of the Iesuites Marke how the Iesuites plaie with the oth The right extract of the Iesuites absurdities Apolog. cap. 4. Apolog. chap. 4. Apolog. cap. 4. Their absurdities are no way consequent to our doctrine This is the right supposal of their Apologie Princes be supreme gouernours of the persons not of the things in the church The wordes of the othe The Iesuites lack neither crakes nor wordes Apolog. cap. 4. The partes of the othe examined What is ment by Gouernour Matth. 20. Mark 10. Christ by that word distinguisheth the minister from the magistrat Luk. 22. Luk. 22. 2. Corinth 1. Publik gouernâ—ment is by correctioÌ„ and compulsion Rom. 13. Matth. 26. 1. Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Matth. 24. 2. Tim. 2. Bishops forbidden to vse violence 2. Timoth. 3. 4. Bishops no Magistrates to beare the sword but only charged with cure of soules which the sword can not touch Princes may commaund punish as well bishops as others Rom. 13. Rom. 13. Bern. ad Senonensum archiepiscopum epist. 42. Chrysost. homil 23. in Epist. ad Romanos Theo. in cap. 13 epist. ad Romanos Theo. in cap. 13. ad Romanos Oecumen in Epist ad Rom. Greg. Epistol lib. 3. cap. 100. Ibidem Greg. Epistol lib. 3. cap. 103. Luke 20. Iohn 19. Act. 25. Iude Epist. Rom. 13. The Clergie must be to the people an example of obedience to Princes Luke 21. Rom. 13. He that must suffer is a subiect as well as he that must obey Princes gouernours of all persons And that in causes Ecclesiasticall as wel as in temporall The Prince charged with both tables Deut. 17. Aug. Epist. 50. How the godly kings of Iudah did interprete their charge 2. Kings 23. 2. Kings 18. 2. Chro. 34. 35. 1. Kings 2. The same charge exteÌ„deth to the kings of the new testameÌ„t Rom. 13. They be gods ministers to reuenge all euill
con 1. * The Pope maketh a supplication to the Prince for a law to punish ambition in getting the Popedom Leo epist. 9. The Pope maketh supplication to the Prince for a Councell missed his sute Leo. Epist. 12. Idem Epist. 13. Idem Epist. 17. Idem Epist. 24. The Pope with sighes teares sueth for a generall Councell to the Prince was repelled Leo Epist. 26. The Pope desireth a gentle woman to further his sute to the Prince Idem Epist. 23. The Pope praieth others to helpe him with putting vp a supplication to the Prince for a Councell If the Bishop of Rome might then haue commaÌ„ded why did he intreate with teares yet misse his purpose Epist. 43. The Pope a fresh suter to the next Emperour Idem Epist. 50. Epist. 43. The Pope beseecheth the Prince by his royall decree to voide the Councell of Ephesus and to commaund the Councell of Chalcedon not to depart from the Nicene faith Concil Chalced. actio 1. Leo â—pist 59. The Pope must obey the Princes will in subscribing to the decrees of the Councell Nouell constit 123. IustiniaÌ„ commaundeth the Patriarkes namely the Bishoppe of Rome for Ecclesiasticall affaires * Ibidem Ibidem The Prince inflicteth depriuation for the breach of his Ecclesiasticall lawes Gregories submission to Mauritius in causes Ecclesiasticall Greg. Epi. lib. 2. cap. 100. Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by the Prince without the Popes knowledge against his liking How far was this man from deposing Princes The Pope subiect to the Princes commaundement sendeth the princes precept throughout his prouince The Pope of duetie yeeldeth obedieÌ„ce to his Prince The Pope the Princes seruaÌ„t by publike right He confesseth the Prince to be Lord ouer all Idem Epist. lib. 4. cap. 74. The Prince commaunded the Bishop of Rome to be at peace with the Bishop of Constantinople Idem Epist. lib. 4. cap. 76. The Pope redy to obey the Princes commaundement Idem Epist. lib. 4. cap. 78. The Pope submitting himselfe to the Princes pleasure in causes ecclesiasticall The Pope ouerruled in his consistorie with the princes precept Sextae Synod act 4. The Popes obedience to the Emperour was no curtesie but duetie Sext. Synod act 4. Agathonis Epist. 2. All the Bishops of the North and West partes seruants to the Emperour as well as they of the East Distinct. 10. ca. de capitulis The Pope professeth 850. yeares after Christ that he will inuiolably keepe the Princes ecclesiastical chapters lawes How farre the Pope was theÌ„ from the superioritie which he nowe claimeth ouer Princes * August contra Cresconium lib. 3. cap. 51. The Iesuites cauils against the Princes soueraigntie Ieremies wordes conclude nothing for the Pope Ieremie appointed a Prophet ouer nations Ierem. 1. Ierem. 1. Theodor. in 1. cap. Ierem. Bernard considerat lib. 2. Lyra in 1. cap. Ierem. Lyra in 1. cap. Ierem. Hieron in 1. ca. Ierem. Grego Pastoral part 3. admonitio 35. Hieron in 1. cap. Ierem. 1. Tim. 6. Reuel 19. Dan. 4. Reuel 17. Esai 6. Esaie maketh not the prince subiect to the Pope Hieron in 60. cap. Esai Esai 60. Esai 49. Esai 60. Hieron in Esai cap. 60. Euerie member of Christs church hath as good interest in Esaies wordes as the Pope Princes shall serue thee that is euerie part of thee or the noblest part of thee neither of which maketh for the Pope Princes may serue none but Christ. Psalm 2. Matth. 4. Philip. 2. Heb. 1. Colos. 1. An allegoricall text yeeldeth no literall conclusioÌ„ Esai 60. Esai 60. What it is for Princes to serue and submit themselues to the church Aug. contr lit Petilian lib. 2. cap. 92. Idem contr 2. Gauden Epist. lib. 2. cap. 26. Heb. 13. Obey your rulers as well all as one The Iesuites windlace to bring the Prince in subiection to the Pope Heb. 13. Heb. 13. The words of S. Paul obey your rulers make nothing for the Pope Heb. 13. 2. Cor. 4. 2. Corin. 1. Mark 10. Act. 20. Bishops are set in the Church by the holy ghost to feede not to rule Regère applied to Bishops is to rule ang gouerne with aduise couÌ„cell not with power and dominion S. Pauls words haue no relation to the Popes person nor to that kinde of rule which he claimeth They pretend the Church when they meane the Pope Esai 60. Ibidem The cunning of their Apologie Apolog. cap. 4. The Prince is supreme though the Church bee superiour Howe the Church is superiour to the Prince The Saintes in heauen bee part of the church Ephe. 2. Galat. 4. Aug. de ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 7. Aug. in Psalm 149. Idem de ciuit Dei lib. 20. cap. 9. 1. Cor. 10. In the name of the Church are many things contained Ambros. de incarnat Domin sacra cap. 5. August quaest super Leuit. lib. 3. cap. 57. Idem de catechizan rudibus cap. 3. Persons are not the church without other things annexed to them * Galat. 3. Hebre 13. Rom. 8. Rom. 8. Ambro. Epist. lib. 5. oratio contra Auxentium August epist. 157. The Church is sometimes taken for the place Idem quaest sup Leuitâ— â—â— 3 cap 57. Idem in psal 137. Sometimes for the persoÌ„s Idem in Euchivid Cap. 56. The Church of all the chosen men and Angels Ibidem August de Catechiz vudibus Cap. 3. Idem in Psal. 62. The Church is the number of the faithful that euer were aâ—e or shal be * Idem in Psal. 90. concio 2. The church is the number of particular men in seueral times and places August de vnitate eccles cap. 11. Idem in Psal. 64 121. Rom. 14. Mat. 21. 1. Tim. 3. August de verbis Apostoli sermo 22. That which entereth the definition must nedes be coÌ„tained in the appellation of the Church August epist. 38. Idem de baptis lib. 1. cap. 10. Idem in Psal. 57. 30. Idem epist. 203. Ambros. in psal 118. sermo 15. Idem in psal 36. 1. Tim. 3. Ambros. oratio contra Auxent The Prince not aboue the Church though superiour to al persons in the Church Mat. 22. What things Princes haue neither right to coÌ„maund nor power to rule See fol. 147. Mat. 20. Princes are aboue al persons but not aboue the Church Ergo the Church is taken for more than for persons Ambros. lib. 5. Cap. 33. Ambros. de obitu Theodosij Apolog. Cap. 4. sect 30. Epist. 33. ad Sororem Ibidem The Iesuits nippe saint Ambroses wordes Ambros. lib. 1. epist 32. We make no Prince iudge of faith Wherin Saint Ambrose withstood Valentinian The reasons why S. Ambr. refused Valentinians iudgement as neither fit nor indifferent Ambros. lib. 5. orat contra Auxentium Idem lib. 5. epist. 32. Ibidem Ambros. lib. 5. epist. 33. Ambrose would not yeeld his consent to let the Arrians haue his Church Idem orat contra Auxent Ibidem IbideÌ„ epist. 32. Ibidem orat contra Auxent Ambrose resisted not the Prince but denied his consent to part