AEdificabo ecclesiam mean super te I wil build my church vpon thee Behold sayth M. Sander the church promised to be built vpon a mortall man If he say true Christ sayth in vaine that flesh and blood made him not Peter But the same Hieronyme interpreteth that power there geuen to Peter to perteyne to euerie Bishop and Priest as much as to Peter And contra Ioninian lib. 1. he writeth At dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolâ—s fiat cuncti â—laues regni caelâ—rum accipiant ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo sâ—lidetur tamen propterea inter duâ—decim vnus eligitur vt capite coÌ„stituto seisinatis tollatur occasio But thou sayest the church is founded vpon Peter although in an other place the same is done vpon al â—â—â—â— Apostles they al receaued the keyes of the kingdom of heauen the strength of the church is grounded equally vpon theÌ„ yet for this cause one is chosen among the twelue that the heade being appoynted occasion of diuision might be taken away You see now that Peter is no more a rock or fundation then the rest neither hath any more auctoritie of the keyes then the rest alâ—hough by his iudgement he was chosen to be the chiefe or first in order to auoyde strife not in dignitie or auctority Chrysostom is cited ex Var. in Math. Hom 27. Princeps c. Peter Prince of the Apostles vpon whome Christ sounded the church a verie immoueable rocke and a strong confession M. Sander woulde haue vs note that Peter is called confession that when he sayth the church is builded vpon faith confession we might vnderstand no mans saith and confession but Peters As though all the Apostles had not the same faith made not the same coÌ„fession But notwithstaÌ„ding that Chrysostom doth ofteÌ„ acknowledge Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles yet he willeth vs to coÌ„sider that his principallity was not of auctority but of order Iam illâ—d considera quà m Petrus agit omma excommuni disâ—ipulorum sententiâ— nihil auctoritate sua nihil cum imperio Now also coÌ„sider this how euen Peter doth all things by the coÌ„mon decree of the disciples nothing by his owne auctority nothing by commaundement Ex. Act. Ho. 3. Also in 2. ad Gal. he doth not only asfirme that Paule was equall in honor with Peter but also that all the rest were of equall dignitie Iamque se caeteris honore parem ostendit nec se reliquis illis sed ipsi summo comparat declarans quod herum vnusquis q parem sortitus sit dignitateÌ„ And now Paule sheweth him selfe equall in honor with the rest neither doth he coÌ„pare him selfe with the rest but euen with the highest himselfe declaring that euery one of theÌ„ hath obteined equal dignity Now followeth Epiphanius in Anchor Ipse dominus c. The Lord himselfe did constitute him chiefe of the Apostles a sure rocke vpon which the church of God is built and the gates of hell shall not preuayle agaâ—nst it now the gates of hell are heresies and auctors of heresies for by all meanes faith in him was established which receaued the keye of heauen That Peter was chiefe of y e Apostles in order we striue not that he was a sure rocke we graunt but that he alone was the rocke of the church we deny The same Epiphanius acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be fellow minister with euery Bishop and no better and therefore setting forth the epistle of Marcellus to Iulius Bishop of Rome he giueth this superscriptioÌ„ Beatissimo coÌ„ministro Iulio Marcellus in Domino gaudium To his most blessed fellow minister Iulius Marcellus wisheth ioy in the Lord. The place of Cyrillus which followeth I haue sette downe and aunswered iu the chapter before After him Theodoretus alleageth Psellus In Petro c. In Peter the prince of the Apostles our Lord in the Gospells hath promised that he will build his Church Damascâ—n and Euthymius later writers are alledged to the like effect all which proue nothing but that Peter is a rocke which we confesse as euery one of the Apostles is TheÌ„ followeth Augustine in his retractations which leaueth it to the choyce of the reader whether he will vnderstand Peter figuring the person of the Church to be the rocke spoken of by Christ or Christ whoÌ„ he coÌ„fessed But that Peter as Bishop of Rome should be the rocke he sayth nothing Againe leauing it to the readers choyse he sheweth he had no such perswasion of the rocke of the Church as M. Sander teacheth After him Prosper Aquitanicus Leo with Gregory two Bishops of Rome say nothing but that Peter was a rocke which we graunt without controuersie Last of all the councell of Chalcedon is cited Act. 3. Petrus Apostolus est petra crepido Ecclesiae Peter the Apostle is a rocke and a shoare of the Churche which M. Sander translateth the toppe of the Church In deede the legats of the Bishop of Rome vttered such words which may be well vnderstoode as all the rest of the fathers that Peter was one of the twelue foundations of the Churche But that the councell acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to haue such authoritie as is pretended appeareth by the 16. action of the Chalcedon councell where notwithstanding the B. of Romes Legats reclaymed Leo him selfe refused to consent yet by the whole councell it was determined that the Archbishop of Constantinople should haue equall authoritie with the Archbishop of Rome in the East onely the title of prioritie or senioritie reserued to the Bishop of Rome To conclude M Iewell sayd truly for all M. Sanders vaine childishinsulting impudent rayling y t no mor tall maÌ„ but Christ only is the rocke foundation of the Church albeit that Peter all the Apostles in respect of their office doctrine were fouÌ„dation stones wheron the Church was builded Iesus Christ being the corner stone and onely one generall foundation The sixt chapter THe diuerse reasoÌ„s which the fathers bring to declare why S. Peter was this rocke do euidently shew that he was most literally this rocke whereupon Christ would build his Church How Peter beareth the person of the Church THat he was a stone or rocke wheron the Church is builded hath bene often graunted but that he onely was such a stone is stil denyed First Basil aduersus Euno lib. 2. is cited with his reason Petrus c. Peter receyued the building of the Church vpon him selfe for the excellencye of his faith I aunswer so did the other Apostles for the excellencye of their fayth for continuance whereof Christ prayed as well as for Peters faith Iohn 17. The 2. Hilarie de trinit lib. 6. sayth Supereminentem c. Peter by confession of his blessed faith deserued an exceding glory And so did the rest of the Apostles by their confession of their
lyneall succession from Christ it is vnpossible for them to shewe But Bristow wil proue that we were neuer before this time For as for AErius he knoweth we are ashamed of him But he will proue that nether Hus nor Wicklefe were Protestants Because they held some opinions that we doe not By the same reason he may proue that the fathers of the councels of Constance and Basil were no Papists because they tooke vpon them to depose Popes and decreed that the councell was aboue the Pope which most Papistes at this day dare not affirme AEneas Syluius doth slaunder Wicklefe and Hus that for euery mortall sinne a Magistrate should lose his office for their Apologies are extant to be seene to the contrary But Luther sayth he denyeth that he was an Hussite affirming that Hus was not of his opiniō Although he had bene in all poyntes of his opinion as he was in the chiefe yet might Luther iustly deny the name of a man which is proper to sectaries as Franciscanes Dominicanes c not to Christians Yet Wicklefe sayth he is condemned by Melanthon How I pray you First that he found many errors in him by which iudgement might be made of his spirite If Wicklefe liuing in a time of so great blindnes and darkenes coulde not see the truth in all matters it was no maruell and that he had errors he sheweth that he was a man euen as the best writers of the Church since the Apostles tyme which might be deceyued But as we condemne not Augustine Hierom Chrysostom Cyprian and other auncient writers because we know rhey erred in some things no more haue we iust cause to cond emne Wicklefe for some errors which it is not vnlike but he did holde yea but Melanthon chargeth Wicklefe sayth he to be altogether ignoraunt of the righteousnes of faith which is the foundation of religion I will rather thinke that Melanthon was ignoraunt of Wicklefes opinion as one which had not seene but fewe of his workes In which as perhaps he might vse the tearmes of merit and deseruing then commonly vsed in his tyme yet that he had not the same meaning in them but did well vnderstand and holde the righteousnes which is of fayth I can playnely proue by his owne writings in diuerse places As vpon the Heb. 10. he sayth Sith Christ is God and man satisfaction for the sinne that he made thus freely is better then any other that man or Angell might make The same man in nowmber that sinned in Adam our first fadir the same man in nowmber made asseeth by the second Adam Christ. And sith he is more of vertue then the first Adam might be and his payne is much more then sinnefull lust of the first Adam who shoulde haue conscience here that ne this sinne is clansid all orst And sith our Iesu is very God that neuer man forfete this mede he is a sufficient medicine for all sinners that bene contrite for Christ is euer and euery where and in all such soules by grace and so he clanseth more cleanely then any bodye or figure may clense and herefore as Poule sayth Christ is mediator of the newe lawe c. Agayne vpon 2. Cor. 3. Seeth mans thinking amonge his werkes seemeth moste in his power and yet his thought mote come of God much more eche other werke of man c. Thus should we put of pride and wholly trusten in Iesu Christ for he that may not thinke of him selfe may doe nought of him selfe but all our sufficiencie is of God by the meane of Iesu Christ. Likewise vpon the 8. to the Romanes Sith God susteyneth man and moueth him and helpeth him for to trauell how had it not come of grace and thus reward of this trauell mote needes all come of grace These places and many other shewe that Wicklefe was not ignorant of the righteousnes of fayth It seemeth therefore that Melancthon had seene only the articles which his aduersaries had gathered against him and not his owne writings and discourses The prophecyes which Bristow boasteth to be for their religion be of Ieremye and Esay for the perpetuall continuance of the true Church of Christ but seing it is proued that the popish Church hath not bene from the beginning those prophecyes appertayne not vnto her How the Church is visible is shewed in the 37. motiue whereunto I adde that while the Papistes glory of a visible Church on earth Ierusalem that is aboue and therefore not subiect to the eyes of earthly men but of such whose conuetsation is in heauen is the mother of vs all Finally if Bristow coulde as truly proue as he doth boldly say that no Scripture is against them but all for them he shoulde haue no Protestants to be his aduersaries who more accept of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures then of all other motiues in the world The 46. motiue is the 39. demaund VVhere grewe the Protestants seede before our time The church hath rehearsed wednesday fast long sithence A Bishop is aboue a Priest The Saincts were of our religion Baptisme necessarie for saluation of children Anabaptists VVhy there be so many Atheistes in England Trinitaries Such seedes of our doctrine sayth Bristowe as haue growne before this time did alwayes growe in euell grounde namely in heretikes as denyall of prayer for the deade in Aerius who beside that errour was an Arrian He chargeth vs also with denying the ordinarie fast of the church but that is false For we hold that the fast which is appointed by the church ought to be obserued although we hold that no man is bounde to the blasphemous superstitious and counterfait fast of the Popish synagogue In that time in which Aerius liued there were other times of fasting appointed then such as the Popishe church obserueth But the wedsnesday fast sayth Bristowe the church hath released In what generall councell good Sir are you able to shewe likewise of other times of fast named in Epiphanius if you be not able to shew this where is either your vniuersalitie antiquitie or succession in doctrine and discipline without interruption More thē this sayth he Aerius did hold that a Bishop a Priest be equall which also the Protestāts do mainteyne In preaching the word and ministring the Sacramentes S. Hierom Euagrio is of the same opinion that they are equall likewise in Epistad Titum cap. 1. shewing that a Bishoppe is preferred before a Priest magis ecclesiae consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate rather by custome of the church to auoyde schismes then by truth of the Lordes disposition Furthermore one of the Protestantes seedes is that we must not pray to Saints but this was held of certayne heretikes in S. Bernardes time who were called Apostolici were also Anabaptistes denying the baptisme of infantes The conclusion is that these opinions can not be good because they are founde in some heretikes And the contrary opinion must needes be true
t the straungens thereof so long as the trueth of the little flock the falshod of the reuolted multitude are manifestly tryed by the authoritie of the scriptures The conclusion of all his Preface is that which was the cause of this treatise that there neuer lacked a chief Byshop in Saincte Peeters chaire whose supremacy beeing graunted all other controuersies bee superfluous Yea verely all Scriptures Doctors and Councelles be needlesse where there is such a person alwaies at hand who cannot erre in any thing that he commandeth men to beleeue or doe And contrariswise if ther be any necessary vse of scriptures doctors couÌ„cels Learning Tounges c. there is no such chiefe Byshop on Earth But what saye you M. Sander did there neuer lack a Pope to sit in Peters Chayre Was that See neuer voyde many dayes many monethes and many yeeres togither And when there was two Popes or three Popes at once and that oftentimes who sat in Peters Chaire You will say one of them but which you cannot tell Whose voyce shoulde the people obey as Christes vicar The one cursed the other absolued the one commannded the other forbadde Is not all your bragging of Peters chaire and vnitie thereby proued to be nothing else but a meere mockerie The Lorde Iesus confounde Antichrist with the breath of his mouth and with his glorious appearance and defend his Church in trueth and holinesse for euer and euer Amen The first Chapter THE state of the Question concerning the supremacie of Sainct Peter and of the Byshoppes of Rome after him VPon our denyall of the supremacie of the Pope and of S. Peter he sayth we deny all primacie and chiefe gouernment in the Church Wherevpon he rayseth three questions to intreate of Whether it be against the worde of God that there should be in his Churche any primacie or chiefe authoritie Whether S. Peter had the same primacie or no Whether the Byshop of Rome had it after S. Peter To which we aunswere with distinction of the words primacie and Church that we affirme there is a spirituall and eternall primacy of the vniuersall Churche which is proper onely to our Sauiour Christ which neuer was giuen to Peter nor to any mortall man Likewise we arffime that in particular Churches there is must be a primacie of order which is temporall according to the disposition of the Church And such primacie in the Colledge of the Apostles might Peter haue for sometime but that he had it not alwayes it appeareth in the councell of the Apostlesin the 15. of the Actes of which Iames in a manner by all writers consent was President and Primate and vpon the controuersie beeing throughly debated pronounced the definitiue sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c according to which the synodall Epistle to the Churches of Antiochia Syria and Cilicia was written in the name of the Apostles Elders and brethren But concerning S. Peter M. Sander moueth newe questions First whereas Christ promised that Simon should be called Cephas or Peter whiche is a stone or Rock Ioh. I. and afterward performed his promise wheÌ„ he chose him to be an Apostle Mar. 3. Luk. 6. And thirdly when Simon confessed his godhead the reason of the promise was declared that he would builde his Church vpon that Rocke the question is whether Peter himselfe be that Rock vpon which Christ woulde builde his Church or Christ himselfe or the fayth and confession of peter M. Sander the spokesman for the Papists passing ouer the second question that is whether Christe himselfe whom Peter confessed by this rock denyeth the fayth or confession of Peeter to be the perfect sence of that promise affirming the Rock on which the Church is builded to be S. Peter not barely confirmed but in respect of the promise past the present confession and the authoritie of feeding Christes Sheepe giuen him after his resurrection of which foure conditions the Protestantes hee sayth doe lack no lesse then three But what doe the Papists lack when in there sence they exclude the rock Christ the only foundation then the which none other can be layde 1. Cor. 10. 4. 1. Cor. 3. 11. by any wise builder of the Church Yet seeing M. Sand. is so desirous to haue Peter to bee the stone whereof Christ speaketh laying first Iesus Christ to be the head corner stone I wil franckly yeelde vnto him that which he coulde neuer win by force that Christ saying to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke or stone will I builde my Church meaneth euen Peter him selfe vpon whome he would build his Church but so that he maketh not Peter a singular Rocke or stone to beare the whole building for then hee should put him selfe out of place but one of the prâ—ncipall stones of the foundation euen as all the Apostles and Prophetes were for so the holy Ghost speaketh Ephe. 2. vers 20. beeing builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christe beeing the head corner stone in whome all the building beeing compacted groweth vnto an holy temple vnto the Lord. Nowe let vs consider whether any singular authority was committed to peter when hee was willed to feede the sheepe of Christ. M. Sand. saith yea because it was sayd to him alone feede my sheepe and no particular flock named it must needes be ment the whole flocke Marke these maine pillers of the popishe Rock Christ saide onely to Peter come after me Satan for thou art an offence to me c. Therefore Peter onely was an enemie of Christe If the Pope must needes haue the one texte as peculiar to him let him take the other also Againe Peter himself sayth to the elders feede as much as in you lyeth the flocke of Christe 1. Peter 5. Heere is no particular slocke named therefore he meaneth the whole vniuersall flocke But he vrgeth farther that as Peter loued Christe more then the rest so he did feede the flock of Christ aboue all other pastors But if labouring in preaching the gospel be the feeding of Christes flock not Peter but Paule laboured more then he and all the rest of the Apostles 1. Cor. 15. The answere of the Protestants to his demande Why Peter alone in presence of other Apostles was commaunded thrise to feede the sheepe that by thrise confession and iniunction to feede he might abolishe the shame of his thrise denying and knowe that hee was restored to his Apostleship from which he deserued to be depriued M. Sand. liketh not for three causes First he sayth hee had not lost his Apostleship because his fault was not externally proued nor confessed in iudgment nor stubbernly defended c. as though Christ which knew and foretolde his infirmitie before he fell had neede of externall proues or a Commissaries court to depriue Peter of his office O blockish reason Although neither Caluine nor Beza doe affirme that hee was altogither excluded from his office by his fault but
that he deserued so to be and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the other Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution if he had lost it is superfluous Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were but at this time especially confirmed as his speciall case required His last reason is that admit Peter had not beene restored before this time yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority then any other Apostle had receued at any time and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes he aunsweareth by distinction forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship and yet Peter was chiefe of tâ—e Apostles and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high â—â—yshop wherein they were all inferiours to him and â—â—ee was their Primate and their heade and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be and in the same respecte is a straunge Logition Fynally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock deny the honor to his successors he will proue that the Byshop of Rome and none other hath all that authoritie which Peter sometime had and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature condition of Antichrist then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe The seconde Chapter THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ though not properly a Lordlynesse or heathenish dominion And in what sort this Eâ—clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmeÌ„t ofseculer princes and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared That there â—as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes The high Priest is preferred before the King by Gods law The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes That Moyses was a Priest THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a ministery or seruice by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion but altogether as vnlike to it as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth That no man properly can tâ—e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ. he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist â—ut also an Anabaptist For the coÌ„mon seruice that we oâ—â—e vnto Christ hindereth not but that a Christian man â—ay be Lord King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar to eche in things that belonged to them that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles like to the princes of the nations Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church some kind of primacy also it is cleerer by the scriptures then that it neede any proofe especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth namely where he citeth this text Feed my sheepe to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion iust measure of victuals in coÌ„uenient time which thing neither Peter did nether was he able to doe And much lesse any man in succession to him which is not equal in gifts with him And therefore the example of a stuarde who may prouide for a competent number of one family is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde beside him that is almightie For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse 23 they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos which hee calleth Exortem quandam eminentem potestatem A certaine peerelesse and highe power And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time c. True Euery seuerall Pastor or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority yet in that he argueth that the like should be in the whole church militant which is in euery parish it is out of all compasse of reason For that which is possible in the one is altogeather impossible in the other And the argument is no better then if we should say there is one steward in euery Colledge or greate house therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world And wheras he would proue his matter good by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles calleth Peter the first it is to childish friuolous For in euery nomber one or other must be the first it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship therefore his primacy was of order not of auctority Nether is he alwaies first named for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is of the dignity of the Apostles Iames is named before Cephas or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem by consent of most auncient writers neither doeth it folow that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi A prince of the people therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people as M. S. seemeth to say neither had Peter by those wordes feede my shope any auctority committed vnto him more then to the rest of the Apostles As for the name of Lord or tearme of dominioÌ„ sometime geueÌ„ by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment we striue not about it so there be no such dominion by him excercised
me dicitis Statim loci non immemor sui Primatum egit Primatum confessionis vtique non honoris primatum fidei non ordinis This Peter I say when he hearde but what doe you say that I am immediatly not forgetting his place executed his primacie Verely the primacie of confession not of honor the primacie of faith not of degree By these places of Ambrose it appeareth what gouernment and primacie was graunted to Peter and how he exercised the same The fift differeÌ„ce is that the other Euangelists say absolutely let him be a minister a seruauâ—â—t in S. Luke it is said with a great moderation let him be made as the younger and as he that ministreth If this be a good argument to proue that the ministery is more truly a greatnesse then a ministerie the Arrians may deny by the like that Christ is more truely a man then the sonne of God because Sainct Iohn sayeth we sawe his glorie as the glorie of the onely begotten sonne of God O beastly absurdity and yet he sayeth if any man say that there was not one certeyne man greater amonge the Apostles who might be as the younger it is playne contradiction to Christ and he is Antechrist But where on Gods name sayeth Christ that there is one certeyne man greater among the Apostles The last the least difference is that the greater man is euidently named a litle after when Christ saâ—th to S. Peter Simon Simon beholde Satan hath desired to sift you as it were wheate but I haue prayed for thee that thy faith shall not faile And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren Maister Sander asketh what other thing it is for Peter to confirme his brethren but to practise and exercise his greatnesse ouer them for euerie one that confirmeth is greater then they which are confirmed Who euer did reade such impudent assertions Peters faith was confirmed by Marie Magdalen therefore she was greater then Peter Paule was confirmed by Ananias therefore he was greater then Paule Aquila Priscilla confirmed Apollo therfore they were greater then he To conclude if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luk. 22. do necessarily proue that there was one certeine man among them greatest theÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 9. of Luk. 48. doth proue that there was one least among them He that is least among you al saith our Sauiour Christ euen he shalbe the greatest And least M. Sander should renue his differeÌ„ce of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may please him to vnderstand that the contention was among the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be the greater or greatest of them Which question our Sauiour Christ doth not decide if M. Sanders difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place may stande Wherefore hitherto Peter hath found no supremacie and muche lesse the Pope by prerogatiue of his chaire who can not be sayd to sit in Peters chaire except he taught Peters doctrine which if he did teach as he doth y e contrarie yet Peters auctority could no more be deriued to him then the auctority of Moses to euery one of y e Scribes Pharizees w c did sit in Moses chaire He citeth Ambrose to proue that there is a prelacie or preferrement in the church because he forbiddeth contention thereabout as though there could not be a prelacy or preferremeÌ„t of euery Bishop ouer his church but there must be one Bishop ouer all the church The like he alleageth out of Bede which speaketh expressely of al the teachers of the church not of one Pope ouer all The conclusion of his disputation is that the ecclesiastical primacy doth in al points resemble as much as it possible may the primacy of Christ therefore he that denyeth the primacie among the Apostles to be a true primacy in his kinde is blasphemous against Christ him selfe Nay rather he that communicateth with any man that which is peculiar to our Sauiour Christ that he only shoulde be as S. Paule speaketh of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himselfe the primate in al things Col. 1. 18. which is y e head of his body which is the church is fouÌ„d a manifest blasphemer of our Sauiour Christ. But that they w c excel among y e Apostles their successors the Bishops may be humble and yet great after the example of our Sauiour Christ is no question at all But that any hath suche greatnes in auctoritie as our Sauiour Christ hath cuer his whole Churche is the thinge we denye If Gregorie affirme that Peter by Gods commission had the primacie of the holy church and was growne in power aboue the rest it is no maruel seeing he was so nere to the open manifestation of Antechrist which succeeded him the next saue one whose tyranny beganne to encrease longe before Gregories time yet was he in his pretended primacie more modest then any that followed him to this day Vtterly refusing and condemning as prophane proude blasphemous against Christ the title of vniuersall Bishoppe which Ihon of Constantinople did vsurpe and other Bishoppes would haue geuen to him And whereas M. Sander frameth an obiection of our part that no man can be both a minister a gouernour therfore no ecclesiasticall minister can be a gouernour he playeth with his owne shadow For we deny not but a minister of the church which is a seruaunt is also a gouernour But we affirme that his gouernmeÌ„t is spiritual not worldly vnlike to the earthly gouernment of this worlde euen as the kingdome of Christ is not of this worlde But it followeth not because that euery Bishop shepherd is a gouernour therefore there must be one Bishop and shepherd gouernour of them all other then our Sauiour Christ the arch or head shepherd Bishop of our soules 1. Pet. 5. 4. 1. Pet. 2. 25 M. Sander coÌ„mendeth y e saying of Leo B. of Rome to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica Qui se c. He that knoweth him seife to be set ouer some men let him not disdaine to haue some man preferred before him But he proceedeth sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat But such obedience as he requireth of other let him yeeld himselfe By this saying it appeareth that although Leo take much vpoÌ„ him as to heare the coÌ„trouersies y e can not be determined by the Metropolitans yet he acknowledgeth that in equitie he was bâ—â—â—â—d to yeelde that obedience to others which he required of others if he him selfe were in fault But M. Sander maketh an other obiection for vs on this maner The Princes of the Gentiles doe also serue their subiectes in conseruing peace keeping out their enemies c. but the clergie must be altogether vnlike to temporal gouernours therfore there must be no primacie or gouernment among them although it be ioyned with seruice Once againe I say we make no such obiection but we answere the Anabaptists that
25. Salomon did the like about the temple He deposed Abiathar the high Priest set Zadoc in his roome 1. Reg. 2. 27. 35. And such are y e examples of all the godly kinges of Iuda which being coÌ„mended in the Scripture are not vncertayne deceitful or vnknown in their circumstances but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters then this text w c he citeth Feede my sheepe to forbid them But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no I answer by propriety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is Neuerthelesse admit Peter to be a sheepeheard and the king to be his sheepe what then forsooth it is against the lawe of nature for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard and the other a sheepe But I aske of him is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard if he doubt Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe If he deny it let the Apostles speake for them selues let euery soule be subiect c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes You may then see what a wise argumeÌ„t he hath made that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor as in other respect he is vnder him M. Sander will goe forward for all this putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required he would not yeeld vnto what could the Emperour doe to him He coulde not excommunicate him And if he imprisoned him or put him to death he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing I might put the like case of his holinesse What if a Christian man should come to him c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe hee might imprison him as Annas did the Apostles hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy and Ananias Paule c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde haue come to the Emperour had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie he being found an heretike to haue condemned him therefore In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius and Donatus and not as Nero with Peter and Paule But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures or the auncient times who can deny but that in a cause of faith in a cause I saye of fayth Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours not Emperours of Bishops And who sayth the contrarye but that in causes of faith the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops and not the Bishops of the Emperour Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religion to doe what he will when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde the knowledge whereof especially in difficult matters he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law although he be bownd to see iustice executed But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop I aunswer if his cryme be apparant euen as Salomon deposed Abiather if it be doubtfull by order of iudgement and tryall according of ciuill Iudges if it be a ciuill cryme and Ecclesiasticall if it be heresie that he is accused of if he can not be condemned vpon iust tryall he is to be absolued if this will not satisfie the king he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy and if he proceede further he exerciseth tyranny And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the importunitie of the Donatists which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops deputed by the Emperour they would neuer be satisfied but still appealed to the Emperour accused the Bishops that were appoynted their Iudges before the earthly king M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently that he calleth Constantine an earthly king and yet he is so blinde that he will not see that the same earthly kinge which assigned those Bishops to be Iudges was still acknowledged of all partes to be the supreame gouernour Ep. 48. But omittinge the wordes of men he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of euery degree of men according to their dignitie And first beginneth with the highe Priest next whom is the whole people thirde the Prince and last of all euery priuate man There is no doubt but the highe Priest as he was an image and figure of Christ was chiefe in dignitie Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince as Aaron was to Moses Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon The like is confessed of euery minister of the Gospell and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt might haue bene spared And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince Abiathar in the temple at the altar in the holiest place and sacrificing was greater then Salomon yet was he iustly deposed by SalomoÌ„ for his treason Maister Sander chargeth vs to affiâ—me that the euill life of a Bishop taketh away his authoritie w c he denieth to be so as long as the Church doth tollerate and permitte them in their places whereupon he concludeth that though the Bishop of Rome haue neuer so much abused his office yet he can not leese his primacye In deede the abuse of the man taketh not away the authoritie of the office but if the office be peruerted from the right vse and degenerated into an heathenish tyrannye as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene many hundreth yeares the name of a Bishop onely and that scarsely remayning we iustly affirme that such dignitie as that sea had by consent of men it hath cleane lost by abuse of their authoritie Moreouer he sayth it hath no coullour of truth that we affirme the Pope to gouerne not as a Pastor but to beare a soueraintie as Princes of the
onely Petrum Christus auctoritate praeditum esse voluit c. whereas Chrysostom speaking to euery Priest shewing how careful he ought to be in his office in respect of his high calling the excellent dignitie thereof sayth Etiam ne nune nobisium contendes fraudemistam tibi non bene ac foeliciter cessisse quiper eam vniuersis Dei optimi maximi bonis administrandis sis praeficiendus quuÌ„praesertim ea agas quecuÌ„ Petrus ageret illuÌ„ Christus auctoritate predituÌ„ esse voluit ac reliquos item Apostolos longeÌ„ praecellere Wilt thou then stil contend with vs that this fraude hath not happened well luckely to thee which by it art to be made ouerseer of all the goods of God almightye especially when thou doest those thinges which when Peter did Christ would haue him to be endued with authoritie also farre to excel the other Apostles Here M. Sander wil haue vs note 3. things 1 Peters authoritie 2. passing the Apostles 3. farre passing We marke them all that they are directly ouerthrowing M. Sanders rocke of the popish Churche For they declare that Peter in doing those things was endued with authoritie farre passed the other Apostles euen as euery Priest to whoÌ„ Chrysostom speaketh when he doth the same thinges is endued with the same authoritie farre passeth all other men So that here is none other authority nor excelleÌ„ce of Peter then such as is common to all ministers in executing their charge and was common to all the Apostles when they did the same things that Peter did For Chrysostom proueth to Basil that he did him no hurt when by pollicie he caused him to be called to the ministery against his will seeing that thereby he was made partaker of the reward of the faithfull wise seruaunt and equall in authoritie with Peter if of loue towardes Christ he would diligently feede his flocke So that Leo had no iust cause to saye that in respect of any greater authoritie Peter had a speciall care of feeding the sheepe committed to him but rather in respect that he had greater cause to loue Christ which had so mercifully forgiuen him so shamefull a fall But Arnobius is a lesse partiall witnes then Leo a Bishop of Rome he vpon the Psal. 138. writeth thus Nullus Apostolorum nomen c. None of the Apostles receiued the name of a Pastor For our Lord Iesus Christ alone saide I am the good pastor againe my sheepe follow me Therefore this holy name the power of this name after his resurrection he graunted to Peter repenting And he that was thryse denyed gaue to his denyer that power which he had alone Arnobius saith he noteth none of the Apostles euer to haue had the name of a pastor giuen to him by Christ beside S. Peter alone But I demaund of M. S. where he hath in Arnobius this word euer For he sayth y t Peter had this name after y e resurrection w c none of y e Apostles had before He writeth against the Nouatians w c denied helpe to such as repented after baptisme prouing by exaÌ„ple of Peter that they are to be receyued seeing Christ gaue him greater dignitie after his repentance then he had before his fal But that Peter had greater authoritie theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles he neuer thought or sayde M. Sander cutteth of both the head and the tayle In this discourse lest the meaning of Arnobius might appeare for thus he writeth Dicis certâ— baptizatis non debere poenitentibus subueniri Ecce Apostolo poenitenti succurritur qui est Episcoporum Episcopus maiâ—r gradus additur ploranti quam sublatus est deneganti Quod vt doceam illud est endo quod nullus ApostoloruÌ„ nomen Pasioris accepit c. In deede thou sayst that such as repent being baptised ought not to be helped Beholde the Apostle repenting is helped which is a Bishop of Bishops and a greater degree is restored to him weeping then was taken from him denying Which that I may teach this I shew that none of the Apostles receyued the name of a sheepeheard c. Againe in the ende following the wordes before cited by M. Sander he sayth vt non sâ—lum recuperasse quod amiserat probaretur verum etiam multo amplius poenitendo quam negandâ— perdiderat acquisisse He gaue his denyer that power which before his resurrection he alone had That he might be proued not onely to haue recouered that which he lost but also to haue gotten much more by repenting then he lost by denying This speaketh Arnobius of the general authoritie which Peter had ouer all the Church as euery Apostle had likewise was a Bishop and ouerseer of Bishops as well as Peter and a Pastor of the vniuersal Church which thing Arnobius neuer did deny These therfore be M. Sanders arguments none of the Apostles had the name of a Pastor before Christes resurrection ergo they neuer had it Peter was called to greater dignitie after his fall then he had before ergo he was greater then his fellow Apostles Again Peter was a Bishop or an ouerseer of Bishops ergo he was Bishop ouer the Apostles Next Arnobius is cited Ambrose in 24. Luc. Who first ayd that Peter was euery where ether alone or first And theÌ„ vpon these words Peter doost thou loue me sayth Dominus interrogat c. Our Lord asked net to learne but to teach whoÌ„ he beeing to be lâ—fted vpp into heauen did leaue to vs as the Vicare of his loue For so thou hast â—â— Simon thou sonne of Iohn doest thou lâ—ue me Yea Lord thou knowest that I loue thee Iesus sayth to him feede my lambes Peter being priuy of a good conscience doth testifie his owne affection not taken for the time but already well knowen to God For who else were able to professe this thing of him selfe Aâ—d because he alone amongst all professeth he is preferred before all M. Sander omitteth the conclusion Maior enim omnibus charitas For the greatest of all is Chariâ—ie So Peter is heereby declared to haue the greateste loue but not to haue the greatest authoritie M. Sander vrgeth that he is the Vicar of Christes loue and pastorall office The one indeede Ambrose sayth the other Sander sayeth but is not able to proue no not by that which followeth in the same place of Ambrose that Peter had committed to him to feede not onely the Lambes with milke as at the first nor yet the little sheepe as at the seconde time but the sheepe to the end that he beeing more perfect might gouerne the more perfecte For euery one of the Apostles hadde the same charge to feede the sheepe of Christe and not the Lambes or little sheepe onely Neither doth the woorde of gouernment helpe him For euery Apostle had the like gouernment ouer the whole flock w c Peter hath and there is an ordinary gouernment in euery particular church 1. Co. 12. w c
proueth not the gouernors to be rulers one ouer another wherefore this collection is not only vaine but also ridiculus that Peter should haue authoritie to gouerne Patriarches Archbishops and Bishops aswell as Parishe priests because he must feed y e sheep of Christ I wil not here stand to discus how properly y e distinctioÌ„ of lambs litle sheep sheep is obserued by Ambrose but taking it according as he distinguisheth it yet heere is nothing giuen to Peter but primacie of loue or as else where he sayth of order but of authoritie singular heâ—re is nothing at al. And that his conclusioÌ„ declareth sufficiently Et idio quasi perfecto in omnibus quem caro iamreueâ— are non posset a gloria passionis corona decernitur And therfore a crown is decreed to him as to one perfect in all things whome the fleshe could not call back from the glory of suffering This conclusion M. S. as his manner is hath left out by which it is apparant that Ambrose inferreth no singularitie of authoritie in Peter as more perfet theÌ„ the rest of the Apostles but as perfect in such degre as the rest of the Apostles which were likewise prepared to martyrdoÌ„ were equal w t him therin The testimony of Bernard a late wâ—iter though he were no flatterer yet I receiue not as of one which was deceiued with the common error of his time But in signe that Peter was generall Shepheard saith M. San. it is not read that he was ordained bishop of any other then of Christ yet did he with two other Apostles ordaine S. Iames byshop of Ierusalem as Eus. lib. 2. cap. â— writeth There is no dout but Iames was acknowlâ—dged by the Apostles to be appointed by the holy ghoste to remaine at Ierusalem though not as a pâ—rticuler bishop but as an Apostle of the whole Church But as we read not that Peter was made Bishop by any man so we read not that he was made Byshop by Christ. Yet Arâ—obius in Psa. 138. saith he was made a Bishop of Bishops Ecce Apostolo p. enitenti succurritur qui est episcoporum episcopus Behold the Apostle beeing penitent is succoured which is a Bishop of Bishops He asketh if any thing could be spoken more plainly yes verely you had need of plainer speaches then this to proue that hee was byshop of the Apostles For admit that he was an ouerseer of particular bishops as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signiâ—ie yet it followeth not that he was â—n ouerseer or Byshop of the Apostles In which sense Clemens also if the Epistle were not counterfaite might iustly call Iames a Byshop of Byshops not as M. Sand. aunsweareth that he was an Archbishop of inferior Byshops but an Apostle ouerseer of particuler Bishops That Cyprian ad Quintum sayth Neque quisquam c Neither doeth any of vs make him selse a Byshoppe of Byshops He aunsweareth that although no man may make himselfe yet Christe may make a man Bishop of Byshopes but where findeth he that Christe maketh the Pope a Byshop of Byshoppes Howe Peter might bee called a Byshop of Byshoppes I haue shewed before But the Councell of Carth. 3. Cap. 26. forbiddeth that the Byshop of Rome or any other Primate shoulde be called the Prince of Priests or highest Priest or by any such lyke name but only the Byshop of the first seate Yet Optatus feared nor to write thus lib. 7. de schism of S. Peter Preferri apostolis omnibus meruit c. He deserued to be preferred before all the Apostles and he alone receiued the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen to be communicated vnto the reste Maâ—ster Sander confessing and truely that the Apostles tooke the Keyes belonging to their Apostolike office immediatly of Christe saith they receiued the Keyes of their Byshoplike office of Peter But what lock was there that they could not open and shut by their Aopstolike Key When Christe sayth Whatsoeuer you binde or loose whose sinnes soeuer you forgiue or retayne which was the power of their Apostolike Keyes If the Apostolike Keyes were so sufficient what neede they any Byshoplike Keyes Into these absurdities both he Optatus doe followe whiles the one will vrge a prerogatiue of Peter the other will forge a Byshoplike office in the Apostles whereof the Scripture giueth vs no instruction As for Leo and Gregorye Byshoppes of Rome although they were not come to the full pryde of Antichrist yet the mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that seate neere fiue or sixe hundreth yeeres before them and then greatly increased they were so deceiued with the longe continuaunce of error that they thought the dignitie of Peter was much more ouer the reste of his fellowe Apostles then the holy Scriptures of God against which no continuaunce of error cann prescribe doth either allow or beare with all Wherefore although he haue some shewe out of the olde writers yet hath he nothing directly to prooue that Peter did excell the other Apostles in Byshoplike authoritie and out of the worde of God no one â—ote or tytle that Peter as a Byshop excelled the other Apostles not as Apostles but as Byshops The 13 Chapter THat the pastorall and chiefe Byshops authoritie of Saint Peter was an ordinary authoritie and there fore it must goe for euer vnto his successors where as the Apostolike authoritie beeing extraordinary hath no successors in it The Church neuer lacked a visible rocke THat y e office of Apostles which had general charge to preach ouer the whole world is ceased with the Apostles liues it is in deede graunted of vs but that theyre Apostolike authoritie was extraordinary or that all their authoritie is so determined that it hath no successors in it wee doe vtterly deny For the same authoritie of preaching of ministring the Sacraments of binding and loosing which the Apostles had is perpetuall in the Church in the Byshops and elders which are all successors of the Apostles And if the Apostolike authoritie hath no successors in it what meaneth the Pope almoste in euery Bul and decretall Epistle to brag so much of the Apostolike authoritie to ground all things Apostolica Authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie By which it is euident that M. Sand. new distinction of Apostolike and Byshoplike authoritie in the Apostles is not acknowledged by the Popes them selues but inueÌ„ted lately by such as he is to haue a starting hole to seeme to auoid such arguments and authorites as proue all the Apostles equall in authoritie But let vs vs see what reasons he hath to proue that S. Peters Pastorall authoritie was ordinary and muste goe to his successors more then the Pastoral authoritie of euery Apostle First S. Peter being but one man was not able to preach to all men at once nor to gouerne nations newely conuerted the refore hee had twelue companions adioyned to him But the worlde beeing conuerted it is easy for the Pope without such fellowes to
vacant vniting of two Bishoprikes in one or diuiding one into two may better be done by the auctoritie of those churches with consent of their Princes who seeth and knoweth what is needefull in those cases then by one which sittinge in his chaire at Rome requireth halfe a yeares trauell from some parte of the worlde to him before he can be aduertised of the case and yet must vnderstande it by heare saye and therefore not able to see what is expedient so well as they that are present and see the state of the matter Finally it is against all likelyhoode that Christ woulde make suche a generall sheepehearde ouer all his flocke as many thousande sheepe which liue vnder the Sophi the Cham the Turke can haue none accesse vnto for suche thinges as are supposed necessarie to be had and to be obteyned from him onely Wherefore if the Pope were heade of the churche suche as by crueltie of tyrauntes are cut from him shoulde be cut from the bodie of the church Yea if Hethenish tyrauntes coulde so much preuayle as they do in hindring this gouernment of the Pope pretended to be so nâ—cessarie the gates of hell might preuayle against the churche contrarie to the promise of Christ. The fourteenth Chapter THat the ordinarie auctoritie of S. Peters primacie belongeth to one Bishop alone The whole gouernmeÌ„t of the church tendeth to vnitie COncerning Peters primacie as there is litle in the Scriptures wherupon it may be gathered so I haue shewed that it was not in him perpetuall For there are greater arguments to proue the primacie of Iames. Agayne the greatest shewe of Peters primacy that we reade of in the Scriptures is the primacie or heade Apostleshippe of the circumcision So that if one Bishoppe should succeede him in that primacie he must be chiefe Bishoppe ouer the Iewes and not ouer the Gentiles For the chiefe Apostleshippe ouer the Gentiles was by God committed to Paule Galat. 2. 7. 8. But if M. Sander say as he doth in an other place that the Pope succeedeth both these Apostles and therefore hath both their auctoritie First he ouerthroweth his owne rocke of the church which he will haue to be Peter alone Secondlie his argument of vnitie which he vrgeth in this chapter he subuerteth if the Popes auctoritie be deriued from two heades Thirdly he destroyeth his owne distinction of Bishoplike and Apostolike auctoritie if the Apostolike auctority of Paul should descend to the Pope by succession Nowe let vs consider what weighty reasons he hath to proue the title of this chapter S. Peters auctority was specified before the auctoritie was geuen to the rest of binding loosing Mat. 18. Therfore seeing it was first in him alone it ought to descend to one Bishop alone But let M. Sander shew where it was geuen to him alone or promised to him alone ether For the promise thou shalt be called Peter gaue him no auctoritie nor yet the performance thereof Thou art Peter But still the auctority is promised I will build I will geue I reason as M. Sander doth of the Future tense which promise being made Math. 16. is performed Math. 18. not to Peter onely but to all the rest and so all auctoritie is geuen in common Ioâ—an 20. But S. Cyprian ad Iubaianum sayth that Christ gaue the auctority first to Peter Petro primus Dominus super quem aedificauit ecclesiam vnitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit vt id solueretur in terris quod ille soluisset This doth M. Sander translate Our Lorde did first geue vnto Peter c. Wheras he should say Our Lord was the first that gaue to Peter vpon whom he builded his churche and instituted and shewed the beginninge of vnity this power that whatsoeuer he loosed it should be loosed in earth This proueth that the auctoritie came first from Christ but not that it was geuen first to Peter And if we should vnderstand it so that it was first geuen to Peter yet he meaneth not that it was geuen to reside in his person but that in him as the attorney of the rest it was geuen to them also as he saith lib. 1. Ep. 3. Petrus tamen super quem aedificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia vnus pro omnibus loquens Ecclesiae voce respondens ait Domine ad quem ibimus c. Yet Peter vpon whome the churche had beene builded by the same our Lorde as one speaking for all and aunswering in the voyce of the church sayeth Lorde whether shall we goe c. as he spake for all so he receaued for all Which thing if it had bene so as we sinde not in the Scripture yet could it haue beene no ordinary matter to discend to one by succession For the power beeing once receiued by one in the name of the reste and by him deliuered to the rest it should be continued in succession of euery one that hath receiued it and not euery day to be fetched a new from a seuerall heade For that beginning came from vnitie which Cyprian speaketh of when Peter beeing one was the voice mouth of the rest and so receiued power for the rest which being once receiued the church holdeth of Christe and not of Peter or his successors no more then a corporation holdeth of him that was their atturney to receiue either lands or authoritie from the Prince but holdeth immediatly of the Prince Wherfore this argument followeth not although the authoritie had begon in one that it should continue in one The second reason is that the most perfect gouernment is meete for the Church but most perfection is in vnitie therefore there ought to be one chiefe gouernor of all This one chiefe gouernour is our Sauiour Christ ruler both in heauen in earth Who ascending into heauen did not appoynt one Pope ouer all his church but Apostles Euangelistes Prophets Pastors and teachers that we might all meete in the vnitie of faith and grow into a perfect man Eph. 4. 11. 12. The third reason is that the state of the newe Testament must be more perfect then the law but in the law there was one high pastor the high Priest on earth therefore there must be one now also and much rather I aunswere we haue him in deede our chiefe Bishop high Priest of whome the Aaronicall Priest was but a shadow namely Iesus Christ whose gouernment is nothing lesse perfect and beneficiall to his church in that he sitteth in heauen and hath as before is cited lefte an ordinarie ministerie on earth in many Pastors and teachers ouer euerie seuerall congregation and not in one Pope ouer al which could not possibly either know or attend to decide the one thousande parte of controuersies which are determined by y e auctoritie of Christs law and such ministers as he hath ordeyned The fourth reason is of auctority Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae vna est c.
out of the counterfait Egesippus of Simon Magus flying in the ayer the Emperour Nero his great delight in his sorcerye The credit of Egesippus he desendeth by blaming his translatour for adding names of cities which had none such when Egesippus liued But that Simon Magus shewed no experiment ofsorcerye before Nero as this counterfait Egesippus reporteth it is plaine by Plinius lib. 30. cap. 2. natur Histor. who shewing how desirous Nero was and what meanes he had to haue triall thereof yet neuer could come by any It was a practise of old time to fayne such fables for loue of the Apostles as Tertullian witnesseth de baptis of a Priest of Asia that was conuicted confessed that he fained for the loue of Paule a writing vnto Tecla in which many absurd things were contayned Againe so many Apocriphall gospells epistles itineraryes and passions as are counterfaited vnder the name of Apostles and auncient fathers who knoweth not to be fables and false inuentions Amonge which this fable of Simon Magus and Peter is one That S. Luke maketh no mention of Peters death he preuenteth the objection because he continued not his storye so farre which doubt sayth he he woulde not haue omitted if he had gone so farre foâ—ward in his story But seeing he brought Paule to Rome both in his iorney and in his history why maketh he no mention of Peters being there which if their story were true must haue sit there twenty yeares before To omit therefore the foure causes why Peter should dye at Rome whereof three are taken out of a counterfait August de sa ctis hom 27. the 4. out of Leo Gregory Bishops of Rome he commeth to decyde the controuersie betwene the Greekes Latines who was first successor of Peter Linus or Clemens taking parte with them that affirme Clemens although Irenaeus the most auncient writer of any that is extant name Linus who was not a Grecian farre of but a Frenchmam at Lyons neare hand to Italy whose authority although he reiect in naming Linus to be ordayned Bishop by both the Apostles yet he glorieth much that he calleth the Churche of Rome Maximam antiquissimam c. The greatest and the most auncient knowen to all men founded and setled by two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule And agayne Adhanc Ecclesiam c. To this Church by reason of the mightier principalitie euery Church that is the faithful that are euery where must needes agree But he proceedeth and sheweth the cause why In qua semper ab hys qui sunt vndique conserâ—ata est ca quae est ab Apostolis traditio In which alwayes that tradition which is from the Apostles hath bene alwaies kept of them that are round about M. Sander calleth it willful ignorance in M. Iewel that sayth the mightier principalitie spoken of in Irenaeus is ment of the ciuill dominion and Romane Empire whereas it hath relation to the former titles of commendation that it was the greatest and the most auncient the greatest he sayth because it was fownded by Peter the greatest Apostle but so sayth not Irenaeus for he sayth it was founded by two most glorious Apostles and not by Peter alone It was then greatest because the greatest number of Christians were in Rome as the greatest citie But howe is it the most auncient but in respect of Peters senioritie for otherwise Ierusalem and Antioche were auncienter in tyme. I aunswer two wayes first it is sophisticall to vrge the superlatiue degree grammatically as when we saye potentissimo principi to the most mightye prince doctissimo viro to the best learned man c. We doe not meane that no Prince is equall or superiour in power nor that no maÌ„ is equall or superiour in learning to him whome we so commende but to shewe the power and learning of those persons to be excellent great Secondly I aunswer that Irenaeus speaketh coniunctly it is sophisticall to vnderstande seuerally He saith there is no Church of such greatnes so auncient and so well knowen as the Church of Rome From this blinde collection out of Irenaeus he commeth downe groping to Cyprian who speaking of certayne factious heretikes that sayled from Carthage to Rome to complayne of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of Afrike to Pope Cornelius Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cor. Audent ad Petri c. They dare cary letters from schâ—smaticall and prophane men vnto the chayer of Peter and the principall Churche from whence the priestly vnitie beganne Nether consider that they are Romanes whose fayth is pray sed by the report of the Apostle vnto whom falshod can haue none accesse In this saying we must note the priuiledges of S. Peters supremacie to be at Rome 1. This is S. Peters chayer that is his ordinary power of teaching c. Nay rather the Bishops seate which he and Paule did set vp there as Irenaeus sheweth li. 3. ca. 3. 2. There is the principal Church because the Bishop of Rome succeedeth the prince of the Apostles Nay rather because it is the greatest Church being gathered in the greatest citie of the world as IrenÄ™us also calleth it 3. The priestly vnitie beganne not in Rome but in Peter therefore there is the whole authoritie of Peter The argument is nought the beginning of vnitie proueth not authoritie 4. this worde vnitie doth import that as Peter alone had in him the whole power of the cbiefe sheepeheard so Cornelius his successor hath in him the same power This argument is of small importance for nether had Peter alone such power nor any of his successors 5. where he sayth infidelitie can haue no accesse to the Romanes what other thinge is it then to saye in the Church of Rome he vuleth for whose faith Christ prayed Luc. 22. Christ prayed for the faith of all his Apostles and of all his Disciples to the ende of the worlde Ioan. 17. Beside this Maister Sander translateth perfidia which signifieth falshood or false dealing infidelitie secondly that which Cyprian sayth of all the faythfull Romanes he draweth to his Pope thirdly where Cyprian sheweth howe longe they shall continue without falshoode namely so long as they retayne the fayth praysed by the Apostle he maketh it perpetuall to the sea of Rome whereas the Romanes them selues write to Cyprian of those prayses of the Apostle quarum laudum gloriae degenerem fuisse maximum crimen est Of which prayses and glorye to be growne out of kinde it is the greatest cryme Finally if Cyprian had thought the Pope and Churche of Rome coulde not erre he woulde neuer haue mayntayned an opinion against them as he did in rebaptisinge them that were baptised by heretikes The 6. We must adde heareto that Cyprian calleth Rome Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem the mother roote of the Catholike church lib 4. Epist. 8. we find not Rome so called there we find that Cyprian his fellowes exhorted all such troublesome
his time of whom he saith Qui noster est socius which is our fellow In this sentence Optatus laboreth to proue against the Donatists which were scismatikes that ther is but one Catholike church froÌ„ which they were departed He vseth the argumeÌ„t of vnitie commended in Peters chaire whom he calleth head of the Apostles in respecte of vnitie not of authority which appeareth by this that in the end he accounteth Syricius bishop of Rome and Peters successor not head of all Churches nor vniuersall Bishop of al Bishops but Socius noster our fellowe or companion as one consenting with him in the vnitie of that Church which was first planted by the Apostles and not as a generall gouernor of the vniuersall Church of Christe Wherefore although Optatus doe more theÌ„ was necessary vrge this argument of the vnitie of Peters Chaire yet his meanining was not to set foorth an vnrepr ouable authoritie thereof such as the Pope nowe challengeth but onely to make it tbe beginning of vnitie At length he commeth to S. Hierome in an Epistle to Damasus out of whiche he gathereth diuers sentences Mâ—hi cathedram c. I thought it beste to aske councel of the Chaire of Peter of the saith praysed by the mouth of the Apostle I speake with the successor of a fisher and with a difciple of the crosse I following none first but Christe am ioyned in communion with thy blessednesse that is with the Chaire of Peter Vpon that Rocke I knowe the Church to be builded VVhosoeuer shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is vnholy If any man lâ—e out of the Arke of Noe during the time of the Floude hee shall perishe I knowe not Vâ—atis I despise Melitius I haue no acquaintance with Paulinus whosoeuer doth not gather with thee he doth scatter abrode that is he that is not of Christe is of Antichriste The conclusion openeth all the matter as longe as Damasus Byshop of Rome gathereth with Christe that is mayntameth true doctrine Hierome will gather with him who professed before that he woulde followe none as first but Christe For he woulde not haue gathered with Liberius Byshoppe of Rome whome hee confesseth to haue subscrybed to the Arians that were Hereukes in Catal. Script ecclesi What mockery is it then to drawe the commendations of a good Catholike Byshop maintaining true Doctrine to euery Byshoppe sitting in that seate agreeing neither in doctrine nor manners with that Christian predecessor Augustine must succeede Hierome who in his 166. Epistle giueth vs this rule Caelestis magister c. The Heauenly maister maketh the people secure concerning euil ouerseers lest for their sakes the Chaire of healthfuâ—l doctrine shoulde be sorsaken in whiche Chaire euill men are euer constrayned to say good thinges for the thinges whiche they speake are not their owne But they are the thinges of God Heere sayeth Maister Sander wee haue a Chaire of healthfull doctrine and that is afterwarde called the Chaire of vnitie therefore it is not the Chayre of euery Byshop which are many and of which many haue beene Heretikes but the only chayre of the bishop of Rome in which Chaire the Pope be he neuer so euill is constrayned to say good thinges and cannot erre But seeing I haue often proued that many Byshops sitting in that Chayre of Rome haue spoken euill thinges and were fylthy Heretikes it followeth that this is not a wodden Chayre that Augustine speaketh of but the Chayre of true doctrine such as the Chayre of Moses was in which not onely Aaron and his successors but euen the Scrybes and Pharisees did sit hauing the authoritie of Moses while they vttered nothing but that which God deliuered by Moses But when they preached false doctrine they did not sit in the chaire of Moses but in the chayre of pestilence as the Pope all other heretikes doe He talketh much of vnitie in S Peter in his chaire seaâ—e and succession as though any of these were worth a straw without vnitie in S. Peters doctrine which was the doctrine of Christ. But Sainct Augustine Contr epist fundament confesseth that the successioÌ„ of priestes from Saint Peter vnto this present time stayed him in the Catholike Church It is true he confesseth that this succession amonge many thinges was one that stayed him And yet he acknowledgeth that the manifest trueth Praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus quibus in Catholica teneâ—r is to be preferred before all thinges by which I am stayed in the Catholike Church namely before antiquitie consent of nations miracles succession of Byshops and the name of Catholikes Likewise rehearsing the same things in a manner against the Donatistes which Maister Sander hath not omitted Epist. 165. Hee sayeth Quamuis non tam de istis documentis presumanus quam de Scripturis sanctis Although we presume not so much of these documents as of the holy spriptures Wherefore as the argument of sucessioÌ„ was wel vsed against heretikes so long as there was succession of doctrine with succession of persons so now to alleadge the onely succession of persons where the doctrin is cleane changed is as folish ridiculous as by shewing of emptie dishes to proue abundance of victuals or showing vessels ful of filthy waters to proue that they are full of good wine because meate of olde time hath beene serued in such dishes and wine preserued in such vessels But if the authoritie of one man as Saint Augustine was seeme little M. San. bringeth the two councels gatheredin Africa Numidia against the PelagiaÌ„s which sent their decrees to the Sea of Rome That the authori-of the Apostolâ—ke Sea might be giuen to them Epi. 19. if they required the B. of Rome to agree with theÌ„ in the truth what pretogâ—tiue of supremacie do they grauÌ„t vnto him Nay rather they do pâ—iuâ—ly reprehend him that he had so long suffred the Pelagian poyson to be spread vnder his nose in Europe and the doctriue neither called to examination nor confuted yea rather seemed to coÌ„sent to the den of the bishops of the East that Pelagius was iustly absolued But Pope Innocentius himselfe praiseth them Ep 91. that they had kept the customs of the olde tradition in referring the matter to his Sea and sayth That the sathers not by humaine but by diuine sentence haue decreed that what soeuer was done in the prouinces a farre of they should not account it before to be ended except it came to the knhwledge of this sea where whatsoeuer had beene iustly pronounced should be coufirmed by the authoritie of this sea and those other churches should take it as it were waters which should flow from their owne natiue fountain We know the ambitious Ep. of Innocentius if it be not counterfeted because many patches therof are found in other decretal epistles but we deny that y e authoritie which he pretended was acknowledged by these two councels yes saith M. S. the fathers of the Mileuitan councel say
all Churches when the history is plaine he did M. Sander bringeth in these and such like alledgged before which acknowledged a certaine primacie of the see of Rome And certaine it is the Bishops of Rome before Phocas tyme affected a great primacie which of many was acknowledged but yet neuer absolutely neuer without coÌ„trouersie vntil Phocas for a great summe of money receyued of Boniface the thirde strake the stroke and made the decree for which in all popish writers he is highly praised although in the Greeke church his decree was not long obserued Touching the examples of Emperours and Princes of later times although I could shewe they haue often resisted the Pope yet I know many may be alledged that haue submitted them selues to his Antichristian tyranny which I will not staÌ„d to examine because they can be no preiudice to the truth approued by examples of the eldest age As for the history of Lucius king of Britayne that sent to Eleutherius for preachers if it were true it maketh nothinge for the supremacy of the romish Bishop I will therefore conclude this chapter with a saying of Socrates in proe lib. 5. to shew what authoritie he iudged them perours to haue in Ecclesiasticall matters Etipsos quidem Imperatores hac historia continua complectimur prâ—pterea quod ab illis postquam Christiani esse coeperunt res Ecclesiasticae pendent maximae Synodi ex illorum sententia congregatae sunt congregantur And in this continuall history we comprehend the Emperours them selues because that vpon them since they began to be Christians the matters of the Church depend and the greatest synods haue bene gathered are gathered by their authoritie The punishment he threatâ—eth to them that forsake the Church of Rome shal one day fall vpon them that take part with â— Church of Rome as in part it doth already The 17. chapter THeir doctâ—ine who teach the Bishop of Rome to be Aâ—â—ichrist him selfe is confuted by the auctoritie of Gods worde and by the consent of auncient fathers VVhy Antichrist is permitted to come AFter he hath shewed his opinion what maner a one Antechrist shalbe alleaged â—â—â—â— cause of his coÌ„ming out of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. because men haue not receaued the loue of the truth that they might be saued God shal sende theÌ„ the working of error y t they may beleue lying c. he stormeth out of measure against the Protestants for that they can find no place to setle Antichrist in but in the see of Rome so beautified dignified by Christ and all the primitiue Church But seeing Antichrist is appoynted to sit in the temple of God which is a higher place then S. Peters chayer it is no meruayle if Satan haue thrust him into that see which of olde tyme was accompted the toppe and castell of all religion But let vs see his reasons taken out of Gods word by which it is proued that the Pope can not be Antichrist him selfe The first is because in S. Paule he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the man of sinne which signifieth one singular man and not a number of men in succession and this is affirmed to be the Greeke article in this worde man by Cyrillus in Ioan. lib. 1. cap. 4. But how frendly Cyrillus was deceaued you shall see by some examples euen out of the new Testament In S. Mathew cap. 12. 35. you haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart and an euill man out of the euil treasure of his heart bringeth c. where no one singular man is ment In S. Mark cap. 2. verse 27. The Sabboth was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for man not man for the Sabboth In S. Luke cap. 4. verse 4. Not with breade onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man shall liue but by euery woorde of God S. Paule 2. Tim. 3. ver 17. That the man of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be perfect and prepared to euery good woorke These places and an hundreth more which might bee brought doe proue howe vaine the argument is thatis taken of the nature of the Greke article Nether is Hierom or any of the auncient writers to be heard without authoritie of the Scripture which supposed that Antichrist should be one man Although none of them directly affirmeth that he should be one man as Christ was Hierom in Dani. cap. 7. sayth we must not thinke that Antichrist should be a Deuill but one of the kind of men in whom Satan should dwell This proueth not that he should be a singular man no more then the fourth beast which signifieth the RomaÌ„e Empire out of which he should rise should be one singular Emperour No more doth it proue that because Antiochus was a figure of him he must be but one man And as litle that Ambrose in 2. The. 2 sayth Satan shall appeare in homine in a man which may signify the kind of men and not one singular person Likewise Augustine calling Antichrist the Prince and last Antichrist meaneth no one person for the words Prince and last may agree to a whole succession of men in one state as well as the wordes king and beaste to a whole succession of Emperours in Daniel To conclude there is not one whome he nameth that denyeth Antichrist to be a whole succession of meÌ„ in one state of deuilish gouernment And Irenaeus thinketh it probable of the Romane kingdom lib. 5. The second argument is that Antichrist is called the aduersary therefore is the greatest enemy of Christ denying Iesus Christ to be God and man or to be our Mediatour I aunswer the Pope doth so denying the office of Christ although with the deuills he confesse in wordes Iesus to be the holy one of God and to be Christ the sonne of God Marke 1. 24. Luke 4. 41. his diuinitie the Pope denieth by denying his onely power in sauing his wisedom in his word to be onely sufficient his goodnes in the vertue of his death to take away both payne and guylt of sinne which he arrogateth to him selfe by his blasphemous pardons Christes humanitie he denyeth by his transsubstantiation his mediation in which he is principally Christ he denyeth by so many meanes of saluation as he maketh beside Christ videlicet mans merits ceremonies inuented by man pardons a newe sacrifice of the Masse c. The third argumeÌ„t is that Antichrist shall not come before the Romane Empire be cleane taken away For that which Saint Paule sayth ye knowe what withholdeth c. Although it be not necessary to expound this of the Romane Empire yet following the olde writers that so vnderstood it I say the Romane Empire was remoued before Antichrist the Pope was throughly enstalled For beside that the see of the Empire was remoued from Rome the gouernment it selfe was in a manner cleane remoued the title of the Romane Emperour onely remayning at last an
A RETENTIVE TO STAY GOOD CHRISTIANS IN TRVE FAITH and religion against the motiues of Richard Bristow ALSO A DISCOVERIE OF THE DAVNGEROVS ROCKE OF THE POPISH Church commended by Nicholas Sander D. of Diuinitie Done by VVilliam Fulke Doctor of diuinitie and Maister of Pembroke hall in Cambridge Imprinted at London by Thomas Vautroullier for George Bishop 1580. A CATALOGVE OF ALL SVCH POPISH BOOKES EITHER AVNSVVERED or to be aunswered which beeinge written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apologie of the English Church aunswered by M. Iewell Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewells challenge aunswered by M. Iewell 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edward Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell aunswered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruths answered by M. Iewel 6 Rastel against M. Iewels challenge aunswered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the Sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulke 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermoÌ„ aunswered by M. Gough and M. Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse aunswered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter incerto authore against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defence of Purgatory aunswered by W. Fulke 19 Heskins Parleament repealed by W. Fulke 20 An offer of a Catholickque to a learned Protestant answered by W. Fulke 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulke 22 Sanders rocke of the popish church vndermined by W. Fulke 23 Sanders defence of Images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhill answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes pearle aunswered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies aunswered by M. Bartlet 27 M. Euans aunswered by him selfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse aunswered by coniecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certaine assertions tending to maintayne the Church of Rome to be the true Catholique Church confuted by Iohn Knewstub 30 Bristowes motiues and demaunds aunswered by W. Fulke 31 Stapletons fortresse of the faith aunswered by W. Fulke These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in aunsvvering those vvhich are not by Gods assistance as time vvill serue shall receiue their seuerall replyes If the Papistes knovv any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lordes supper partly vnaunswered 2 Allens defence of Priestes authoritie to remitte sinnes and of the Churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 4 Rastells reply 5 Vaux his Catechisme 6 Canisius his Catechisme translated 7 Frarins oration translated 8 Iohn de Albynnes discourse against heresies enâ—â—â—hed with an offer of a Catholique to a learned Protestant which offer is aunswered vnder the name of Ristons articles by W. Fulke 9 Gregor Martins treatise of schisme 10 Poyntes of the Sacrament A REASONABLE REQVEST AND PROTESTATION OF W. Fulke to all learned Papists FOrasmuch as there is no ende of writing bookes as the wise man sayth and that the truth of argumentes is best discerned when it is brought vnto the iudgement of Logicke which is the arte of reasoning If any of the learned Papistes will reply against these and other mine aunsweres I require that as well for their owne ease as that I may haue time to peruse them and the readers no impediment but that they may clearely iudge of them they wil leaue of all vayne discourses and needelesse questions and only conclude the coÌ„trouersies of religion that are betwene vs in the strict forme of Logicall argumentes If to this reasonable request they refuse to yeelde I protest before God and the world that they shew them selues thereby to be enemies of the truth that they flie the light and dare not abide the triall Faultes escaped The first number signifieth the page the last the number of the lines Pag. 12. lin 1. Homousian r. Homousion 13. 10. last r. least 15. 8. Arrius r. AErius 15. 14. your r. there 15. 18. vvherefore r. vvhereof 15. 27. recited r. reuiued 20. 26. Iudaea r. India 27. 27. virtute r. vnitate 30. 24. coÌ„maunded r. commended 34. 32. other r. ether 36. 33. heare r. hovv 40. 14. circumstituantur r. circumstipantur 40. 37 audient r. audirent 42. 23. cere r. cura 44. 10. condemned r. conteÌ„ned 44. 36. caâ—c r. con 45. 18. true r. foure 48. 37. Marcellus r. Marcellinus 55. 19. Hovv r. Novv 58. 15. persvvadeth r. presupposeth 67. 38. r. in a maner depend 68. 11. resisting r. receiuing 68. 28. and r. an 73. 1â— quaeque r. quoque 79. 29. RipanuÌ„ r. Riparium 80. 35. Babicas r. Babilas 80. 38. for r. to 81. 7. troubles r. tombes 81. 16. Reg r. â— Reg. 13. 81. 17. lavves r. bones 82. 30. verity r. vnity 87. 10. contâ—et r. coÌ„teret 88. 2. sending r. studying 88. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 88. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 89. 14. v 11. r. 14. 90. 36. nor r. are 90. 38. r. vvere not better applied 92. 37. ber 2. r. ver 21. 25. learning r. hearing 95. 14. r. if by masse 95. 25. consecrated r. vnconsecrated 96. 34. that the churches of the Britans vvere of another forme then those of the Romanes 96. 35. Niua r. Ninia 99. 18. names r. nonus 100. 19. serueth r. seemeth 100. 30. austerity r. authority 103. 9. apostolicall r. apostaticall 107. 21. all our 111. 11. saue r. serue 112. 38. truly r. fondly 116. 7. shall r. should 117. 36. Bzia r. Bizari 120. 23. not r. out 127. 2. maÌ„ r. may 123. 5. rehearsed r. released 131. 23. do not vvell r. do vvell Out of the discouery of the rocke Pag. 140. Lin. 25. if read that 141. 28. or r. c. 144. 24. fuit r. sint 150. 14. receyued r. recited 20. r. these tvvo 155. l. vlt. Rhetianus r. Rhetitius 158. 2. controuersie r. conuersion 159. 5. many r. men 163. 31. vilant r. vigilant 165. 26. this r. these 167. 4 not r. as l. vlt. r. vvhich ma y. 173. 30. confirmed r. considered 176. 24. godlines r. lordlines 177. 34. that r. this true r. tvvo 189. 6. vvhen r. vvhom l. 12. put out prayse 204. 30. instituteth r. intituleth 208. 35. offered r. before made 228. 7. vnee r. ounce 232. 11. r that it l. 15. Caebastinus r. Caelestinus 233. 5. generally r. generall 236. 13. austerity r. authority 256. 1. and r. no. 250. 32. fostered r. fastened 247. 3. idio r. ideo 272.
Caecilianistes as the Papistes call vs. Heretiques Protestants Lutherans c. but these were but dilatorie deuises of Heretiques to auoyd the true trial which as the Catholikes in the forenamed conference confessed was onely by y e Scriptures The 4. motiue is the 38. demaund Olde heresies Arrians againe aliue in Protestantes Protistants be Pelagians in denying Baptisme to be necessarie for the saluation of Infants Her etiques are not Christians Whatsoeuer was heresie in times past saith Bristow is heresie now also some opinions holden by the Protestants were heresie in times past Ergo they be heresies now also so Protestants be Heretiques and no Christian but almost Apostataes But I deny that any opinion holden by vs was euer Heresie Yes saith Bristow the denying of prayer and oblation for the dead was accounted heresie in Aâ—rius both by Epiphanius and Augustinus True it is they both following the errour of their times account it for an errour in Aâ—rius but it doth not followe that bicause they accounted it so that it was so in deed seing neither of them both doth proue it to be an errour by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures but by the corrupt vsage of their Churches which had turned thankesgiuing for the dead into prayers and oblation for the dead And yet the same Epiphanius denyeth fasting and almes to bee profitable to the dead wherefore the Papistes do now hold the contrarie Contra Melchisedec sumus Haer. 53. Hee accounteth the hauing of the images of Christ and the Apostles one of the heresies of the Gnostikes Haer. 27. many such like things which the Papistes defend for Catholike The like doth Augustine wherefore let Bristow aduise him selfe whether it be a good argument Epiphanius and Augustine accounted prayer for the dead to be an errour Ergo it was an heresie in deede For an other example of old heresies by vs recyted he bringeth in That cruell heresie of theirs against the necessitie of childrens baptisme wherin they agree with the Pelagians through which they suffer many thousand poore soules to perish which can not helpe them selues while they promise them both life euerlasting and the kingdome of heauen without baptisme whereas the Pelagians promised life euerlasting only Who would thinke that this slaunderous heretique had liued so long in England as hee did before he became fugitiue which lyeth so impudeÌ„tly without all colour or shewe of trueth Was there euer any of vs heard to preach of baptisme as not necessarie for infaÌ„ts if they might obteine it according to the institution of Christ. But contrariwise that it is a cruell errour of the Papists which condeÌ„neth infants who being preuented by death can not obteyne the outward Sacrament yet hath this error Augustine and Cypriane to vpholde it But if Augustine and Cypriane neuer erred no not about the doctrine of the Sacramentes then let their authoritie defend the Papists But when Cypriane denyed the Baptisme of Heretikes to be any thing auayleable how many thousand soules both of yong and olde dyd he condemne And wheÌ„ Augustine with Pope Innocent holdeth the communion to be as necessarie for the saluation of Infants as Baptisme how many huÌ„dred thousand soules doth he condemne or the Papistes destroy which denye the communioÌ„ vnto them Cyprian lib. 1. Epi. 6. Magno Augustin Contra duas Epist. Pelagi lib. 2. Cap. 4. where he accuseth the Pelagians as well for affirming the Communion not to be necessarie for Infants as for houlding that Baptisme was not needefull for them In the 38. Demaunde he chargeth vs with denying prescript fasting dayes which is falle when they be prescribed by the Churche of God and not vsurped of superstition and opinion of merite He chargeth vs further with denying of Free Will and quoteth in the margent August Tom. 6. De fide coÌ„tra Manichaeus Cap. 9 10. where in deede Augustine against the Manichees affirmeth the Free Will of man but in his retractations he sheweth that euen then hee vnderstoode it of the state of Man before his fall and therefore the Pelagians whiche were maynteyners of Free Will to remayne in man since the fall of Adam did slaunderouslie vsurp those his sayings against him and the truth euen as the Papists do now Cùm autem de libera voluntate rectè faciendi loquimur de illa scilicet in quae homo factus est loquimur Ecce tam longè antequam Pelagiana haeresis extitisseâ—â—sic disputanimus velut iam contra illos disputaremus Whensoeuer we speake of the Free Will of man to do well we speake of that Will in whiche man was made Behold so long before the Pelagian heresie arose we haue disputed eueÌ„ so as though we had disputed against them Retract lib. 1. cap. 9. Now iudge whether if Papistes or we be more like to the Pelagians He chargeth vs moreouer to hold against the merite of single life quoting Aug. haer 82. with Iouiaian which is false for as Augustine vnderstandeth by merite worthines or excellency we acknowledge that the state of virginitie is more excellent then of matrimony in such respects as the Apostle preferreth it 1. Cor. 7. Last of all he chargeth vs with holding against the vowe of single life quoting Aug. Retract lib. 2. c. 22. where there is no word of any vowe and much lesse of vowing a single life in them that can not liue an honest chast life without mariage There is mention of certaine sanctimoniales holy and deuout women of whose chastity was no suspition which leauing their purpose of virginitie were perswaded by Iouinian to marie Not we therefore haue reuiued any old heresie but the Papists haue continued many old errors reuiued many old heresies of the Pharises Pâ—â—â—gians Anthropomorphites added many new of their owne such as were neuer heâ—â—d of in the primitiue Church for six hundred yeares after Christ as hath often bene shewed at large The 4. and 5. motiues are included in the 10. demaund Miracles dogmaticaâ—â— a marke of true doctrine for the sacrifice of the Masse for purgatory Deuills expelled with a Masse by a Priest of S. Augustines who was of our religion S. Bede of our religion Masse sayd for the dead oftentimes to redemption both of body and soule The saerament of the altare sticked by the Iewes bleedeth Mâ—rkes and mâ—nasteries Visions for our religion An Englishe woman miraculously cured of late by the blessed sacrament Holy water Masse confirmed by miracles in Afrike Englande and Brabant Bristow diuideth miracles into dogmaticall and personall Of the first sort he setteth this conclusion VVhosoeuer haue at any time set them selues against any doctrine confirmed by miracle they haue bene against the truth There can to this no instans be giuen our doctrine which they resist hath bene confirmed by miracles therefore plaine it is that they are enemies of the truth Doe you heare this shameles beast say there can be no instans giuen against his proposition When y e Lord
made God him selfe ofit for there is no doubt but vnto baptisme which is also the sacrament of our pryce she tyed her soule with the bande of faith and so hath euery faithfull Protestant For the sacraments by faith are certaine pledges of our conâ—unction with God through Christ. Into whose death we are ingraffed by baptisme as we are fedde with his body and blood in the supper The place of Augustine is corruptly cited by Bristow who hath cut of both the head and the foote of it which is this Ad vnum Deumtendentes ei vni religantes anâ—mas nostras vnde religio dicta creditâ—r omni superstitione careamus Hauing respect to one God and tying our soules to him onely whereof religion is thought to be called let vs be voyde of all superstition For Monica had respect onely to God when she tyed her soule by faith vnto the seale of Gods promises And she was voyde of superstition when she cleaued to none other ceremonye of coniunction with God but onely to that which was ordeyned of God him selfe for that purpose But howe proueth Bristow that prayer for the deade was vsed alway or that Masse was sayd for the deade Because that in the corrupt tyme of Augustine prayer was vsed for the deade and in the prayers vsed at the celebration of the communion remembraunce was made of the dead This is a strauÌ„ge kind of reasoning that was vsed sometime therefore it was vsed alwayes But how long it was vsed and how it was taken vp I haue shewed in myne aunswer to Allins booke of Purgatory Now commeth S. Gregory to be of Bristowes religion I will not deny but in many errors and superstitions Gregory agreeth with the Papistes but yet not in all nor in some of the chiefest The visions he rehearseth for prayer for y e dead if they were not fayned dreames they were illusioÌ„s of y e deuil because they serue to mainteine that doctrine which is contrary to the Scriptures which teach that after death followeth iudgement immediatly so that no prayers can preuaile Heb. 9. 26. But prophecyes are for Bristowes religion How so I praye you The conuersion of Augustine and the death of Cassius were foretold in vision If both those were grauÌ„ted to be true visions your religion were neuer the better except the conuersion of the one and the death of the other be your religion But admitting the dreame of Monica to be a true vision howe proue you that the Chapeline of Cassius did not fayne his vision after his maister was dead But the dreame of Iudas Machabaeus who sawe the Prophet Ieremy pray for the people is recorded in the Canonical Scripture it selfe sayth Bristow 2. Mach. 15. chap. which Scripture the Protestants reiect because it maketh against them as they would doe all the rest but that they thinke they haue inueÌ„ted shiftes good enough to blinde the worlde What reuerence we beare to the holy Scriptures of God he him selfe our owne conscience and the whole world can testifie And the reiection of such bookes as were not written by the spirite of God doth approue the same Beside the authoritie of the auncient Churche both of the Iewes and Gentills which neuer receiued the same bookes into the canon we haue often made manifest demonstration that they proceeded not from the spirite of God Wherefore the Papistes making them of equall credit with the worde of God incurre the curse of God which is vnto all them that either adde or take away any thing from his holy word But the Papistes are not destitute of visions in these daies for Bristow knoweth a Protestant who hath confessed that he saw in a dreame the communion booke out of many handes cast into a fire and yet the man coÌ„tinueth a Protestant Verely he doth as a good Christian should doe that not onely with no vaine dreames but nether with visions of Angells from heauen he will be moued to condemne that doctrine which he knoweth assuredly to be agreable to the holy Scriptures But there was a Papist in London which came to y e Church against his conscience and sawe a fowle blacke dogge take the communion euer more at the naughty ministers hands as he offred it to the communicants which stroke the Papist so at the hart that he went home and dyed vpon it This deuilish illusion or melaÌ„cholike perswasion of a deuilish dogged Papist thinketh Bristow able to condemne the holy ministration of the Lordes supper warranted by â—â—â—â— Scriptures according to Christes institution As for the extaticall fantasticall dreame of maister Allington tending as I remember to mainteine Idolatrie wise men regard as much as such fantasies deserue after which if we should shape our religion we shoulde alter as often as any mans fonde humor or foolish conceit ministreth newe visions and straunge apparitions But I maâ—uell amonge so many visions that Bristow omitteth the famous vision of Elizeus Hall that came from Manchester to London with a booke of his cold prophecyes to coÌ„uert the Queene the Realme to Papistrie Well sayth Bristow you scorne at our visions and dreames yet was S. Cyprian of our religion Because he defendeth some visions and dreames which were seene in his time which were not to mainteyne any thing coÌ„trary to the Scripture but that which was agreable to the same A poore reason why he should be of your religion And yet it is all the reason that you bringe But for our iudgement of miracles of visions dreames to be motiues in controuersies of the Church you shall heare Augustines sentence De 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae cap. 16. against the Donatistes Remoâ—is ergo omnibus talibâ—s Ecclâ—siam suam demonstrent sipossunt non in sermonibus rumoribus Asrorum non in concilys Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet d. spâ—tatorum non in signis prodigijs fallaâ—ibus quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati cauti reddâ—â—i sumus sed in praesâ—ripio legis in Prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus in ipsius pastoris vocibus in Euangelistaru'â— prâ—edicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus canonicâ—s sanctorum librorum auctoritatibus Wherefore setting aside all such matters let them shew forth the Church to be theirs if they can not in the speaches and rumors of Africanes not in the councells of their Bishops not in the writings of all maner of discoursers not in deceyueable signes wonders because that euen against those thinges we are prepared and made warye by the worde of our Lorde but in the prescript of the lawe in the predictions of the Prophets in the songes of the Psalmes in the voyces of the sheepeherd him selfe in the preachings and labors of the Euangelistes that is to say in all the canonicall authorities of the holy bookes 3. And againe in the same chapter sic â—stendat non dicat verum est quia ego hoc dico aut quia hoc
dixit ille collegameus aut illi collegaemei aut illi Episcopi vel Clerici vel Laici nostri aut ideâ— verum est quia illa illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius aut quilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quia ille frater nofler aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilanâ— vidit veltale visum dormiens somniauit Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum velportenta fallacium spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae diâ—unâ—tr aut sihaereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt magis cauere debemus And let him so shew it that he say not it is true because I say this or because this sayd that companion of mine or those companions of mine or those our Bishops or Clerkes or laymen or therefore it is true because Donatus or Pontius or any other hath done these or those miracles or because men pray at the memories of our martyrs are hearde or because these are those things doe happen there or because that our brother or that ou rsister sawe such a vision waking or dreamed such a vision sleping Let these things be remoued which ether are the faynings of lying men or els the wonders of deceyuing spirites for either they are not true that are sayd to be or if any miracles are done by heretikes we ought the more to take heede of them And yet againe he writeth in the same booke and chapter Sed vtrumipsecclesiam teneant non nisi diumarum sâ—ripturarum Canontcis libris ostcudant quia nee nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quod in ecclesia Christi sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus coâ—â—niendauit Mileuitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alij innumerabiles nostrae coÌ„munionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum collegarum concilijs ipsa predicata est aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat nostra communio tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sanitatum fiunt ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora martyrum quod possunt à multis interrogantes audire Ambrosio fuerint reuelata ad ipsa corpora Caecus multâ—rum annorum ciuitati Mediolanensi notissiâ—nus oculos lumeÌ„que receperit aut quia ille SoÌ„nium vidit ille spiritu assumptus audiuit siue ne iniret in partem Donati sâ—ue vt recederet à parte Donati Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbaÌ„da quia in Catholica fiunt non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia hae in eafiunt Ipse Dominus Iesus cum resurrexisset à mortuis discipulorum oculis videndum manibusque tangendum corpus suum offerret nequid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur magis eos testimonijs Legis Prophetarum Psalmorum confirmandos esse iâ—dicauit ostendens ca de se impleta quae fuerant tanto ante praedicta Sic ecclesiam suam coÌ„mendauit dicens praedicari in nomine suo poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes inciptentibus ab Hierusalem Hoc in Lege Prophetis Psalmis esse sâ—riptum ipse testatus est hoc eius ore commendatum tenemus Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta haec fundamenta haec firmameÌ„ta But whether they holde the church or no let them shew none otherwise but by the Canonical books of the holy Scriptures Because that neither we do say that therefore men must beleue vs that we are in the Church of Christ because Optatus of Mileuitum or Ambrose of Millain or innumerable other Bishops of our communion haue commended this Church which we hold or because it is commaunded in the councels of our fellow Bishops or because that in the holy places which our comunion doth frequent throughout the worlde so gteat miracles are done either of hearing mens prayers or of healings so that the bodies of martyrs which haue bene hidden for so many yeres which which thing if they will aske they may heare of many were reuealed vnto Ambrose and that at the same bodies a man which had bene blind many yeres very well knowen to the city of Millain receiued his eyes sight or because this man sawe a dreame or that man being taken vp in spirite did heare either that he shoulde not enter into the faction of Donatus or that he should depart from Donatus side Whatsoeuer of such things are done in the Catholike church they are therefore to be approued because they are done in the Catholike church but the church is not therby proued Catholike because such things are done in it Our lord Iesus himselfe when he had risen from the dead offred his body to be seene with the eyes touched with the hands of his disciples yet least they should think they suffered any illusion he iudged that they were rather to be confirmed with the testimonies of the lawe the prophets the Psalmes shewing that those thinges were fulfilled of him which were so long before prophecied So also he coÌ„mended his church saying that repentance forgenenes of sinnes must be preached in his name throgh out all nations beginning at Hierusalem This he him selfe testifieth to be writteÌ„ in the lawe the prophetes the psalmes this we holde being commâ—nded to it by his owne mouth These be profes of our cause these be our foundations these be our strong argumentes These thinges I haue set downe more at large out of Augustine because they are not onely a stop vnto these motiues of miracles visions but in a manner to all the rest that followe The 8. motiue is the 4. demaunde Scriptures denied by the Protestantes what scriptures they deny praying for the dead confirmed by scripture pray or of saintes for vs fayth onely aganst the scripture Reall presence of Christ in the sacrament confirmed by scripture No scripture is against the Catholikes but all is for them VVhosoeuer haue taught doctrine saith Bristow so plainly repugnant to the holy Scriptures that for maintenaunce thereof they were faine to deny bookes of the holy Scriptures or to say the Scriptures to haue bene falsified and corrupted they were heretikes and such are the Protestantes therefore they are heretikes Howe proue you the Protestants to be suche Marie sayth Bristow first they deny the Canonicall most certayne Scripture of the Machabees for none other cause but that it is playne against their heresies maynteyning prayer for the dead and prayer of Sainctes for vs. This is a lowde lye for we shewe many causes why we reiect that prophane writing of Iasons abridger beside the auctoritie of the Iewish church before Christ and the primitiue church after Christ as I haue declared against the secoÌ„d booke of Allens defence cap. 3. But in defense of the booke of Machabees to be Canonical Bristow wilsay as S. Augustine sayd to certeyne that
testimonijs If this onely were the question which or where the Church were that they woulde pleade nothing at all by publike actes of men but only by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures Yet sayth Bristow the Apostles were of our religion because Chrysostom sayth Ad pop Antioch that it was decreed by the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries a remeÌ„brance should be made of the dead This sayth Bristow was masse for the dead How prayers for the dead came in how at leÌ„gth sacrifice of the masse was applied vnto the dead I haue shewed sufficiently against Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles which some of the olde writers doe ascribe to their traditions wee should receiue many thinges that euen the Papistes them selues doe not obserue As that it is a wicked thing to fast on SoÌ„day or to pray kneling that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes c. which with diuerse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth vpon the tradition of the Apostles as wel as oblation for the dead De coron nul hearing therefore such manifest vntruths are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition by most auÌ„cient writers what certainty can we haue of their tradition without their owne writing Againe S. Hierom saith it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40 daies in the yeare If this be true then is the popish story false that maketh Telesphorus Bishop of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth the great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5 cap. 26. saying that some fasted but 1 day some 2 daies some more some 40 howres of day night this diuersitie proueth â—â—â—â— Hierom vntruly ascribeth y t tradition to the Apostles which should haue bene kept vniformely if it had any institution of the Apostles Cyprian sayth it was our Lordes tradition that the wine in the communion should be mingled w t water But the Scripture saith not so S. Paule w c deliuered that w c he receiued of Christ saith not so And yet CypriaÌ„ coÌ„teÌ„deth principally for the vse of wine in the cup against the watry heretikes that vsed onely water It is a coÌ„mon thinge with the auncient writers to defend euery ceremony mhich was vsed in their time by tradition of the Apostles But the chiefe matter is the masse which sayth Bristow S. Paule one of our religion made I maruell whether Bristow writeth this for fooles to beleue or for wise men to laughe at When they them selues make Gregory or Scholasticus or I can not tell whom auctor of the canon and when they write howe euery peece was added by what Pope what impudence is it to say that S. Paule made the Masse and to call Augustine to witnesse that which he good man did neuer thinke of and much lesse write Whose wordes Bristow hath mangled and falsified for thus he citeth them Ep. 118. cap 6. Totum illum agendi ordinem quem uniuersum per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse That by him was ordeyned this order of doing which through the whole world the Church doth keepe in doing of Masse The wordes of Augustine speaking of receiuing the communion fasting or before all other meates are these vpon the wordes of S. Paule Caetera cum venero ordinabo Vnde intelligi datur quia multum erat vt in epistola totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret quem universa per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morum diuersitate variatur Other thinges will I set in order when I come Whereby it is giuen vs to be vnderstood because it was much that in an epistle he should set forth that whole order of doing which the whole Church throughout the world doth obserue that this thinge was ordeyned by him which is varied by no diuersitie of maners vnderstanding the custome of receyuing the communion fasting which he sayd before was generally obserued in all places But of ordeyning the masse there is no title You see now howe â—â—â—â— Apostles especially S. Paule is of Bristowes religion beside ChrysostoÌ„ Hierom Cypâ—iaÌ„ The 10 and 11 motiues are confusely conteâ—ned in the 34 demaund The Courches iudgement is alwayes infallible VVhen by Iewell the Church of God dyed Donatistes and Luciferians aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine and S. Hierome were of our religion Protestants in their owne conscience be against the Church which is euerlasting and visible No scripture against the Catholiks but all for them Christ to be loued for the authoritie of his Church for which there be playner prophecyes then for Christ him selfe Although we should graunt the Churches iudgemeÌ„t to be alwaies infallible yet would we neuer graunt the popish churches authoritye which falleth so manifestly from the word of God thereby sheweth her self to be the malignant Church Synagogue of Satan That the Church of Christ hath alwaies ben from y e beginning shal continue vnto the end of the world we all confesse and defende Wherefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristow to saye that by Iewell the Church dyed within six hundreth yeares after Christ. And that the Donatistes and Luciferians are reuiued in Protestants For we nether say that the Church is perished out of all places except Africa as the Donatistes nor that it is become a stewes with the Luciferians But the Papistes are more like to the Donatistes which say the Church is perished out of all partes of the world except Europe and in steede of the Church they defende a stewes and sincke of all dolatrie superstition vngodlines Therefore Augustine and Hierom be not of Bristowes religion for condemning those heretikes to whome Bristow and his Papistes are more like then the Protestants Nether doe Protestants in their conscience thinke the Church of Christ to be against them because Castalio an Anabaptist translateth Ecclesiae the Churche into reipublicae the common wealth or because many vse the name of congregation which is the true signification of this word Ecclesia as no man will deny that is not past all shame That the Churche is euerlasting and visible to them that haue suche eyes as the Churche is that is spirituall we neuer deny But that it is visible to the world alwayes that shall neuer be proued That no Scripture is against the Catholikes we graunt but that many Scriptures are against the Papists it hath bene more then a thousand times proued That the church geueth testimonie to Christ that the prophecies of the churches euerlasting continuance are plaine euident It is no question betwene vs. But that the synagoge of Romish Papists is the church of Christ to whoÌ„ such credit or reuerence is to be geuen that I say if Bristow woulde burst for anger against the Protestantes he shall neuer be able to proue The 11. motiue The practise or custome of the church of God S. Paule and S. Augustine of our
religion Exorcisme exufflation in baptisme Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Baptisme necessary for saluation of children ChauÌ„ge of religion neuer made by us Altares prayer for the dead used alwayes Reall presence of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t Pilgrimage reliques of Saints S. Hierom of our religioÌ„ Miracles for reliques Churches coÌ„firmed by miracles VVhat an impudeÌ„t atteÌ„pt is chauÌ„ge of religioÌ„ Of the churches practise custome I say euen as of the churches iudgement that how much soeuer it be to be esteemed yet is not the Popish church the Catholike church of Christ but an apostasie schisme from it Neither is it sufficieÌ„t for Bristow to say y e Popish church practiseth many things that the auÌ„cieÌ„t church of Christ practised therfore it is the true church of Christ except he can proue that the Popish churchteacheth practiseth all nothing els but that which the ancieÌ„t church of Christ did teach practise In stede whereof Bristow can allege nothing but certeine spots wrinkles of the elder church which the Popish church doth embrace hauing almost nothing els like vnto it But let vs see how substantially he proueth out of S. Paule S. Augustine that the churches custome and practise is an infallible rule of truth First S. Paule saith he 1. Cor. 11. after many reasons for the vncomelines of womeÌ„s going bareheaded recoyleth to this inuincible forte Si quis c. But if any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome for women to pray vncouered nor the church of God See how this impudent asse to stablish his ground of custome is not ashamed to falsifie the wordes of holy Scripture S. Paul saith if any man seme to be desirous of contention we haue no such custome nor the churches of God whereby he meaneth plainly that it is not the custome of the Apostles nor of the church of God to be contentious about such small matters of external behauiour May we herof inferre that whatsoeuer the church at any time hath vsed is allowable to be vsed alwaies S. Aug. Ep. 118. Ian. is cited by Bristow but corruptly Si quid tota per orbeÌ„ frequentat ecclesia hoc quia it a â—acienduÌ„ sit disputare insoleÌ„tissimae insaniae est If y e whole church do vse any thing only to call it in question whether that thing should be so don is a poinct of most prowd or most straÌ„ge madnes But Augustine is not so generall for his words are siquid horuÌ„ if any of these things speaking of ceremonial obseruations as of receiuing the coÌ„munion fasting c. be vniuersally vsed of all the church when it is not coÌ„trary to the word of God it were madnes to striue about it For in the first place Augustine setteth the auctority of Gods word secoÌ„dly the custome of the vniuersal church being not contrary to Gods word last of all the customs of particular churches which are varied according to the diuersities of coÌ„tries natioÌ„s Now for these matters in coÌ„trouersy betwene vs I answer as Augustine doth to the questioÌ„ of Ianuarius immediatly after the words cited by Bristow Sed neque hoc neque illud est in eo quod tu queris But neither is this nor that in the question that thou propoundest that is neither the practise of the vniuersall church nor the auctority of the Scriptures serueth to decide this question but it is the third kind So say I to Bristow nether the auctority of the holy Scriptures nor the practise of the vniuersall church can be shewed for these things which thou defeÌ„dest but they are of a third kind that is contrary to the word of God and the practise of the most auncient Primitiue church But Augustine sayth Bristow proueth that infants are borne in sinne against the Pelagians which are reuiued in ProtestaÌ„ts by the customes practise of the church which was to baptise theÌ„ for remission of sinnes And this practise he called the waight of truth a most plaine bignes of truth The slauÌ„der that PelagiaÌ„s are aliue in ProtestaÌ„ts by denying children to be borne in sinne I wil no more esteme then the barking of a dogge against the moone But where he sayth that Augustine by the only practise of the church coÌ„uinceth the Pelagians calling the practise poÌ„dus veritatis c it is a shameles lye for his words are in the same Epist. 105. Circunstiâ—antur enim diâ—inarum auctoritate lectionuÌ„ antiquitus tradito retcÌ„to firmo Ecclesiae ritu in baptismate paruulorum For they are compassed about both by the auctoritie of the diuine readings also by the stedfast practise of the church deliuered of old reteined in the baptisme of infants But he vrgeth them with exorcisme and exsufflation which were there vsed in the church I confesse but their meaning by exufflatioÌ„ exorcisme he defendeth out of the Scriptures And who can blame Augustine if after he haue mightely confuted the Pelagians out of the Scriptures to shew the nouelty of their heresie he alleaged the perpetuall practise of the church which she alwaies had alwaies shall haue in praying for the conuersion of infidels for the perseueraÌ„ce of the faithful in goodnes This is all one saith Bristow as if we should reason against these heretikes out of priuate mens beades out of the publike prayers which are in the portuse or Breuiary or in the missall and such like bokes The deuill it is except Bristow can proue that such beades and prayers were euer vsed in the church For Augustine sayth de bono perseuer ca. 22 Atque vtinam tardi corde infirmi qui non possunt velnon dum possunt Scriptur as vel earum expositiones intelligere sic audrient vel non audirent in hac quaestione disputationes nostras vt magis intuer entur orationes suas quas semper habuit habebit ecclesia ab exordijs suis donec finiatur hoc seculum And I would they that are dull of hart weake which can not or as yet can not vnderstand the Scriptures or the expositions of them would so heare or not heare our disputations in this question that they would rather consider their owne prayers which the church alwaies hath had shall haue from her beginning vntil this world be ended You see plainly that Augustine ioyneth to the auctority of the holy Scriptures the perpetuall practise of the church which hath continued from the beginning and shall remayne vnto the ende Which seeing it can not be shewed for Poperie the argument of the practise of the church serueth not for Popery Bristowe proceedeth and passeth ouer the example of Christian women which killed them selues rather then they would haue their bodies abused yet notwithstanding by the churches iudgement were honored as martyrs To which I aunswere the church considered their minde which was good not the fact which was euell At last he commeth to affirme that the
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
no Protestantes let them aunsweare for them selues If he calles them Puritanes which desire to haue the Church thorowly reformed there is no such dissention betweene them but that they all agree in the Articles of Faith maintayne brotherly concorde one with an other notwithstanding in diuersitie of opinions concerning the matters and manner of reformation But what an impudent attempte is chaunge of Religion hee will shewe vs out of Luther which writing againste the Anabaptistes Anno 1528. affirmeth that much Christianitie and true Christianitie is vnder the Popedome If chaunge of Religion bee so impudent an attempte why were the Papistes finding Religion quietly establyshed by lawe so impudent in Queene Maryes time not only to attempte but also to bring to passe in deede an alteration of Religion But the Popish Religion was true Christianitie by Luthers confession I aunswere Luther did meane nothing lesse by that confession then to defende any parte of Popery to bee Christianitie but writinge against the Anabaptistes which woulde haue all thinges abolyshed which the Papistes vsed he sheweth that such partes and Articles of Christianitie which in generall confession and acknowledging of the authoritie of the Scriptures the Papistes haue common with vs are not therefore to bee reiected because of them they haue bene abused Otherwise it is a poore Moâ—iue vnto Popery that Luther by these or any other woordes did euer minister vnto you The 17. Motiue is the 11. Demaunde The Catholike faith in England mightely planted lightly changed S. Augustine the Apostle of Englishmen of what Religion and authoritie Miracles for our whole Religion Sainte Bede of our Religion His story to be read of Englishmen Images and Crosses confirmed by miracle Prophecyes and visions for our Religion The Catholike Faith was purely planted in this Island by the Apostles euen in the raigne of Tiberius as restineth Gildas sixe hundreth yeeres before Augustine came from Rome bringing in deede with him the principall groundes of Christianitie and with all much Monkish superstition But that the Religion of Papisâ—rie differeth in as many pointes from that which Augustine planted as Augustines doth from oures I haue prooued abundantly in aunsweare to Stapletons Fortresse and breefely in the Table of differences And in such poyntes wherein wee differ from Augustine I haue proued that Augustine differed from the Apostles As for his Miracles affirmed by the Saxons and denied by the Briton writers shall still remaine in controuersie for me As also his prophecie so tearmed by the Saxons which the Britons affiâ—me to be a threatening of crueltie which he himselfe procured to be executed on the poore Students â—â—ergie of Bangor In the demaunde Bristow would knowe of vs whether the Britains by Eleutherius were coÌ„uerted to one faith and the Saxons by Gregory and Augustine vnto an other But I haue shewed before that the Britanes were not coÌ„uerted by Elutherius although perhaps the Church which was more then an hundreth yeares of age in his tyme might by him of charitie be confirmed in truth or admonished to beware of such heretikes as then troubled the Church abroade But I deny that Eleutherius maynteyned all that superstition which Augustine brought in And I affirme that â—â—â—â— Britons church in Augustines tyme differed in more things then in the celebration of Easter from the Romish Churche as I haue shewed in that confutation of Stapleton euen by testimony of Bede him selfe Although I will not deny but there might be some corruption euen amonge the Britayns also as there were that maynteyned the heresie of the Pelagians Wherefore into that Catholike faith which was first mightely planted in this lande by the Apostles of Christ and not of Gregorie through the most weightie argumentes taken of the auctority of the holy Scriptures is this realme by the great mercie of God returned from the schiâ—me and heresie of Antichrist so I hope shall remaine euen vntil the second comming of Christ. The 18. motiue is the 3. demaund Going out S. Optatus motiue The churches practise is alwayes infallible The vnitie and constancie of the Bishops of England Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing We like Optatus Motiue well for going out of the Church into any other faction But it may not be drawn contrarie to his meaning against those which goe out of Babilon into Ierusalem He saith VVe must see who hath remained in the roote with the whole worlde Verely not the Papists which are departed from the doctrine of the Apostles which is the roote of the Church by them planted in all the worlde VVe must see who is gone foorth which Bristow doth rightly referre to that saying of Saint Paule Discedent quidam à fide Some shall departe from the Fayth But who are those They that teache the doctrine of deuilles forbidding to marrye and commaunding to abstaine from meates Nowe whether Papists or protestants be such let the worlde iudge Optatus will haue it farther considered VVho is set in an other Chayre that was not before Verely none so manifestly as the Pope who sitteth in a Chayre that none of the Apostles nor Apostolike men for many hundreth yeeres after Christe did knowe Againe VVho hath sette an Aultar against the Aultar who but the Papists which haue erected the Sacrifice of the Masse to ouerthrow the Aultar of the crosse of Christ Finally VVho hath made an ordination the other before ordayned beeing whole sounde Quis ordinationem fecerit saluo altero ordinato Which Bristow hath falsely traÌ„slated thus VVho hath placed Bishops there where others were placed before which are yet aliue As though it were a faulte to putte out false Bishoppes and to supply the roomes with true Bishoppes where as Optatus meaneth of Heretikes which are gone from true Byshoppes and sette vppe Heretikes in schisme the true Bishoppes still remayning as the Papistes did in Queene Maryes time vntyll they had burned vppe almoste all As for the vnitie and constancy of the popishe deposed Prelates which hee commendeth is sufficiently knowne to the worlde which although they were all saue one obstinate in the beginning of her Maiesties raygne because they hoped by trayterous practises foolish prophecies deuilish coniuration to see an alteration shortly aswel for religion as also for the whole state of the common wealth and withall had experience of the mercifulnes and compassion of the Kinges of Israell so that they were not in feare of their liues or any great hazard of their goods yet had they all or the most part of them such was their good constancy reuolted from popery and sworne against the Pope in the raygne of Kinge Henrye and King Edward As for the decaye of Protestants and professors of the truthe of Gods word which the cold prophet foreseeth by some trayterous deuise whispered among his pewfellowes at Louayne or Dowaye it shall haue such successe and euent by Gods grace as hitherto the like treasonable practises haue obteyned
naming of all his progenitors from Adam vnto his time so there is no doubt but the Church hath had a perpetuall succession in the world from y e beginning thereof vntil this day although she can not name a particular succession of persons in any one place for all ages that are past But euen as by the Scriptures we are taught that Adam is our naturall father although we can not name all our auÌ„cestors that haue bene betwene vs and him right so by the Scriptures we are taught that the Church is our heauenly mother although we can not frame such tables of succession as the Papistes require vs to shew which they can not performe them selues For although they can name a number of Bishops whereof some haue taught at Rome some haue sitten and slept in their chayer at Rome and some at Auynion some haue played the deuill therein an hundreth of the last being no more like to a score of the firste in doctrine and life then God whose children the first were is like the deuill whose derlings the last were yet what is this to shewe a succession of their Church And howe doth this proue them to be the true Churche can not the Churche of Constantinople and other Churches in Greece doe the like vnto this daye Yet doe the Papistes count all them for heretikes and scismatikes Whatsoeuer therefore Optatus Hierom Augustine Tertullian or any other haue written of succession of Bishops in the Apostolike sees they meane so large and so farre forth as they continue in succession of Apostolike doctrine Otherwise woulde not Hierom haue embraced Arrianisme because it was receyued by Liberius who sate in the Apostolike see of Rome and coulde name his predecessors from Peter Nor Optatus haue receyued Eutychianisme because it was defended by Dioscorus which satte in the Euangelisticall see of Alexandria and coulde name his predecessors from S. Marke the disciple of S. Peter Nether woulde Augustine haue consented to Arrianisme because it was mayntayned by Eulalius and Euzoius Bishops of the Apostolike see of Antioche althoughe they were able to shewe their succession by many Bishops euen vnto S. Peter him selfe who planted his chayer at Antioche by all Papistes confession seuen yeares before he came to Rome You see therefore howe farre the motiue of succession may drawe or driue any man to haue regard vnto it euen as long as there is succession of doctrine as well as of place and person and not longer nor further The 23. motiue is the 44. demaund Apostolike Church The Communion of the Bishop of Rome to be kept of all Christians Apostolike Church is the Romane Church Apostolike Church as the Romane is S. Augustines motiue Succession of the Bishops of Rome the motiue of Optatus S. Augustine and S. Irenaeus This motiue in effect is all one with the former and in a maner so confessed by Bristow him selfe But thus he takâ—th his principle of their singing in the Masse our saying in the communion of the creede in which we confesse that we beleue one onely Catholike and Apostolike Church This one Catholike Church sayth Bristow is our Church that is Apostolike because it agreeth with the faith of the Church of Rome which is the sea of an Apostle holding on to this day by succession and to which was written an Epistle by an Apostle I aunswer it is not the popish Romane Church because that Church is departed from the vniuersal Church of Christ planted by the Apostles through out the worlde and holdeth not on in succession of the doctrine of the Apostle which did write that epistle to the Romanes But Bristowes wise reasoning is to be noted S. Peter was an Apostle That is true he was the first Bishop of Rome It is a great doubt whether he euer came at Rome and it is out of doubt by the Scriptures that he taried not there so longe as the histories affirme and last it is false that he was a Bishop of a particular Church which was an Apostle ouer all the world and specially ouer the circumcision There is a citye in the worlde named Rome And that citye by the Scripture is the seat of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. vers 18. S. Paules epistle to the Romaines is extant and euen that epistle will proue the Church of Rome at this day to be not apostolicall but apostatical as in many articles so in the article of iustification Rom. 3. vers 28. Are not those causes why a Church is called Apostolike sayth Bristow No verily but onely because it holdeth and mayntayneth the Apostolike doctrine which if it doe in all necessary articles then is it Apostolike hath succession and plantation of the Apostles or els not although it be gathered in such cities in which the Apostles haue preached planted and to whome they haue written But Tertullian doth so define Apostolike Churches sayth Bristow I say it is vntrue for Tertullian against newe heretikes sendeth vs not to the emptye chayres of the Apostles which had written to such cities but vnto the the testimony of their doctrine receyued from the Apostles and continued vntill that time So he sendeth them that are in Achaia to Corinthe such as are in Macedonia to Philippi those that are in Asia to Ephesus them which be neare Italy to Rome from whence they of Africa had their authoritie not by excellency of that Church aboue other Apostolike Churches but by nearenes of place Therfore he saith Proxima est tibi Achaia habes Corinthum Si non longè es à Macedonia habes Philippos Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum si autem Italiae adieceris habes Romam vnde nobis quaeque auctoritas presto est statuta Is Achaia nearest vnto thee thou hast Corinthe If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi If thou canst goe into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thoulye neare to Italy thou hast the Church of Rome from whence vnto vs also in Africa authoritie is setled nearer at hand Tertul de praeser But Bristow sayth that the auncient fathers when there were many Apostolike Churches standing they did principally and singularly direct men alwayes to the Church of Rome This you see to be false by the place of Tertullian last ciâ—ed But that they did more often direct men to the testimony of the Church of Rome it was for that by meanes of the Imperiall citie it was more notorious and best knowne Otherwise it is a very lye of Bristow where he sayth that when the fathers name the Apostolike church they do meane the Romane church by excellency as the Poet signifieth Vergil and the Philosopher Aristotle A like lye it is that no Church remayneth in the world founded by any of the Apostles but onely Rome For many Churches remayne to this day that were planted by the Apostle Paule who from Hierusalem to Illyricum filled all the contryes with the doctrine of the Gospell of which
councels the contrarie But admitting they did erre yet sayth he they erred not in such matters as the Protestantes doe now charge the Pope Romaines withall Whereto I answer that against that blasphemous principle of theirs that the Pope can not erre we first bring in those examples of Popes that were heretikes for their time altered religion like heretikes in such matteâ—s as we both confesse to be errors Then this being obteyned that the Pope is not priuiledged from error the matters in controuersie wherewith we charge the Pope are to be examined only by the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures and thereby to be decided The 25. motiue is the 9. demaunde The conuersion of Heathen nations Caluines Legates in India The discorde of Protestantes Iesuites Fryers preaching in India Miracles for our whole religion The Apostles were of our religion The church is euerlasting and visible All nations that were at the first coÌ„uerted to the true faith of Christ were conuerted by the Apostles whose faith and doctrine we hold and will proue by their writings that we holde none other As for the argument of â—ryers preaching in India miracles wrought so fa. re hence with such great conuersion of the Indians vnto Popery if it were true yet proueth it no more then the preaching and miracles of the false Apostles Phil. 1. and the conuersion of the Gothes and Vandalls Crepides c. by the Arrians and other nations by Nestorius c. doth proue those false Apostles to be true Apostles or the heresies of the Arrians c. to be true doctrine Wherefore not the Papistes but the Apostles of Christ were his witnesses vnto the vttermost places of the earth But of this matter of câ—nuersion and all thinges conteyned you may reade somewhat more at large in mine aunswere to Stapletons fortresse where the same is handled part 1. cap. 16. 17. The 26. Motiue is the 18. 13. and 14. demaund By what religion hath Idolatrie bene destroyed Prophecies for our religion Protestantes be possessed with deuills Churches confirmed by miracles Deuills expelled by reliques Deuills are in heretikes S. Hierome of our religion The martyrs of our religion Vigilantius aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine Chrysostome of our religion The honor and vertue of Sainctes reliques S. Augustines motiue for which Christ is to be beleued Our religion an inuincible motiue to forsake idolls and beleue in Christ who is to be beleued for the vertue of the signe of his crosse which working miracles was the motiue of Lactantius The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament The crosse and the masse confirmed by S. Bernard in Italy S. Cyprian of our religion The Iewes religion chaunged into ours by Christ c. In this motiue is much babling but no matter at all The summe of that he would proue is this That Popery is not idolatrie as we charge it because by Popery Idolatrie hath bene destroyed Although this argument is naught because one kinde of Idolatrie may destroy an other yet it is falsely affirmed that Poperie hath destroyed all idolatry That Popery hath destroyed idolatry Bristow wil proue by three examples the one of the reliques of Sainctes and the honor of them the other of the signe of the crosse and the honorthereof and the last by the reall presence in the Sacrament which he calleth his Lord and his God But our Lord and God is in heauen according to the Psalm 115. The destruction of idolatrie by Christ in deede was prophecied therefore the Pope setting vp and mainteyning as grosse idolatrie almost as euer was any of the Paganes sheweth him selfe to be a verie Antichrist But to the purpose Hierom lib. 28. in Isa. cap. 65. sayth that the heretikes in Fraunce were possessed with the deuill which could not abide the might and whips of the holy ashes If he spake this against VigilaÌ„tius other godly men which reproued the immoderate honoring of reliques and other superstitions he spake of his owne iudgement and not of the iudgement of the church For he only of all writers of his time counted Vigilantius an heretike as he did Ruffinus also which yet is takeÌ„ for as good a Catholike as he It is knowne how he taunteth and scoffeth at Augustine Wherefore his censure is not sufficient to make Vigilantius opinion heresie nor them heretikes which were of his iudgemeÌ„t But admit this iudgement of Hierom to be sounde yet was not the honor and estimation of reliques which he defendeth against Vigilantius the same which is in Poperie but much differing there froÌ„ For thus he writeth ad Râ—panum contr Vigilant Nos autem non dico martyrum reliquias sed ne solem quidem â—unam non Angelos non Archangelos non Cherubin non Seraphim omne nomen quod nominatur in prâ—esenti saeculo in futuro colimus adoramus ne seruiamus potius creaturae quaÌ„ creatori qui est benedictus in saecula But we worship and adore I say not the reliques of the martyrs but not the sunne the moone not the Angells not Archangels not Cherubin not Seraphim euery name that is named both in this world and in the world to come least we should serue the creaturerather then the creator which is blessed for euer By this you may see that the honor they gaue to reliques was but a reuerent estimatioÌ„ of them for Christs sake whose seruaunts the Martyrs were and a lesse honor then they gaue to the Sunne and the Moone as is manifest by his gradation and consequently no religious worship As the Papistes vse and mayntayne of the reliques not of Saynctes but oftentymes of deuills incarnate of beasts and all manner of fayned bables Nether is there any thing more monstrous in popery then their shameles fayning of infinite reliques That Augustine writeth that deuils were tormented and expelled at the memories or burialls of the martyrs where somtimes idolls were worshipped it proueth that idols were destroyed by Poperie For if God wrought miracles at such places where the bodies of his Martyrs slept to coÌ„firme the faith for which they died doth this make any thing for Popery But the same Augustine to the Maudaurenses that were Pagans and other heathen men vseth the argument of the greater honor and reuerence doone by Kings and Emperours at the tombes and memories of the Saintes and Martyrs and of miracles wrought at the same places to shew the power of Christe to the confusion of idolatrie This wee graunt but how doth Popery ouerthrowe Idolatrie There reuerence although in soÌ„e respects superstitious was far from popish Idolatrie of worshipping of Saints Images bones c as wee haue shewed euen now out of Hierom the most eger defender of those vses and abuses in his time The miracles approued none other doctrine then the maâ—tyrs died for who died for none other doctrine but such as is contayned in the holy Scriptures in which Poperie hath no ground
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
Rome to approue her doctrine by auctority of Gods word Which because the Papists dare not atteÌ„pt Bristow requireth I can not tel what approbation priuiledge of the sayd libell to shew a bad shift better then none at all why they wil not answere it For Popish libells that are but cast abroad in writing we require no approbation nor priuiledge dare not the Papists confute a printed libell before it haue approbation priuiledge The 29. motiue Protestantes them selues take thinges vpon our churches credit The churches auctority S. Augustines motiue VVhat Sor. pture the Protestants deny Although we did receaue such things as he reherseth vpon their churches credit it followeth not that theirs is the true church for we receaue nothing from them without dew exammation The Scriptures we receaue not vpon the only credit of the Popish church but vpon the credit of y e vniuersall church of Christ. The creedes articles of doctrine tearmes of person trinitie consubstantiality Sacraments c. we receaue because they be consonant to the Scriptures not because the church of Rome tellâ—th â—s they be true As for the auctoritie of the church which he sayth was S. Augustines motiue to beleue the Gospell was not a single or sole motiue but a commotiue or an argument that with other argumeÌ„ts did moue him for the sayth not moueret but commoueret and so it is with vs. Prouided alwayes that the Popish church be no taken for that Catholike or vniuersall church VVhat then sayth Bristow was it the Protestants church whereof Augustine ment or can you hold laughter when the question is asked No verily for when the Protestants church that it is now so called in this age like as it was called the Homousians church in Augustines time is a member of the Catholike vniuersall church of Christ and so proued by the holy Scriptures it is a ridiculous thing to doubt whether it were the popish church which is but an hereticall assembly departed from the vniuersall church long since Augustines departure out of this life But Bristow will proue that the church at whose commanndement Augustine beleued the Gospell was not the ProtestaÌ„ts church because that church commaunded him to beleue the bookes of Toby Iudith VVisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees to be canonicallscripture which the church of Protestantes doth denye But what it Augustine were deceiued to thinke he hearde the voice of the Catholike church when he did not shall the Protestantes churche be condemned S. Hierome who if the church of Rome were the Catholike church was more like to heare her voice because he was a Priest of the church of Rome telleth vs a cleane contrary tale For thus he writeth In praefat in Prouerbia Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina leg at ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam Therfore as the Church in deade readeth the bookes of Iudith and Tobias and of the Macchabees but yet she receiueth them not among the Canonicall scriptures so she may reade these two Bookes speaking of the booke of Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the common people but not for confirming the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall doctrine Doth the Church of Protestants iudge otherwise of these Bookes then that Church which thus instructed Hierome What then I must say as Bristowe doth S. Hierome and the Catholike Church in his time of our Religion The Church of Rome now is of an other iudgement then the Church of Rome was then ergo it is not now that it was then But whereas Bristowe chargeth vs to to deny or at least to leaue indifferent the Canticles of Salomon The Epistle to the Hebrues The Epistles of Saint Iames S Peter S. Iohn Sainct Iude with the Apocalips it is a diuelish slaunder as God knoweth and the woâ—ld can beare vs witnesse The 30. Motiue is the 36. and 37. demaÅd Storehouse of the Scriptures Tht Iewes Religion chaunged into ours by Christ. The Churches learning and wisdome The Church store S. Irenaeus motiue Bristowe demaundeth whether the Popish Church receiuing the Scriptures of the olde and newe Testament from Christ hath not kept them faithfully without adding minishing or corrupting I aunswere no for the Popish church receiueth none of Christ but the catholike church of Christ. Againe the popish Church hath added whole bokes to the canon which the chuch of the Iewes neuer receiued nor the vniuersall Church of Christ. But those Bokes saith Bristow hath the Protestants church robbed vs of w c are allowed by approued Councels You heard in the last motiue Hieromes iudgement of those bookes whervnto agreeth the couÌ„cel of Laodiâ—ea cap. 59. Augustine receiueth the boks of Macchabees but with condition of sobrietie in the reader or hearer Augâ— consec â—pist Gaudent cap. 13. Last of al the popish church either of fraud or negligence hath corrupted an exceeding great number of textes of the scripture in her vulgar latine translation w c she receueth as only authentical The very first promise of the gospel is corrupted and falsyfied For wheras the trueth is Ipsum contret caput â—â—â—â— the same seede shall broose thine head the popish translation hath Ipsa the same woman Gen 3. Wheras he saith the Protestants church for this 100. yeeres as we coÌ„fesse our selues occupyed no bible nor had any thing to do with the scriptures he lieth out of al measure for the church of Christ hath alwaies had the scriptures in euery nation where it was it had theÌ„ in their mother toung How many Bibles are yet extant written in parchmeÌ„t 3 or 4. hundreth yeeres past in the English toung beside other in the Saxon language The like are to be proued to haue ben in al places where the Churches were gathered as in France Italy Bohemia c. Finally whatsoeuer he bableth of their Church to be the store house of the Scriptures trueth the like may be said of the greke Church which they coÌ„demne as schismaticall hereticall therefore this storehouse is no Motiue to proue the Romish Sinagogue to be the church of God In the 37. demaund he asketh whether as wel Protestants as other doe not condemne the old writers errors other heresies of Heretiks which made great shew of scriptures by the rule of y e popish churchs faith I answere the Protestants out of the scriptures do can disproue such shew of scriptures made by maisters of error are no more moued by the popish churches authoritie then the Apostles were moued by authoritie of the Iewish Synagogue to reproue all the grosse Idolatrie and snperstition of the Gentiles Therfore the popish Church is not Depositorium Diues that rich storehouse of trueth which was S. Ireneus motiue The 31. motiue is the 41. demaund Sending and teaching of all diuine
Neither doe we beleue that the papists haue any such what iugling or counterfaiting of miracles soeuer is among them their forgery hath to often beene tryed to their shame To conclude our Church hath Christ and his spirit and therefore all graces blessings whatsoeuer Christ hath promised to be perpetuall in the same to the saluation of his elect and the glory of his name The 39. motiue is in parte contayned in the 48. demaund Teaching the narrowe way and liuing after it VVho be Bristow nowe followers of Protestants VVhy there bee so many â—itheisti in England England beware of destruction The doctrine of Purgatory and satisfaction of Gods wrath by workes of our owne or of other mens The doctrine of pardons the doctrine of Grace giuen by sacraments Exopere operato The sacrifice of the masse c. are doctrines that teach the brode way leading vnto destruction while they bring men into securitie and confidence in vaine helpes And that is the cause that Papists and Popes themselues of all other haue beene and are the most wicked The number of Atheists that are in England are not made but discerned by the preaching of the Gospel And yet neither are there so many nor so impudent professors of Atheisme in England as there be in Italie and euen in Rome it selfe Where the Pope hath beene condemned in generall councell for an Atheist as Iohn the 23. in the councell of Constaâ—s Where Pope Leo counteth the Gospell for a fable of Christ. Pope Iuly will eate hogges fleshe in despight of God The sinnes I confesse of England are greate and such as call to God for vengeance without heartie repentance and the greatest sinne is ingratitude in the multitude refusing sincerly to imbrace the Gospell and in other hypocrisie which abusing the name of the Gospell haue an outwarde shewe of godlynesse but deny the power thereof Yet is there bothe in the state whiche Bristowe moste traitorously doth slaunder and in the Church of England yea in the Realme of Englande more sinceritie fidelitie honestie Charitie humilitie Chastitie and godlinesses and lesse Athesme infidelitie crueltie pride ryote whoredome swearing and foâ—swearing Couetousnesse sacriledge and all manner of wickednesse more I say of vertue and lesse of vice in England at this time then is or hath beene at any time with in those fiue hundred yeeres in Rome or Italie So that if a Booke were made as Bristow seemeth to threaten of the behauiour of the worst and moste counterfaite Protestantes in Englande yet shall it neuer bee founde so vile and abhominable as are the lyues of the moste of the Popes themselues set foorth not by Protestants in our dayes but by all popish storyes before we were borne The 40. motiue hath no speciall demand aunsvvering to it Obedient subiects In what Church is Christianitie of all lawes which was Sainct Augustines Motiue Obedience of the Catholikes to their superiours bothe ecclesiastieall and temporall Protestantes be malignours of higher powers If this Motiue had beene sette foorth before the Rebellion in the North or if so many trayterouse practises from Rome hadd not beene openly discouered peraduenture Bristowe might haue moued some mountaines by it But nowe Quis tulerit Gracchum de seditioue loquentâ—m Who canne abide the Papistes to bragge of Obedience Yet both the ciuill Lawe and the common Lawe of Englande are made to serue popishe Religion if wee will beleeue Bristowe God bee thanked they bothe serue the Church of God not onely in Englande but in all other Realmes and states that haue embraced the Gospell the ciuill and municipall Lawes without any alteration of the state saue for the aduancement of Gods glory But Protestants hee sayth bee Maligners of the higher powers such as Sainct Iude calleth contemners of Lordeshippe and blasphemers of Maiestie Or else the Papistes be such in that blasphemouse Bull for which Felton was hanged in which are so vile opprobrious and contumelious slanders of our Prince that for her honour and my dueties sake I will not vouchsafe to name them Hee obiecteth vnto vs Knoxes Booke against the regement of women which was but his priuate opinion and condemned of all our Church and of the Churche of Geneua also Hee obiecteth the ciuill warres in Fraunce in which the Kinges themselues haue alwayes in publique instrumentes discharged the Protestants of all disloyaltie and acknowledged that whatsoeuer they did in taking Armes they did it in the seruice of them and of their Realme As for the murdering of great Personages Wasting of Cities and Countries c. the worlde knoweth whether partie is chargeable with the crime And to seeke no farther proues of the trayterous and disobedient heartes of all wicked and pernitiouse Papistesâ— Bristow him selfe confesseth in this motiue that they be duely discharged from subiection and the Prince from dominion by the soueraigne authoritie of the common Paster of Religion But where in the Deuils name hath your soueraigne Pastor and Prelate of Rome such authoritie From Peter Did Peter discharge the subiectes of Nero from subiection or Nero from his gouernment although he were a moste wicked persecutor of the Church or rather doth he not commaund all persons to obey him 1. Pet 2. 14. 17. O trayterous hypocrites which haue made all whole wheÌ„ you pray for the Princes conuersion so deposed by your Pope The Lord our God defende our soueraigne as well from your prayers as from your practises Another argument of your obedience you shew where you saye that of Catholikes throughly discharged of their fealtic yet for common humanitie for their accustomed vse for their coÌ„tinuall as it were naturall institution the prince is better obeyed and scrued then of the Protestants which in heart are in a manner all Puritants Note heere that Papists professe them selues to be subiects of curtesie not of dutie of custome not of conscience of naturall institution not of the lawe of God Our Lord and sauiour send her maiestie few such subiects and seruants The 41. motiue is the 19. demaund The Church to which Princes doe homage The true Catholike church of Christ is that church of which it was prophecied that Kinges and Queenes shoulde be the nurse thereof and as obedient children doe homage thereto as to the mother of all the faithfull To this church the olde and first Christianed Emperours Constantius Iouianus Theodosius Valentinianus c. submitted them selues as obedient children To this church at this day many Kinges and Queenes doe homage and are nurses thereof as the Princes of England Scotland Denmarke Sueuon Saxonie But Bristow obiecteth against vs y t our Princes are not taught obedience to the Church but truely seduced by the title of heade and supreme gouernours of the Church To this I aunswere that this title of headshippe and gouernaunce of particular Churches is none other but such as they may and ought to holde with their obedience vnto the vniuersall Church Yea their
gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
are made according to that which is namely the trueth set foorth in the holy Scriptures not according to that which euery foole will fondly suppose or imagine The 44. Motiue is the 49. demaund The Church that all Chrsstes enemies fight against Englande ioyneth with Christes enemyes againste Christendome VVhat Religion the Iowes impunge as the Religion of Christ. Christ is to bee beleeued for conuerting of Emperours and powers from their Idols to serue his seruauntes The Church is euerlasting and visible Saincte Augustines motiue Emperors turned from their Idols and praying at Peeters sepulchre and the Christianitie of humane lawes Sainct Augustine of our Religion Protestants bee of many olde heresies The popish Church was not persecuted by the heathen Emperous but the Catholike church of Christ The popish Church is not of so great antiquitie that shee had then any shewe in the worlde although the misterie of iniquitie did then woorke and euen in the Apostles time The Heathens Turks and Iewes doe no more hate the popish church then they doe the church of God which is in England The warres against the Turke be at this day maintained by the states of Germany which are of our religioÌ„ aswel as by the Papists That there is no publike ayde sent against the Turk out of England it is not in any allowaunce of Turkish religion but because the state seeth it not necessary neither was there any publike ayde sente an hundreth yeeres be ore the reuolte from Papistrie And yet euen in the Queenes maiesties raigne there hath gone ayde out of England against Soliman which died at the siege of Segesto where diuers noble Gentlemen of Englande goinge on their owne charges as Bizia testifieth wan more true glory then they that 2. or 3. hundred yeeres before vpon a superstitious vowe were signed with the crosse to fight against the Saracens for the possession of the earthly Ierusalem How often shall I aunswer that the first christian Emperours were not conuerted from Idolatry to Christianitie by the popish Church but the later Christian Emperours by her haue bene peruerted from the true worship of God vnto Idolatry That the Emperours being conuerted from Idolatry did pray at Peter the fishermans sepulchre as Augustine sayth it sheweth the vertue of y e Gospel of Christ that had made so great alteration in them but nothing at all proueth the authoritie or any error of the popish Church for Augustine sayth not that they prayed vnto Peter but at the sepulcher of Peter meaning in the Church that was builded vpon the place that was supposed to be the buriall of Peter The lawes that those Emperours made against Idolaters may well serue against the Papistes w c are as grosse in all kindes of Idolatry as the Gentills for the most part were Finally it was not y e popish Church but the Church of Christ that suppressed the heresies of the Arrians Sabellians Nestorians c. But Iouinian did let out of hell Priestes and Nunnes mariage which gate not the Church of Protestantes but our Church sayth Bristow hath stopped The Church that striued against Iouinian was nether for mariage of Priestes of whom many thowsands were maryed in that tyme yea and a thowsande yeares after nor yet for mariage of such as had vowed virginitie and could not contayne when both Epiphanius the hatchet of heresies and Hierome that greatest aduersary of Iouinian agree that they ought to marye Epiph. cont Apostolicoshaer 61. Hierom ad Demetriadem Nether were Epiphanius Philaster and Augustine which disalow the opinion of Aerius concerning prayers for the dead members of the popish church for this one error which they held seeing they hold the principall substance of religion against the Papists and agreeable to the word of God That Bristow sayth in the demaund VVe count Turkes Iewes and very Atheistes for our frendes and all that be not Papistes it is a most detestable slaunder The Anabaptistes burned in Smithfield were no Papistes the blasphemer of Christ lately burned at Norwiche was no Papist whose sharpe execution sheweth that heretikes blasphemers and Atheistes when they are discouered finde no friendship at the handes of Christes Church but such as they deserue Finally the Easterne Church which of long tyme hath bene separated from the Romish communion hath as great enemies of the Turkes heathen and Iewes as the Popish Church hath yet will not the Papistes allow it for the Catholike Church The 45. motiue conteyneth the 31. 32. 33. 40. demaundes Euer visible and Catholike Vniuersalitic Antiquitie Consent Protestants were neuer before this tyme. They are ashamed of their fathers Hus was not a Protestant VVicklefe was not a Protestant VVicklefe condemned by Melancthon Prophecy for our religion No Scripture against the Catholikes but all for them Here is nothing but the old popish bragge of vniuersalitie antiquitie and consent which is as easily denied as it is allwayes alleaged without proofe Sauing that in the demaundes they are sundered as though euery one of them without the other two were a sufficient triall of truth which nether Vincentius nor Optatus nor Augustine nor any that vsed this argument did euer meane But that is truth which being most auncient hath at all tymes of all true Christians by general consent bene receyued But this can not be proued of any one error of poperye For if any of these three be omitted the argument is of no force to proue truth All nations by generall consent embraced Idolatrie yet was the true worship of God which was knowen onely in Iurye the more auncient The worship of Iupiter was more auncient then the honor of Christ shewed in the flesh and more vniuersally receyued but not of the true worshippers of God As for generall councells which in the demaund of consent he sayth to be all against the Protestants he is not able to shewe one approued generall councel that was held within six hundreth yeares after Christ that decreed any thing contrary to that which we beleue in any poynt But confessing that in many ages some there haue bene in some poyntes of our opinion yet he sayth we can shewe no lyneall succession but leape from Luther to Christ without any recorde of our religion in all the meane tyme hauing no monument of such Church nether in leafe or lyne of seruice booke As one that loueth antiquities well I would fayne see what leaues the Papistes can shewe of their seruice bookes to proue a lyneall descâ—nt from Christ to Pope Gregory the 13 when Bristow sweareth perdie to agree in all poyntes with Pope Leo the tenth which was in Luthers tyme some of their seruice being made by Thomas Aquinas some by Fulbertus some taken out of Beda some out of Gregory some out of Augustine some out of Hieronyme some out of Iohn Chrysostom and of Ambrose and the eldest I thinke not of Origen which argueth nether antiquitie nor vniuersalitie to stand with the popish seruice as for
particularly to euerie one of them sheweing whether it be a true and proper note of the church and if it be that it belongeth to vs and not to them Although Bristow say that this way we know full well that they shall haue the victorie flying therefore euermore to our weake false castle of only Scripture That the scripture onely is our castle we do gladly admitte but that the same is a most strong true impugnable castle none but a blasphemous heretike will deny But you must saith Bristow still labour to get them if you can with their consent out of the castle into the plaine fieldes aforesayde to make them graunt expressely that there in your handes they can not stande Nay Bristow you must beate vs from our castell if you can for we will neuer consent to goe out of it for defense except it be to offer you the aduauntage not in the playne fieldes as you cal it but among your pettie piles and small holdes And so we haue done often So did that reuerende father the Bishoppe of Salisburie in that noble challenge wherein you were shamefullie foyled in your owne grounde and many of your fortes beaten about your eares But you doe not well to teach your schollers to seeke a gentle aduersarie to fight withall which must first of all be willing to laye downe his sworde and shielde and then you are good enough for him with your manlie motiues with which when you haue treandled him about like a tenis ball you sende him backe agayne to his castell of onely Scripture to see whether they will beare him out in his opinions For example is not this Scripture manifest inough on your side and agaynst vs This is my body This is my blood Mat. 26. Verily euen as plaine as this They did all eate the same spirituall meate They all dronke of the rocke that followed theÌ„ y e rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10. They are both one maner of speaking and both of one matter Therefore they haue both one meaning The second exaÌ„ple is By works a man is iustified not by faith only Iac. 2. And this is also Scripture knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Lawe but by faith of Iesus Christ Gâ—lat 2. And agayne by grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast The later being in maner of speaking contrarie to the former text doe playnly shewe that these two Apostles speake not both of one kinde of faith or iustification But that Iames speaketh of a dead faith as his wordes are playne Vers. 17. and of iustification before men Paule of a liuing faith and of iustification in the sight of God The third example is out of Iames 5. Where I must first note that Bristow in translation doth manifestly corrupt falsefie the Scripture The Latine is Infirmatur quis in vobis If any amongest you be daungerously sicke let him send for the Priests of the church and they to pray ouer him anealing him with oyle in the name of our Lord c. First Bristow addeth this word daungerously of his owne heade which is neither in the Greeke nor vulgare Latine text to draw the text of Iames violently to their popish greasing which they vse only when a man is desperatly sicke and past hope of recouerie in theiâ— iudgement Whereas Iames speaketh generally of any kinde of sickenes wherewith any of the faithfull were molested Secondly Bristowe leaueth out the wordes following which are these and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke person and the Lord shall restore him or raise him vp the Latine is alleâ—iabit shall ease him which wordes declare that the Apostle speaketh not of a perpeâ—uall Sacrament of the church but of a ceremonie vsed by them that had a speciall gift of healing the sicke in the primitiue Churche whiche ceremonie must needes cease with the gift except it be among apes that practise outward gesture and actions without effect The other two examples out of the 2. of Machabees the one of praying for the deade the other of Ieremie praying for the people are no partes of the castell of Canonicall Scripture and therefore with other errours in the same bookes I omit them The last exaÌ„ple is out of Genesis 48. The saying of Iacob the Patriarke of Iosephs two childreÌ„ God who hath fed me from my youth euen to this day The Angell who hath deliuered me out of all aduersities blesse these children which is sayth Bristow as if one would say God and our Ladie blesse them Nay rather God by Iesus Christ blesse them for what other Angell but Christ the Angell of the great councell was the deliuerer of Iacob which when he wrestled with him in a vision and mystery Gen. 32. he doubted not to call God Euen the same Angell which led the children of Israel through the wildernes whoÌ„ S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth Christ who was not an Angel by nature but by office in that as the Mediator he was sent to deliuer the people before he came in the flesh But if we should vnderstand the Angell of whom Iacob speaketh for soÌ„e priuate Angel appointed of God to protect him yet is it not as if one would say now God our Lady blesse theÌ„ For that God vseth the ministery of Angels to defend prosper his seruaunts but not the ministery of Saincts in heaueÌ„ for any such purpose that we can learne by the holy Scriptures Iacob might therfore pray y t God would send his Angell to protect those children euen as he had done for him As for that vaine brag that all Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalipse is for theÌ„ against vs is nothing els but a false alarme as though he woulde on all sides assalt our castel of only Scriptures wheras he purposeth nothing lesse But this can not be borne that he sayeth some places of Scripture be so playne against vs that we can not aunswere them but by plucking the pen of the holy Ghost out of his hand that wrote theÌ„ meaning that we deny the auctority of such books as be not Canonicall the Machabees especially But this he sayth can not be For either they are proued muâ—ncibly to be of the holy Ghostes indighting or no Scripture at all is proued to be suche as you may remember the common saying of S. Augustine Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I shoulde not beleue the Gospell it selfe vnlesse the Catholike Churches auctoritie did compell What shall I say to this impudent blasphemer that alloweth none other tryall of holy Scripture but the authoritie of the Church because Augustine supposing that hee were an Heathen Againe sayth he would not beleeue the Gospell except the authoritie of the Church with other thinges did moue him his woorde is Commoueret whiche Bristowe not so ignorauntly as
impudently translateth did compâ—l mec But the Catholike Church saith Bristow hath receiued these bookes of equall authoritie with the rest Indeede the Synagogue of Antichrist in the Tridentine councell hath so decreede But the Catholike Church of Christ did neuer receiue them as I haue shewed out of Hicronime praef in Prouerb and others whereto I may adde the iudgement of Origine out of Eusebhist lib. 6. cap. 18. tran Russ. with the councell o Laodicea Can. 59. Marke the plainenesse of this demonstration when the question coÌ„trouersie is whether they or we be the chuch All scriptur is for them against vs because the church that is they haue thus thus decrede No meruail therfore if Bristow appeale to the iudgmeÌ„t of indifferent meÌ„ that al our prating of y e scriptures is nothing else but as S. Peter saith of S. Paules Epistles our wresting and writhing of them by our owne vnlearnednes vnstablenes from the Catholike Churches vnitie and vniuersalitie to the scisme and peece of Luther from theÌ„ce to Caluine c For the Church is the setled and vnmoueable rock against which ther is no scripture no trueth but all for it This is good a demonstratioÌ„ as if a man should say to a vessel tossed in the brode sea with wind waues that in the hauen there is great rest securitie but not shew what course they should keepe to come thither We by the only true lodestone Pharos and heauenly Cynosura of the holy scriptures we praise his holy name therfore haue founde the moste happy hauen of the holy Catholick Church of Christ by his helpe haue caste out the Anchor of Faith so surely fixed not in the sand but in the Hauen it selfe that all the Cables of popishe motiues or blasts of Diuelish doctrines shal not be able to stirre our ship from thence which course God grauÌ„t them to keepe who labouring in the sea of doubtfulnes ride not wilfully among the rocks of Romish pride nor be obstinately set on the sands of mens traditions but seeke trueth in humilitie to Gods glory their safetie Besids these motiues there are two demands which I cannot aptely reduce to any of the Motiues namely the seconde which he termeth the building of the Church and the laste which hee calleth Apostasie In the former demaund he asketh vs whether we haue not read this argument vsed by Chrisostome againste the Painims and Iewes that Christe is God because his Church hauing but a small beginning many stronge enemyes to withstand the building thereof yet could or can neuer be suppressed but contrariwise of a litle spark hath set all the world on fire c. I answere we haue read this argument and allowe of it Then sayth Bristowe How hath it beene these many hundreth yeeres quite suppressed yea and in Chrisostomes time no Church at all I answere that since it was first set vp it was neuer for one houre quite suppressed although by Antichriste these many hundred yeeres it hath beene greatly oppressed And in Chrysostomes time the Church did openly florishe although infected with some errors yet holding strongly the only tradition Iesus Christ which church was a member of the same vniuersall Church whereof our Church at this day is a parte with which Church in Chrysostoms time the popish church in that it disseÌ„teth from vs hath nothing coÌ„mon except one or two errors hauing the whole substance of doctrine contrary vnto it wherefore that argument staÌ„ding the popish church is nothing vnderpropped thereby which though it had a small beginning as the sect of Mahomet yet grew it by sufferance of God without great withstanding of strong enemies yea God sending the effecacy of error that it might preuaile and yet hath not increased ouer all â—he world but is for the most part contained in one parte of Europa deminishing where it is punished as in Germany Sauoy Denmarke Swetia and Englande growing onely where it is either mayntained by tyranny or tollerated by lenitie And now to the laste demaund of Apostasie wherwith he chargeth vs. Firste for chaunging the Priesthoode wherevpon must insue a chaunge of the law so this I aunswere we haue chaunged no priesthoode instituted by God but retaine that eldership and ministery ordayned by our Sauiour Christe Contrarywise the Pope hath changed Sacerdotium which Bristowe confesseth to be no other thing then presbiteratum which is the ministration of the Gospel yet commonly called both of him and vs Priesthood that Sacrificing priesthood I say w c the Apostle He. 7. affirmâ—th to be euerlasting and proper to the person of our Sauiour Christe hath the Pope translated vnto his shaueli gs and sette them vp to offer that Sacrifice which Christ only could offer and by once offering found eternall redemption yea the Priesthood of Melchisedech which the Lord by an othe confirmed only to our sauiour Christ. Psal. 100. Hee hath made common to all his Massemongers Therfore the Pope hath manifestly made an Apostacy from the lawe of Christ. The second argument by which Bristow would charge vs with Apostasie is for receiuing not one or two but so many olde heresies besides as he is bolde to say a thousand more of their owne inuention This beeing affirmed without all shew of proofe It shall suffice to deny and turne ouer vnto him and his fellowes The third argument is for taking from Christian men so many arguments of Christes diuinitie as the inuincible continuaunce and authoritie of his Church The honor and vertue of crosses and reliques miracles exorcismes vnitie Sacrifice c. I aunswere so many of these as are good and sufficient argumentes wee holde still the vnsufficient arguments doe rather disfornish then arme the Christians faith which we haue so strongly fortified with arguments out of the holy scriptures that all the power of darkenesse cannot preuaile against it The fourth argument is for leauing nothing vndenyed not Fathers not Councels not Traditions not Scriptures nor the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures the Churches institution and departing from the Fathers of all ages since Christes time agreeing with no Christian time nor none with them For denying of canonicall Scriptures it is an impudent slaunder as for Fathers Councelles Traditions Churches authoritie we affirme or deny as they agree or dissagree with the trueth of the holye scriptures the onely certaine witnesse of the will of God reuealed vnto men which we thinke more reasonable then the Papistes doe whiche denie fathers Councels Traditions yea the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and submit all vnto the iâ—dgement of their Church now when then the controuersie is whether they be the Church of God or of the Deuill whereas the Scriptures are of bothe partes confessed to be the worde of God in generall termes although in comparison of the authoritie of their Church Piggius calleth the holy Scripture a nose of Wax and a dumbe iudge Eccius tearmeth the written gospel a black Gospel and an inkish
diuinitie Hosius sayth that this commaundement of Christe Drinke ye all of this beeing vnderstoode doth appertaine vnto laye men contrary to their Churches determination is the expresse worde of the Deuill And for departing from the faith of the Fathers c. I aunswere it is false there is but one true Faith of all true Christians in al times from which wee will neuer departe although wee haue departed from some erroneous opinions of some fathers which because they are contrary to the woorde of God by hearing whereof Faith commeth they deserue not the name of Faith Finally whereas hee sayth the authoritie of the Church is the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures it is vntrue For although he should meane not the popish Sinagogue butthe true catholike church of Christ yet is it not the onely witnesse of the Scriptures For euen the Iewish Synagogue is witnesse of the olde testament and many sectes of heresies of all the scripture beside that the spirit of God is the chiefe and principall witnes of all which speaketh so euidently in allthe canonical scripture that if all mē on earth should refuse to giue credite vnto them yet his maiestie alone is sufficient to get credite vnto them especially with all those whome he teacheth inwardly in heart as he speaketh sensibly to their eares The last argument is That in place of all Religion and goodnes which they haue remoued deuising a new Gospel of their foresaid onely vaine fayth which teacheth all sinnes all heresies to presume of saluation What can bee more impudent or false then this slaunder seeing God and the worlde knoweth that wee teach none other Faith but the fayth of the Gospell which worketh by loue and promiseth remission of sinnes and saluation to none but such as earnestly repent and are willing to remoue all heresie and to imbrace all true Christian Religion and goodnesse God be praysed A DISCOVERY OF THE DAVNGEROVS ROCKE OF THE POPISH CHVRCH lately commended by Nicholas Sanders D. in diuinitie at which the Catholike Church of Christ hath bene in perill of shipwracke these many hundreth yeares By W. Fulke D. in diuinitie THE eternal rocke of the vniuersal Church Christ was the rocke an other foundation no man is able to put 1. Cor. 3. 10. The temporall rocke of the Militant Church Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will build my Church Mat. 16. SPaule speaketh manifestly 1. Cor. 3. of building of the Church Militant and Christ Mat. 16. speaketh of an eternall rocke against the which the gates of hell shall not preuayle Therefore your distinction of eternall and temporall vniuersall and militant which is the foundation of all your rotten rocke is an impudent and blasphemous falshood Of the continuance of your temporall rocke it is in vaine to contende when your rocke is nothing els but an heape of sande and dunge whereon your popishe Church is builded To the right worshipfull M. Doctor Parker bearing the Saunder name of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to all other Protestants in the Realme of England Nicolas Sander wisheth perfect faith and charitie in our Lorde declaring in this preface that the Catholikes whome they call Papistes doe passe the Protestants in all maner of signes or markes of Christes true Church Concerning the omission of titles accustomed to be giuen to the Archbishop of Canterbury for which you excuse your selfe I thinke M. D. Parker while he liued did not much esteeme them giuen to him by any man and least of all looked to receyue them at suche mens handes as you are but touching the religion church whereof he was a minister I will aunswer you in his behalfe and of all other ministers and members thereof that no excuse will serue you vpon so slender reasons as you bringe to condemne the same of schisme and heresie nor to defend that Synagogue of Satan wherof you professe your selfe to be a Champion to be the vndefiled Church and spouse of Christ. For thinke you M. Sanders that we wil more mislike the Church of Christ persecuted by the hypocriticall crueltie of Antichrist for the space of 5. or 6. hundreth yeares before our age then we do the same persecuted by the furious rage of Heathenish tyrantes for 300. yeares after the first planting of the same amonge the Gentills And thinke you if we are now to learne that all that glory and bright shining of Christes Church promised by the Prophets is spirituall and not carnall heauenly and not earthly eternal not transitory Or that we know not your synagogue to be the very contrary kingdome and sea of Antichrist euen by that outward glory and glistering pompe of open shewe that you boast of according to the prophecy of Christ in the reuelation Apoc. 13. 17. And as for the citie built vpon an hill whereof you haue neuer doone babling by the playne context of the Gospel is not the whole Church but euery true pastor and minister thereof who are also the light of the worlde the salt of the earth and a candle set on a candlesticke to giue light not hiden vnder a bushell to be vnprofitable Mat. 5. And Christ hath alwayes bene with his Church although the Church of Rome be departed from him and he both liueth raigneth for euer ouer the house of Iacob though he be persecuted in his mēbers by the whore of Babylon and his name is great amonge the Gentilles from the Sunne rising to the going downe thereof notwithstanding that all nations haue dronke of the cuppe of her fornications The prophecyes of Gods spirit doe not one of them ouerthrow the other but the one sheweth how the other is to be vnderstanded And whereas you say our Church hath bene vnder a bushell before these fiftie yeares because no historie maketh mention of any congregation professing our faith in any townes or places of diuers cōtryes at once I aunswer this is as true as all your doctrine beside For all auncient histories that write of the state of the primitiue Church make mention of the same faith which we professe And although towarde the reuelation of Antichrist the puritie of the faith beganne to be polluted yet the substance thereof continued vntill by Antichrist that great defection apostasie was made wherof the Apostle prophecyeth 2. Thess. 2. 3. And yet euen in the tyme of that a postasie many histories make mention of the continuance of our faith and Church in diuers contryes in Europe namely England Fraunce Italy or although vnder cruell persecution and tyranny beside great nations of the East which neuer submitted them selues to the Church of Rome and yet retayned the substance of Christian faith and profession though not without particular errors and superstition Wherefore although they that were blind or farre of from the Church of Christ could not see her glory although she had bene set vpon neuer so high an hill no more then a citie built vpon the Alpes can
be seene in England yet they that had spirituall eyes and by Gods grâ—ce drewe neare vnto his Church did in the most obscure tymes as the worlde esteemeth them see the cleare bewtie of her light and the glorye of the Lordes hill lifted vp aboue all the hills in the world Esa. 2. The heathen tyrants thought by their cruell persecution that they had vtterly rooted out the name and nation of Christians from the face of the earth Nero gloried that he had purged the world of the superstition of Christ as appeareth in an olde inscription in a picture of stone Neroni â—l Caes. Aug. Pontif. Max. ob prouin latromb hijs qui nouam generi hum superstitionem inculcar purgatam To Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus the greatest Prelate for that he hath purged the prouince of theeues and them that brought in a newe superstition to mankind Likewise another like piller there is of Diocletian and Maximian in these wordes Diocletian Iouius Maximi Herculeus Caes. Augu. Amplificato per Orientem Occident nup. Rom. nomme Christianorum deleto quiremp euertebant Diocletianus Iouius and Maximianus Herculeus Caesaris Augusti hauing amplified the Empire of Rome both in the East and West and vtterly destroyed the name of Christians which did ouerthrow the common wealth Another like there is of Diocletian alone Diocletian Caes. Aug. Galerio in Oriente adoptat superstitione Christi vbique deleta cultu Deorum propagato Diocletianus Caesar Augustus hauing adopted Galerius in the East and in all places vtterly destroyed the superstition of Christ and set forth the worship of the Gods By these inscriptions and glorious titles you see that the heathenish tyrants perswaded them selues that they had vtterly defaced the religion of Christ destroyed his Church out of the worlde what maruell then if Antichrist and his adherents which to the cruelty of the former tyrants haue added most detestable hypocrisy haue thought that they had so wholy subuerted the true religion of Christ and his true Church that the name ether of Church or religion might not seeme to haue remayned in the world but that of the Romish Antichrist But as Nero the Pontif. Maximus of Rome with Diocletiane and the reste were deceyued in their time so their successors in place office and wickednes the Popes of Rome are likewise disapoynted of their cruell purpose But M. Sander glorieth that in all markes and signes of the true Church the popish Church doth excel ours But first of all that which is the onely true marke and triall of the Church namely the word of God he denyeth to be a sufficient marke of the true Church yet had he before confessed the Church to be the piller and stay of truth 1. Tim. 3. but the rule of truth if we beleue our Sauiour Christ is the word of God Iohn 17. 17. therefore the word of God is the onely true tryall and marke of the Church But let vs consider his reasons by which he woulde perswade vs that y e word of God is not the chiefe marke whereby the true Church of God may be knowen First he sayth the marke whereby an other thing is knowne ought it selfe to be most exactly knowne wheras we are not agreed what Gods word is Note this reason of his by which he taketh away all authoritie and vse from the worde of God not onely thereby to discerne the true Church but also to teache vs any other thinge that is needefull for vs to know But why I pray you are we not agreed what is Gods word Forsooth because some cal onely the written letter and the meaning thereof Gods word other thinke many thinges are Gods word which are not expressely written but deliuered by tradition from the Apostles and by the holy Ghost which hath written his lawes in our hartes of this later sort be the Papists but they are easily confuted For this principle must needes stand vnmoueable that Gods spirite is neuer contrary to him selfe Therefore seeing the spirite of God hath pronounced of the Scriptures that they are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. 16. it is certayne that God hath reuealed nothing by tradition for our instructioÌ„ which is not conteyned in his worde written much lesse any thing that is contrary to his doctrine deliuered in the holy Scriptures His second reason is that we are not agreed vpon the written word of God because the Protestants doe not admitte so many bookes of the olde testament as the Catholikes doe I aunswer the Protestants doe admit as many as the Catholike Church euer did or doth at this day His third reasoÌ„ is that the meaning of those bookes which we are agreed vpon is altogether in question betwene vs therfore that can be no marke of the church which it self is not knowne I answer although heretikes which are ouerthrowen in their owne conscience will acknowledge no meaning to be true but their owne yet are there many principles in the Scriptures so playne as they are graunted by both partes or els can not without shame be denyed of our aduersaries out of which playne certeyne and immutable principles all matters in controuersie may be proued and the same church also discerned which is the verie cause why the Papistes dare not abide the triall by the Scriptues but flye to traditions euen as their forefathers the auncient Valentinian heretikes of whome Irenaeus writeth lib. 3. cap. 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem conuertuntur ipsaruÌ„ Scripturam quasi non rectè habeant neque fuit ex auctoritate quia variè sunt dictae quia non possit ab his inueniriveritas qui nesciant traditionem non enim per literas traditam sed per viuam vocem When they are conuinced out of the Scriptures then fall they to accusing of the Scriptures them selues as though they were not right nor of sufficient authoritie because they are spoken doubtfully and that the trueth cannot be found of them which knowe not the tradition for that was not deliuered by letters but by word of mouth Thus much Ireneus of the olde Heretikes and what his iudgement was of the meaning of the Scripture which M. Sand. maketh so ambiguous he declareth lib. 2. cap. 35. Vniuersae scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitat similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt c. The whole Scriptures both of the Prophets and of the Gospells are open and without ambiguitie may be heard of all meÌ„ alike This speaketh Irenaeus not of euery text of Scripture but of the whole doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles which is so playne and easie to be founde in the Scriptures that no man can misse thereof that seeketh not of purpose to be deceyued as he sayth cap. 67. of the same booke But M. Sander is content for disputation sake to admit Gods word for a marke of the true Church and
will proue that it is first with the Papistes For if by Gods word we meane the written letter of the Bible they are before vs because we haue none assured copies thereof which we receyued not of them for since that day in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered Gods word to the Romaines the Church of Rome hath alwayes kept it without leesing or corrupting I aunswer we meane not by Gods worde the written letter onely but receyuing and obeying the true and playne sense thereof to be the marke of the Church Againe I deny that we had any assured copies of the olde and new testament of the popish Church but the one of the Iewes in Hebrue the other of the Greeke Church in Greeke And whereas he talketh of a certayne daye in which S. Peter and S. Paule deliuered the Scripture to the Romains it sauoreth altogether of a popish fable finally how the Romish Church in these last dayes hath kept the Scripture from corruption although I coulde shew by an hundreth examples yet this one shall suffice for all the very first promise of the Gospell that is in the Scripture Gen. 3. that the seede of the woman shoulde breake the serpents heade the popish Church hath ether willfully corrupted or negligently suffered to be depraued thus ipsa conteret caput iuum she shall breake thyne heade referring that to the woman which God speaketh expressely to the seede of the woman The second marke is that the Papistes acknowledge more of the Bible then we doe by the bookes of Toby Iudeth Wisedom Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees I aunswer in that you adde vnto the word of God it is a certayne argument that you are not the true Church of Christ for the true Church of Christ hath euer accompted those bookes for apocryphall witnesse hereof Hieronym praef in prouerb Sicut ergo Iudith Tobiae Machabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit sic haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis non ad auctoritateÌ„ EcclesiasticoruÌ„ dogmatum confirmandam Therefore as the Church doth in deede reade the bookes of Iudith Tobias and of the Machabees but she receyueth them not among the canonicall Scriptures so she may reade these two bookes meaning the booke of Wisedom and Ecclesiasticus for the edifying of the people but not to confirme the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall opinions Nether is Augustine de doct Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8. whoÌ„ M. Sander quoteth of any other iudgement but prescribeth rules how the canonicall Scriptures are to be knowne And cont Gaudent epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. he confesseâ—h plainely that the booke of Machabees is not accompted of the Iewes as the law the Prophets and the Psalmes which our Sauiour Christ admitteth as his witnesses yet it is receyued of the Church if it be read or heard soberly Whereby it is manifest that the Church in his tyme receyued it not absolutely as part of the Canonicall Scripture but vnder condition of a sober reader or hearer As for the decree ascribed to Gelasius it hath no sufficient credit of antiquitie and much lesse the late councels of Florence and Trent which he quoteth Beside that the same decree of Gelasius admitting but one booke of Esdras excludeth the Canonicall booke of Nehemias and receyueth but one booke of the Machabees which will doe the Papistes but small pleasure The third marke the popish Church receyueth not only the hebrue text of the old testament the greeke of the new but also the greeke translation of the septuaginta and the common Latine translation to be of full authoritie whereas we giue small credit to those translations except they agree with the first Hebrue and Greeke copies Therefore the Papists haue Gods word in more authenticke tongues and copies then we haue I aunswer The Tridentine councell alloweth none for authenticall but the common Latine translation that is the worst of all but in that the popish Church admitteth differing translations from the originall truth of the Hebrue and Greeke text to be of full authoritie with the truth it appeareth plainely that she is not the Church of Christ which ether willfully confoundeth error with truth or els lacketh the spirite of discretion to know the one from the other And for more authentike copies it is impudently sayd that the Papistes doe receiue for we receiue not onely all these which he nameth but also the most auncieÌ„t Chaldee Paraphrastes the Syrian text of the new testament yea the Arabicall text of the whole Bible beside all vulgare translations of English French Dutch Italian Spanish which the Papistes can not abide All those I saye we receyue as authenticall copies for Christian men to vse but so that the tryall of all translations be made by the originall truthe of the Hebâ—ue and Greeke texts in which tongue the olde and newe Testament were first written Fourthly the Papistes doe translate and expounde Gods worde in all maner of tongues better then we because they haue not onely internall vocation but also externall vocation and commission from the Apostles by lyneall succession of Bishops and Preestes whereas we haue no commission but â—rom the common wealth which hath none authoritie to make Preestes c and yet how shall they preache if they be not sent Rom. 10. I aunswer concerning translations of the word of God into all tongues I neuer saw any nether is there any translation to be shewed of any Papist into any vulgare tongue And as for the externall calling of the Papistes I say it is not from any lawfull succession of the Apostles and auncient Church whose faith and doctrine they do not follow in their interpretations for if lyneall succession of Priestes and Bishops coulde make interpretations good the doctrine of Arius Nestorius Macedonius and many other heretikes whose externall calling was according to the lyneall and ordinary succession of Bishops and Priestes might be auctorised for Catholike Yea the Papistes might not refuse whatsoeuer Luther Bucer Cranmer and other haue taught which had the same lyneall succession that M. Sander doth nowe bragge of And as for our externall calling he sayth falsly it is of the common weale c whereas it is of the Church and therefore ordinarye and lawfull and the saying of S. Paule whom he citeth Rom. the tenth is of the inward calling and sending by God whereof our doctrine agreeable with the Scripture and our whole intent to set forth the glory of God is a sufficient profe the one to satisfie men the other to aunswer our owne conscience Fiftly he sayth it is no perfection at all on our side that we reade Gods word to the people in our Church seruice in the vulgare tongue for thereby we lacke the vse of the better tongues as of the Greeke and Latine O maister of impudencie what vse is there of the Greeke and Latine tongues to be read to the people
if theire interpretation be none other then the sound of the word doth giue they make the newe Testament to be nothing but a drinking vessel But to discusse his examples the first is this text Matth. 26. This is my body why saith he is this which Christe poynteth to denied to be his body I answere it is affirmed to be his body in that sence that he spake and otherwise then he ment it is denyed to be his body Againe Iames saith Cap. 2. A man is iustified of workes not of faith onely VVhy then are workes denyde to iustifie or onely faith taught to iustifie I aunswere woorkes are not denyed to iustifie before men and onely faith is taught to iustifie before God Rom. 3. The doers of the lawe shalbe iustified Rom. 2. VVhy then teach you the lawe not to be able to be doone Because the Apostle saith that of the workes of the law none shalbe iustified before God Rom. 3. 20. for if the workes of the lawe could be done by any man perfectly as the law requireth he shold be iustified by thē as the text affirmeth By the obedience of one that is Christe many shall bee made righteous Rom. 5. VVhy then are wee denyed to bee really righteous and sayde to bee righteous by imputation onely Because the obedience of Christe is not really our obedience but by imputatiō of God through faith The loue of God is spread in our heartes by the holy ghost which is geuen vs. Rom. 5. This is more then a bare imputing of righteousnesse to vs yea Sir but this is not our iustification but an effect thereof for he saide immediatly before that beeing iustified by faith wee haue peace with God VVhose sinnes ye forgiue they shalbe forgiuē them Ioh. 20 VVhy then are Bishops and Priests denyed to forgiue sinnes We graunt that true Byshops and elders haue authoritie to forgiue sinnes in Gods name but not absolutely He that is great among you let him be made as the yonger Luke 22. VVhy then deny you that one was greater among the Apostles and is stil among the Bishops their successors One was not greater among the Apostles in authoritie for their greatnes was to be the greatest seruaunt to take the most paines to be most humble Mat. 18 Thou art Peter or a rock and vpon this Rock I wil builde my Church Mat. 16 VVhy is the militant Church denyed to be built vponS Peter and his suceessors in that chayre and office The Church is affirmed to be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and so vpon Peter as one of thē in which office he hath no successors Keepe the traditions which yee haue learned either by word or by an Epistle 1. Thessa. 2. VVhy then are traditions so dispised that the name cannot be suffred in the English Bible It may and is suffred in that sense which the holye Ghost vseth it but not to bring in prayer for the deade or any thing contrary to the scripture vnder the name of traditions Apostolike For the Apostle speaketh only of the doctrine which he deliuered to them either by preaching or by Epistle which is none other then is cōtayned in the holy Seriptures For of other traditions pretended to be of the Apostles he biddeth them take heede in the same Chapter vers 2. He that ioyneth his Virgine in mariage doth well and hee that doth not ioyne her doth better VVhy make you mariage as good as virginitie For such as haue the gift of continence we graunt virginitie is better in such respectes as the Apostle teacheth Vow eye and render your vowes vnto God Psal. 75. If thou wilt be perfect go and sel all thinges which thou haste giue them to the poore follow me Mat. 19. There are Eunuches which haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of Heauen Obey your Rulers and be subiect vnto them VVhy thē are the vowes of pouertie of chastitie and obedience counted vnlawful or men cōstrained not to performe thē The first text perteineth to the old Testamēt The second is a singular tryall to that one place The third we graunt in them to whome it is giuen the fourth we neuer made question about it but al these are euil fauouredly patched togither to proue the vowe of Monkery lawfull which is superstitious for want of Gods commaundement blasphemous for the opinion of merite impossible for the frailtie of many mens nature As for compulsion there is none vsed for no man is compelled to be rich vnchaste or disobedient Doe ye the worthy fruites of penaunce Luc. 3. VVhy thē is satisfaction and penaunce desptsed with you This text is Doe ye the fruits worthy of repentance We honour the fruites worthy of true repentance and exhorte all men to bring them forth but popish satisfaction hath nothing like to them For we beleeue that God doth freely forgiue the penitent for Christes sake The husband wife beeing two in one flesh is a greate sacrament or mistery in Christ in the church Ephe. 5. VVhy is then the mariage of faithful persons denied to be a sacrament If you vnderstand a sacrament generally for euery mystery we may graunt you it is a sacrament but if you vnderstand a sacrament specially for an outwarde signe of Gods fauour grace or a seale of our iustification it is none For if it were it should be necessary for all men to receiue it againe it hath the institutiō of God before the fall of man therefore can be no sacrament of y e new Testament to testifie our restitution Your cōmon translation turneth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a holy secret oftentime Sacramentum yet I know you woulde be ashamed to confesse so many sacramentes of the popish church as there be misteries which hee calleth sacramēts as Ephe. 3. the preaching of the gospell to the Gentiles he calleth Sacramentum 1. Tim. 3. So he calleth the incarnation of Christ sacramentum pietatis And are you not ashamed to delude ignorant men with the ambiguous name of a Sacrament VVork your saluatiō with feare trembling Phi. 2. VVhy then are you so presumptuous as euen by faith to assure your selues of you saluation because it followeth immediatly that it is God which worketh in vs both to will and to performe according to his good wil for it is no presumtion to assure our selues that the promises of God are true And he may welfeare which is assured to be saued for faith doth not exclude but plant in vs the feare of God though not a seruile feare As for y e deepe secretes of Gods predestination we take not vpon vs to knowe them otherwise then they be reuealed by his worde Finally where you aske whether faith be not an ordinary gift in the Church I answere you w t the Apostle that all men which are in the outward face of the Church and participate
of saluation brought in by the Pope then S. Paule deliuered to the Galathians we hold the Pope theÌ„ iustly accursed But we iustifie them sayth he by the word of God not written I am sure but by your counterfeit word of traditions as you say by bookes of auncient fathers and yet not by bookes of the most auncient fathers in whome is litle or nothing at all of suche drosse and chaffe amonge a great deale of good corne But seeing we made no new religion in those and such like thinges sayth he but keepe the olde humilitie obedience and vnitie is our fault if we haue any O fautles hypocrites if the older truth had neuer bene reuealed vnto you against your olde heresies your faults had bene the lesse but nowe your darkenes being conuinced of the light your pride rebellion and schisme from Christ and his Church is and appeareth most haynous and manifest Now seeing M. Sander dare not encounter with vs in this very poynt of our contention he sayneth an Idoll of an aduersary to shew his manhood vpon before his friendes that they may prayse him for a worthy champion He imagineth that we reply that Luther and Caluine did so change popish religion as Christ and his Apostles did chauÌ„ge the Iewish religion and then he layeth on lode that Luther and Caluines authoritie is not like to Christes whereas we make no such comparison but affirme that these godly preachers were sent of God so to reueale and discouer the idolatry corruptions mayntayned in the Church as Elias Elizeus Oseas and the other Prophets were sent to restore and reforme the true worship of God corrupted and decayed amonge the Israelites reprouing and reforming all thinges according to the infallible rule of Gods worde And whereas he trifleth of the continuance of the sacrifice of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech I say it is horrible blasphemy to make any successors vnto Christ in â—â—â—â— priesthood which the holy Ghost sayth he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as passeth not from him by succession to others because he liueth for euer And whereas he quoteth Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Augustin in Psal. 33. de ciui Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. cont adu leg lib. 1. cap. 18. reade the places who will and he shall finde that these fathers speake not at all of any propiciatory sacrifice of Christes very body and bloode in the sacrament but of the sacrifice of thankes giuing which the Church throughout all the world doth offer to God in the celebration of the holy mysteries for their redemption by the death of Christ. But it is sufficient for blinde and obstinate Papists to see the bookes margent paynted with quotations of doctors by them which peraduenture neuer turned the bookes them selues but borowed their quotations of other men But M. Sander sayth whereas we pretend that Luther and Caluine doe all things according to Gods worde they are the more to be abhorred not only because the one is contrary to the other but also because they pretende to haue their doings figured and prophecyed in the Gospel whereas there is but one Christ which hath bene borne dyed but once therefore these men haue no power to abrogate the Masse or to take away the key of auncient religion To their dissention I aunswer it is not in many poyntes but in one that not of the greatest weight as for their pretence of theyr doinges to be figured or prophetied in the Gospell it is a dreame of M. Sanders drousie head for they make none such but they shew the abuses of the Romish church by the doctrine of Gods word by the same they shew the way to reforme them and this to the glory of Christ who dyed but once they abrogate the Masse by which it should follow if it were of any force that he should dye often for without death sheding of bloud there is no sacrifice for remission of sinnes Heb. 9. 22. 26. If we deny the Masse to be that they say it is he aunswereth that as he doeth not reade that the Iewish priestes did erre concerning the substance of their publike sacrifice So is it lesse possible that the vniuersall church of Christ should erre in that publike act wherin Christ is sacrificed Here is a wise argument hauing neither head nor foote nor any ioynt to hange togeather For whatsoeuer M. Sander readeth we reade that Vrias the high Priest made an heathenish altar in the Temple at the commaundement of the king Achas offered sacrifice theron 2. Reg. 16. VVe reade also in Iosephus that Caiaphas diuers other of y e high Priestes were Saduces which could not but erre in the substaÌ„ce of their publike sacrifice when they beleued not the resurrection Seeing the end of theyr sacrifices was to signifie y e eternall redâ—ption by Christ. Now to the second parte of the argument I say the vniuersall church dyd not erre though the schismaticall synagogue of Rome departed froÌ„ Christs institutioÌ„ But M. SaÌ„der chafeth vs away with this double negatiue no no maisters Antechrists you may be christ you caÌ„not be Gods curse light on him that would haue any other Christ theÌ„ Iesus the sonne of God Mary which sitteth at the right hand of his father in heaueÌ„ But it is your Antechrist of Rome that vsurpeth not only the office but also receiueth the name of Christ God of his AntechristiaÌ„ Canonists w c I know you will not deny though your face be of brasse because â—â—â—â— boks may be shewed to any maÌ„y list to se theÌ„ After his large excursion he returneth to D. Parker whome he would aduise to reuolt to the popish church but he God be thanked hauing ended his dayes in the catholike church of Christ on earth is now receued into the fellowship of the tryumphant church in heauen I passe ouer how maliciously he â—ayleth against the blessed martyr Tho. Cranmer for defence of whose learning and godlines I refer the reader to his story faithfully set forth by M. Fox All other Archbishops of Canterbury he saith from Augustine sent thither by Gregory were of their popish profession Of a great number it is as he sayth but not of all For the opinion of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament was not receiued in the Church of England for two or three huÌ„dereth yeeres after Augustines arriual as that Homely which that reuerend father Matthew late Archbishop of Canterbury caused to be translated and imprinted doth manifestly declare And whereas hee sâ—orneth at the persecuted congregation of Wickleue Husse and the poore men of Lyons boasting of the externall pompe and visar of glory that was in the Romish Church I haue sufficiently aunsweared before that bothe the apostacy of the church of Antichrist the persecution of the church of Christ was so described proficied before that neither the one nor the other should trouble any mans conscience w
as Christ his Apostles forbiddeth as we see to be vsurped and practised by the Pope of Rome his clergy howsoeuer M. Sander in tearmes of distinction would seeme to shadow it But he will shewe out one of these places which we alleadge as if it did vtterly forbid all superiority amonge the Disciples luc 22 that the ecclesiasticall primacy is cleerely establyshed and confirmed First he sayth most vntruly that we deny all superiority amonge the Discyples of Christe as though we denyed all gouernmente amonge Christians excepte hee doe childishly vnderstande the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiasticall onely and yet wee denye not all superioritie among them but that kinde of primacie which the Pope claymeth and tyrannically vsurpeth Secondly he maketh a longe preamble before he come to the matter that althoughe the Apostles did diuerse times striue for the primacie as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 vpon the request of Zebedees wife Mark 10. after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ neuer denyed that there should be one greater among them and often signifyed that the same shoulde be S. Peter especially when he sayde thou arte Peter and vppon this Rock I will builde my Church If you demaunde why they stroue for supremacie when hee had determined it he yeeldeth a substantial reason because while Christe lyued vpon Earth it was in his free choise to haue appoynted it otherwise vntill at the last in the 21. of Iohn he saide vnto him Simon thou sonne of Iona. c. By these it appeareth that M. Sander confesseth that no text of Scripture proueth the supremacie of Peter more directly and playnely then this of Iohn 21. which when euery Childe seeth howe little force it hath to proue it you may easily iudge that the Papists them selues againste their owne consciences doe inforce all other Textes vttered before to establishe it And namely this of Luke 22. in which he sayth that Christ taking vppe the strife that was among his Apostles about the primacie ended his talke at laste with Simon Peter shewing him to bee that one that was greater then the rest What Asse if he coulde speake with mans voyce would reason thus that because Christe conuerting his speache from exhorting all his Apostles to admonishe Peter of his speciall daunger he stoode in by his infirmitie signifyed that Peter was greater then all the Apostles But wee muste heare him compare these words of Christe Luke 22. with the words of S. Mathew and Marke in other places which he sayth the Magdeburgen cent doth huddle vp as they were alone wheras they differ much The wordes of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these VVhosoeuer among you wil be greater let him be your seruitor And whosoeuer among you will be first shall bee your seruant In Sainct Luke 22. He that is greater among you let him be made as the younger and he that is chiefe as he that ministereth M. Sander will haue greate difference to be in these sayings First generally that the former sentence speaketh not of the greatnesse among ecclesiasticall officers but all Christians which is vtterly false because this kinde of greatnes is prescribed vnto them to whome external dominion is forbidden But that is not to all men but vnto the Apostles onely and their successors therefore this kinde of greatnes is proper only vnto them For he speaketh not of greatnes by humilitie onely but of greatnes without forraine dominion and worldly dignity and ioyned with seruice which is peculier to the ministery ecclesiasticall Secondly he maketh sixe friuolous differences which either are false or else make no diuersitie in the sence of the places The first Mathew and Mark speake of any man VVho soeuer S. Luke of one man which by the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pointed out If the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe alwaies pointe one certaine man it is somwhat that M. Sand. saith but If ten thousaÌ„d times and more as euery man meanely learned in the Greeke toung doth know it signifieth not one certaine man then is this a fond difference The second the other speake of a desire to be great VVho so would be great S. Luke of the effect already present he that is greater But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver 4. ouerthrow this differeÌ„ce with the former for ther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greateste is taken for any one that shall humble himselfe as a Childe and not for one made primate of the Church The third difference is that the letter speake of him that would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 great S. Luke of him that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greeke phrase But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the others signifyeth the greatest according to the Hebrue phrase it is manifest by the word vsed by both which call him also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or chiefest of all Therfore these three differences are not worth three chippes The fourth S. Matthew calleth him that woulde be great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seruaunte S. Luke giueth no name of seruice to him that is greater but he is willed to be youÌ„ger or vnderling Yet S. Luke in another place Cap. 9. vers 48. calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the least which shall be the greatest But what fonde quarrelling is this Doth not the Pope call himselfe seruaunt of the seruantes of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest seruice belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dignitie though indeede he yeelde no seruice but vsurpeth all tyranny Is M. Sander nowe ashamed of that seruice that the Pope by solemne title hath so longe professed As for a preeminence of order we deny not but it was among the Apostles must be in euery seuerall company although it be not necessary that it should be perpetual in one man but as euery Church shall ordaine but a primacy of authoritie ouer all the Church we vtterly deny that euer it was graunted to Peeter or any man by our Sauiour Christe M. Sand. citeth Ambrose in Luke 22. to proue it Qui lapsus es c. Thou which didst slide before thou didst weepe after thou haste wepte art set vpright that thou shouldesirule others who before haddest not ruled thy selfe Loe sayth he Peter did rule others A great myrracle but doth it follow that either he ruled al meÌ„ or that he ruled his equals the Apostles of whome the same Ambrose sayth De spiritu Sancto lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Paulus inferior Petro quamuis is ecclesiae fundamentum hic sapiens architectus sâ—iens vestigia credentium fundare populorum Neither was Paule inferiour to Peter although hee was the foundation of the church Paul a wise builder knowing howe to founde the steps of the people beleuing And again in his boke de incarnatione Domini ca. 4. Hic inquam vbi audiuit vos â—utem quid
Apostles had I aunswer the kinges supremacie is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had For although he haue authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons and in causes Ecclesiasticall according to Gods word yet is he no Ecclesiasticall officer but a ciuill Magistrate hauing chiefe authoritie in all causes not absolute to doe what he will but onely what God commaundeth him namely to prouide by lawes that God may be truely worshipped and all offences against his religion may be punished And whereas M. Sander inferreth that an Ethnike Prince or Turke may be supreame heade of our Church we vtterly denye to any such the name of an head which can not be a member but euen an Ethnicke Prince or a Turke may be chiefe Magistrate ouer the faithfull and make lawes for the mayntenance of Christian religion as an hypocrite Christian may They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God Nabuchadnezer Darius Cyrus Artaxerxes which were heathen Princes made godly lawes for the true worship of God furtherance of his people as in the prophecie of Daniel the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah it is manifest S Paule appealed to Nero the Emperor Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24 that the Christians in a matter of a Bishopps election and for a Bishops house were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperour And this notwithstanding the Church is alwayes vnder the soueraigne authoritie of Christ and the spirituall gouernment of her seuerall pastors and teachers when Christ ascending into heauen ordayned for her edification and vnitie and not one Pope ouer all Eph. 4. 13. But now he will enter one degree farther and suppose that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortall man to be or as any Bishop and Priest is yet he can nether baptize consecrate forgiue sinnes praise excommunicate blesse nor be Iudge of doctrine by his kingly authoritie If he can doe none of those he can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes I denye this argument For his supremacie is not to doe those thinges or any of them but to prouide and commaund that they may be doon as they ought to be But he riseth vp againe and sayth that whosoeuer hath soueraigne authoritie either in ciuill matters or Ecclesiasticall he may in his owne person execute any of those thinges which any of his inferiours may do So he saith the king if he wil may be Iudge in VVestminster hall shrieue and constable yea he may play the tayler maister Carpenter or tanner It is maruell he sayth not that he may be both a king and subiect Likewise the primate he might as wel say the Pope may helpe a Priest to Masse cary the crosse in procession digge a graue c. I deny this rule to hold in all thinges For there are some thinges that the Prince may not doe for lacke of knowledge and some thinges for lacke of calling and yet he may commaund both to be done For controuersies of lawe he may not decyde except he haue knowledge of the law nor minister Phisick except he haue knowledge in phisicke yet he may command both Lawyers Phisitions to doe according to their knowledge likewise to preache baptize c. he may not because he lacketh calling for none may doe those thinges lawfully but he that hath a speciall calling but he may commaund those thinges to be done to be well done according to Gods lawe whereof he ought not to be ignorant and for that purpose is especially commaunded to study in the booke of Gods lawe that not onely in matters concerning his owne person but in matters concerning Gods honor he may cause all men to doe their duetie Deut. 17. 18. So did Dauid Salomon Iehosaphat Ezechias Iosias commaund the Priestes to offer vp the sacrifices and to doe their duetie which it was not lawfull for their kinges to execute And is it so straunge a matter that a popish king may not commaund his Chaplayne to saye Masse or to saye his Masse reuerently and orderly as the lawes of popery doe require if he may commaund ouer tho e matters which yet he may not doe him selfe let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth that whosoeuer hath authoritie in any matters may doe all thinges him selfe which any of his inferiours may doe or which he may commaund to be done whereupon he concludeth that the king hath no right or supreame power at all in Ecclesiasticall causes vnlesse it be committed to him from the Bishop so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary may doe that by M. Sanders exception w c nether by commaundement of God nor his kingly power he hath auctoritie to doe Another argument he bringeth as good as this that the lesser authoritie doth not comprehend the greater and therefore M Horne must aunswer him whether to preache baptize forgiue sinnes c. be greater or lesser ministerie then the kinges authoritie If it be greater then it can not be comprehended in the kinges authoritie which is lesser What that reuerend father the Bishop of Winchester hath aunswered it may be seene in his booke against M. Feckenham But to talke with you M. Sander what if I graunt that the Ecclesiasticall ministery is not comprehended in the kinges authoritie will you thereupon inferre that the kinges authoritie is not to commaund the ministers of the Church in these matters to doe their dueties according to the worde of God In deede you conclude so but your argument is naught For the king is Gods Lieuetenant to see both the Church and the common wealth to be wel ordered And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diuers respectes As in authoritie of commaunding the king is greater then the Phisition in knowledge practise of phisicke the king is lesse then the Phisition So in authority of coÌ„maunding the prince is greater then the minister but in authoritie of ministration he is lesse and no inconuenience in the world to the dignitie of other estate or calling The Bishop of Winchesters examples M. Sander saith are euil applyed For they only shew what was done and not what ought to haue bene done and so for many circumstaÌ„ces are subiect to much wrangling 1. For either he was no good Prince which medled with disposing of holy matters 2. or in that deede he was not good 3. or he did it by coÌ„mission from a Prophet or an high Priest 4. or he was deceiued by flatterers 5. or he was inforced by necessitie But all these quarells notwithstanding the examples of Scripture are so many and so playne that M. Sanders â—â—angling can not obscure them Dauid a good Prince did well in appoynting the Leuits and Priestes to their seuerall offices and forbidding the Leuits to cary the arke and the vessells thereof without any coÌ„mission from Priest or Prophet but onely by the word of God not deceyued by flatterers nor enforced by necessitie 1. Chron. 23.
made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one he is not ashamed to charge Maister Iewell for leauing the moste literall sense and mingling three opinions of these foure in one as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ were the onely or moste literall sense But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particulerly with all circumstaunces for my parte considering all circumstaunces I think the most simple and plaine meaning of Christe is that Peter it a Rocke or stone vppon which the Church is buylded but none otherwise then euery one of the Apostles is Ephe 2. and 20. verse and in the Apocalips the 21. chapter and 14. verse Of which M. Sander also confesseth euery one to be a Rock in his kinde But nowe let vs see the fiue circumstaunces by which Maister Saunder will proue Peter for to bee such a Rocke as none of all the reste of the Apostles is but he The firste Christe promised Symon before he confessed that he shoulde be called Peter whiche was the firste cause of beeing the Rocke Iohn I. Admit this to bee a promise not an imposition of a name in respect of the giftes of fortitude constancie where with he woulde endue him this proueth him not to be a singular rocke The second he was named Peter before he coÌ„fessed which was the performaunce of the promise Mark 3. I dout not but that he had coÌ„fessed Christ before he was made an Apostle although he had not made that solemne confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstaunce is a friuolous argument And his brother Andrewe which first brought him to Christ confessed Iesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ. The thirde when he had confessed the Godheade of Christ which was the fruâ—ct of the gift of the promise Christ pronounced him to be such a rocke whereupon he would build his church which was the reward of his confession But all the Apostles made the same confession therefore the same reward was geuen to all that they should euerie one be a rocke or stone on which the church should be builded The fourth Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle which was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter was in respect of his greater weakenes when he was left to him selfe The last to shew what strength Peter should geue to his brethren after his conuersion Christ bad him feede his lambes wherby he was made such a rock wherby he should stay vp his church by teaching ruling y e faithful as whose voyce the sheepe should be bound to heare in payne of damnation First I answere that the strength or confirmation which he should geue to his brethren was not all one with his feeding of the lambes but was vsed to the strengthening of his weake brethren the rest of the Apostles whom after his maruelous conuersion he did mightely confirme though in his fall he was shewed to be the weakest of all Then I say the feeding of the sheepe of Christ was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles in which he had no prerogatiue of auctoritie geuen but an earnest charge to shewe his greater loue by greater diligence in his office So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock then euery one of the Apostles is The fourth Chapter DIuerse reasons are alleaged to proue chiefely by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture that these wordes thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will builde my church haue this literall meaning vpon thee ô Peter being first made a rocke to thend thou shouldest stoutely confesse the faith and so confessing it I will build my church the promise to be caelled Peter was the first cause VVhy the church was built vpon him the Protestants can not tel which is the first literall sense of these wordes vpon this rocke will I build my church FIrst it is to be remembred that M. SaÌ„der in the chapter before reiecting the interpretatioÌ„ of three of the greatest Doctors of the church Origen Augustine and Chrysostom not only is bound in equity to geue vs the same liberty which he taketh him selfe but also to confesse that these three principal doctors following other senses then his were ignoraunt of that which he all other Papists make to be the chiefe article of Christian faith namely of the supremacie of Peter when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rocke wherupon Christ would build his church and therfore would neuer haue subscribed to his booke which he instituteth the rock of the church But nowe to the argument of this chapter Chrysostomis cited to proue that where Christ sayth to Peter thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cepha which is by intepretation Peter a newe name is promised to Simon in Ioan. Hom. 18. Honorifice c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him For the certeine foretelling of things to come is the worke only of the immortal God It is to be noted that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all thinges which shoulde come to passe afterwarde to him For he did not call him Peter neither did he say vpon this rocke will I builde my church But he sayd thou shalt be called Cephas For that was both of more power and also of more auctoritie There is nothing in this sentence but that we may willingly admit Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelue foundations of the church as he was afterward And that Chrysostom iudged no singular thing to be graunted by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter appeareth by his wordes in Euang. Ioann Praef. Where he applieth the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus columna omniuÌ„ quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum qui caeli claues habet For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ being a piller of all the churches which are in the worlde which hath the keyes of heauen Neither doth Cyrillus whom he citeth make any thing for his purpose In Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon c. And he telleth afore hande that his name shalbe Peter and not nowe Simon by the very word signifying that he would build his church on him as on a rocke and most sure stone These are the wordes of Cyrillus but that he meaneth not his person but his faith he sheweth manifestly in his booke de Trinit lib. 4. speaking vpon the text of Math. 16. the grounde of M. Sanders booke Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud quam inconcussam firmissimam discipuli fidem vocauit in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata fundata esset vt non laberetur I thinke he called a rocke by denomination nothing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast
these wordes vpon this rocke I will builde my church it proueth not your exposition to be true for neither do all the old Doctors nor yet the new Papistes agree in one the same interpretation of this text And oftentimes it may inuincibly be proued that an heresie hath no grounde out of suche a text of Scripture although the true and naturall sense thereof can not be found at all The fift Chapter IT is proued out of the auncient fathers that S. Peter is this rocke whereupon the church was promised to be builded otherwise then M. Iewell affirmeth THat Peter was a rocke or stone vpon which the church was builded is graunted of vs but that he alone was a rock for the whole church to be builded vpoÌ„ we deny and M. Iewell rightly affirmeth that the olde Catholike fathers haue written and pronounced not any mortall man as Peter was but Christ him selfe the sonne of God to be this rocke whereon y t whole church is builded But M. Sander will proue if he can out of the old writers that not onely Christ is the chiefe rocke but Peter also is an other rocke so that the church by his doctrine is builded vpon two rockes and this he will shew 1. by their words 2. their reasons 3. by the same places which M. Iewell alleageth for the coÌ„trary opinioÌ„ The decretal epistles of Anacletus Pius Fabianus c. which in his owne conscience he knoweth to be forged he omitteth and beginneth with Tertullian De praescrip aduers. haeres Latuit aliquid Petrum aedisicaÌ„dae ecclesiae Petram dictum Was any thing hid from Peter which was called a rocke of the church which was to be builded This is graunted that he was a rocke or stone whereon the churche is builded and the same Tertullian in his booke de pudicitia sayth of this whole text that this was conferred to Peter Personally and perteineth to none other but such as he was namely an Apostle or Prophet Secundum enim Petri personam spiritualibus potestas ista conueniet aut Apostolo aut Prophetae For according to the person of Peter this power shall belong to spiritual men either to an Apostle or to a Prophet Where is then the succession of the B. of Bome But Hippolytus saith Princeps Petrus fideipetra Peter is chiefe a rocke of faith He meaneth a strong preacher of faith not a rocke whereon faith is builded Origenes in Exod. Ho. 5. calleth S. Peter Magnum illud c. That great foundation and most sound rocke whereupon Christ hath builded his church But let Origenes expound him selfe in Math. cap. 16. Si autem super vnum illum Petrum arbitraris vniuersam ecclesiam aedisicari à deo quid dicis de Iacobo Ioanne filus tonitrui velde singulis Apostolis Verè ergo ad Petrum quidem dictum est Tues Petrus super hanepetram edifiâ—abo ecclesiam meam pertae inferorum non praeualebâ—nt ei tamen omnibus Apostolis omnibus quibus q perfectis fidelibus dictum videtur quoniam omnes sunt Petrus petrae in omnibus aedificata est ecclesia Christi aduersus nullum ecrum qui tales sunt portae preualent inferorum But if thou thinke the whole church is builded by God vpon that one man Peter what sayst thou of Iames and Iohn the sonnes of thunder or of euerie one of the Apostles Therefore it was in deede truly sayd vnto Peter Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will builde my church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile agaynst it yet it seemeth that it was spoken also to all the Apostles and to all the perfect faithfull because they are all Peter and stones and on them all the church of Christ is builded and agaynst none of them which are suche the gates of hell shall preuayle By this you see howe Origen is none of his howe so euer he abuse his name Next he citeth Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. lib. 4. Ep. 9 which sayeth that the church was builded vpon Peter Which we confesse as vpon one of the foundation stones but the same Cyprian De simplicitate praelatorum sayth Hoc erant vtique caeters Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscinur vt ecclesia vna monstretur The rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honor and auctoritie but the beginning procedeth from one that the church might be shewed to be one This speaketh Cyprian vpon the very text now in discussing Consequently he citeth Hilarie lib 6. de trinit Petrus c. Peter lieth vnder the building of the church and in ca. Math. 16. O in nuncupatione c. O happy foundation of the church in hauing the new name pronounced and ô rocke worthie of the building of that church which should dissolue the lawes of hell But the same Hilarie sayeth of Christ de trinit lib. 2. Vna haec est foelix fidei petra Petri ore confessa tu es filius Dei viui This is that onely happie rocke of fayth confessed by the mouth of Peter thou art the sonne of the liuing God And agayne lib. 6. Super hanc igitur confessionis petram ecclesiae aedificatio est Vpon this rocke of confession is the building of the church And againe Haec fides ecelesiae fundamentum est per hanc fidem infirmae aduersus eam sunt portae inferorum Haec fides regni caelestis habet claues c. This fayth is the foundation of the churche by this fayth the gates of hell are of no force agaynst it This fayth hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. Therefore not the person of Peter is the rocke for all the church to be built vpon S. Ambrose hath the next place whome he citeth Scr. 66. Si ergo c. If Peter then be a rocke vpon which the church is builded he doth well to heale first the feete that euen as he doth conteyne the foundation of faith in the church so in the man he may confirme the foundation of his members Of the auctoritie of this Sermon I will not dispute it shall sufâ—ice that Ambrose in Ps. 38. sayth Quod Petro dicitur Apostâ—lis diâ—itur non pâ—testatem vsurpamus sed seruiâ—â—s â—mperio That which is sayd to Peter is said to the Apostles we vsurpe not power but we serue vnder commaundâ—ment By this saying of Ambrose Peter is so a rocke and foundation as the other Apostles are not a rocke to beare all the building him selfe S. Basil is alleaged in Concâ—de paenit Petrus petra est c. Peter is a rocke through Christ the rocke For Iesus geueth his owne dignities he is a rocke and maketh a rocke This proueth not Peter to be the onely rocke of the militant church as M. Sander would make him After him he citeth Hierom in 16. Math.
blessed faith obtaine an exceding or passing glory vltra humanae infirmitatis moduÌ„ beyond y e measure of mans infirmitie w c wordes also Hilary hath left you should thinke he preferreth Peter in auctoritie before y e other Apostles For Peters fayth confession he did before interprete to be the rocke of the Church w c because it was common to all the Apostles he maketh their authoritie equall Vos ô sancti beati viri ob sidei vestrae merituns claues regni caelorum sortiti ligandi aique soluendi in caelo in terra ius adepti O you holy and blessed men which for the worthines of your faith haue obtayned the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and haue attayned to auctoritie to bind and loose in heauen and in earth And if you vrge that Peter spake when all the rest helde their peace yet is that primacye but of order not of authoritie for they all beleued as Peter confessed and Peter confessed in the name of all the rest The 3. Cyprian ad Iubaianum Ecclesia quae est vna c. The Churche which is one is founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one which hath receyued the keyes of it This reason sayth he can beare but one such rocke for if there were more rocks at once there should be more churches But it is reason that Cyprian should expound him selfe which by founding meaneth the beginning of the foundation as he sayth de simplicitate pr elat Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum c. The Lorde speaketh to Peter I say to thee sayth he that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuayle against it To thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen And to the same after his resurrection he sayth Feede my sheepe And although he giueth to all his Apostles after his resurrection equall power and sayth as my father hath sent me so also doe I sende you receyue the holy Ghost Whose sinnes you forgiue they shall be forgiuen and whose sinnes you retayne they shall be retayned yet that he might shewe the vnitie by his authoritie he disposed the beginning of the same vnitie beginning at one For verely the rest of the Apostles were euen the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowship both of honour and of power but the beginning procedeth from vnitie that the Church might be shewed to be one Thus farre Cyprian By which we see that there is but one beginning yet all the Apostles are equall This vnitie of beginning of building Tertullian also lib. de pudic sheweth to haue bene in Peter when he was the first that preached after the ascention of Christ. The 4. Augustine Hom. de pastoribus Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe there were many Apostles and it is say dâ— to one feede my sheepe Here he will haue Peter to represent Christ the onely good shepeheard although the wordes importe no such thing but onely a mystery of vnitie which is but friuolously gathered by the author of that booke or homely vntruly ascubed to S. Augustine where yet he will not haue Peter to be the head but to beare a figure of the body of Christ which is the Church Whereupon his wordes follow soone after Na n ipsum Petrum cui commendauit oues suas quasi alter alteri vnum seâ—um facere volebat vt sic ei oues commendaret vt esset ille caput ille figuram corporis portaret id est Ecclesiae tanquam sâ—onsus sponsa essent duo in carne vna For he would make euen Peter to whome he commended his sheepe as one to another one with him selfe that he might so commend his sheepe to him that he him selfe might be the heade and Peter might beare the figure of his body that is of his Church and so they might be as the bridegrome his spouse two in one flesh These words shew how vaine M. Sanders collection is for Peters headship beside that he citeth the wordes otherwise then they are in the author euen as his note booke serued him The 5. reason is vttered by Hierome aduersus Iouinianum lib. 1. aunswering the obiection of Iouinian and intending to proue that Iohn the virgine was as excellent as Peter the maried man At dicis c. But thou sayst the Church is built vpon Peter Albeit the selfe same thing in another place be done vpon all the Aposiles all doe receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the strength of the Church be grounded equally vpon them yet therefore one is chosen among twelue that a head being made the occasion of schisme may be taken away Here he woulde haue three thinges to be noted First that the Church is so built vpon Peter the rocke that in the same place where it is built vpon Peter the like is not done vpon the other Apostles But seeing he him selfe before vrged the future tence I will build this collection is false Christ promiseth that he will builde his Church vpon Peter but when he buildeth he vseth all the Apostles as well as Peter Secondly that the church is equally built vpon all the Apostles therefore not more on Peter then on the rest Thirdly that one is chosen head to auoyde schisme But if all be equall he as keth how one may be head I aunswer euen as the foreman of the Iury in some respectes is chiefe and yet they are all equall But he aunswereth they are equall in authoritie as Apostles but not as Bishops But seeing the office of euery Apostle is aboue the office of euery Bishop it will followe that euery Apostle as Apostle is aboue Peter as Bishop of Rome which were a perilous matter for Maister Sander to admitte Howbeit concerning this distinction of his more is to be sayd in a more proper place In the meane tyme he vrgeth that Peter was chosen of Christ to be heade to auoyde strife and schisme which reason seeing it holdeth alwayes there ought alwayes one heade to be chosen to be a heade and perpetuall rocke by succession I aunswer the reason of auoyding schismes may gayne so much that in euery Church such as the first of the Apostles was such an head for such purpose may be chosen but it will not inforce one heade being a mortall man ouer all the Churche which no one man can keepe in vnitie and how conuenient the headship of the Romish Church is to auoyde schismes let so many schismes as haue bene made euen for the attayning of the same headship beare witnes Whereof one continued 39 yeares As for Leo Bishop of Rome it is well knowen hee was too much addicte to maintaine the dignitie of his Sea and yet he was farre from the tyranny which
the later byshops vsurped and practised vnder pretence of Peters supremacie His words ate cited in Ann. ass ser. 3. Super hoc Saxum c. Vppon this stone this soundnes and strength I will builde an euerlasting temple and the hight of my Church which is to reach to Heauen shall rise in the strength of this Rocke A great extolling of Peter vsuall to the Byshops of Rome but yet no more is saide of him then may be truely faide vpon euery one of the Apostles The 6. reason is vttered by Augustine Ep. 165. Petro totins ecclesiae figuram c. Our Lorde saide to Peter bearing the figure of the whole Church vppon this rocke I will builde my church And againe in Ioan Tr. 124. Ecclesiae c. Peter the Apostle by a generalitie that was figured did beare the person of the Church by reason of the primacie of his Apostleship Heere he maketh much adoe aboute his primacie by reason whereof he beareth the figure of all the Church willing to inferre that because hee was primate of the Apostles and in respect of his primacy represented the whole Church therefore he was soueraigne ruler and generall officer of the whole militant Church But it followeth not that euery one which is made an atturney or Proxei to receiue a thing for a whole comminaltie is thereby made generall ruler of al that comminaltie The Papistes them selues in the Councell of Basill discharge vs of this conclusion where they agree to the sentence of Iohn Patriarch of Antiochia which citeth Augustine to witnesse that Peter receiued the Keyes as minister of the Church And Augustine writeth De Agone Christ. cap. 30 Non enim siae causa inter omnes Apostolos huius ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus Huic enim ecclesie clauis regni caelorum datae sunt Et cum ei dicitur ad omnes diâ—itur Aâ—nas me Pasce oues meas For not without cause amonge all the Apostles Peeter sustaineth the person of this Catholike Churche For to this Churche the Keyes of the kindome of Heauen are giuen And when it is saide vnto him it is saide to all Doest thou loue me feede my sheepe By this sentence it is playne that Christe after Augustines minde preferred not Peter in power before all the rest but to receiue equall power with the reste hee made him as it were the Attornye of the rest So that all these reasons duely considered the sayinges of the Doctors which affirme Peter to be a rocke or stone on which the Church is builded doe not prooue that hee was an onely foundation of the whole Church but with the rest of the apostles he was one and the firste of the twelue stones whereon the Church was founded and that in respect of his office and doctrine not of his person as he wasa mortal man The seuenth Chapter THE authorities alleadged by M. Iâ—well to proue that Peter was not this Rock proue against him self that Peter was this Rocke although they proue that there was an other kinde of Rock also beside him which thinge wee denye not THE first authoritie is Gregorius Nyssenus in loc vet test Thou art Peter and vpon this rock I will build my church He meaneth the confession of Christ. For he had sayd before Thou art Christe the sonne of the liuing God M. S. replieth that it is neither said that Peter was not this Rock nor that Christ was this rock But that the confession of Peter was the Rock whiche he graunteth and therefore Peter much rather muste be the rock For his confession which commeth from his soule and heart as from a fountaine or springe is greater then the acte of confession Firste I deny his Argument because Peters confession came neither from his soule nor hart but from God which reuealed the trueth vnto him as Christ saith Flesh and bloode c. Secondly I say Gregory meaneth by Peters confession him which Peter confessed namely Christe which is the onely Rocke of the Church whereon the whole Church is builded as his wordes doe sounde for he had sayde before Thou art Christ c. But M. Sander reasoning like a learned Clarke findeth faulte with M. Iewels argumente comparing it to this There commeth eloquence from a man but he is not eloquent Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is not the Rocke Would a man thinke that a Doctor in Diuitie should either be so ignoraunt in the Arte of reasoning or so impudent in peruerting a good reason that a very Childe might reproue either the one or the other I appeale to Logicians whether this reason of M. Iewels The Rock commeth from Peter by confession Ergo Peter is not the Rock be like this argument Eloquence commeth from Cicero therefore Cicero is not Eloquence and not as M. Sand. inferreth Ergo Cicero is not Eloquent But he hath another Example A mans Oration is eloquent therefore the man him selfe is eloquent So Peters confâ—ssion is the Rocke therefore Peter hâ—â—selfe is the Rocke I deny the resemblance for there is resembled the Adiectiue in the one and the substantiue in the other But thus he shoulde compare them Tuilyes defence of Mylo is an eloquent oration therefore Tully is an eloquent Oration which reasoning is no more absurde then this of M. Sand. Peters confession is the Rocke therefore Peter is the Rocke Contrarywise you may reason Peters confession was the Rock therefore Peter was Rockey or stony The seconde authoritie is Hilarie Haec vna est c. This is that onely blessed rock of Faith that Peter confessed with his mouth M. Sander caueleth that this is not spoken vpon the wordes said to Peter but vpâ—on the wordes spoken by Peter But beside that the whole context of the place is against him both in that lib. 2. De trinit and also lib. 6. Super hanc confessionis Petram ecclesiae edifiâ—ato est vpon this Rock of confession is the building of the Church which M. Sand. would auoyde by bringing in of two rocks Christ Peter the particle exclusiue shutteth him cleane out of the dores for Hillarie sayth not that Christe is a Rocke but that he is the onely Rocke Therefore this is but one Rocke and one building and not as M. Sand. sayth two Rocks and two buildings for aswell hee might say two Churches Now where Hilarie vpon Mathew acknowledgeth Peter to be a rock and foundation of the Church it is answeared before that he was one of the xii foundations spoken of Apoc. 21. in a farre other meaning then Christ is the onely Rock The 3. authoritie is Cyrillus Dial 4. de trini The rock is nothing else but the strong assured faith of the disciple This saith M. S. is that I would haue for this disciple was S. Peter and the rock here spoken of is nothing else but S. Peters faith therfore it is not Christ. Nay rather the rock is nothing but S. Peters faith therfore it is not his
sense as well as that which followeth the sounde of wordes it is proued but also in plaine wordes of Sainct Paul Ephe. the second verse 20. Where the Churche is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophetes Iesus Christ beeing the head corner stone And Apo. 21 verse 14. Where the twelue precious stones the foundations of the wall of the Cittie had on them the names of the xij Apostles of the Lambe The 5. is either thus or nothing at all for it is not noted in him as the other bee If Cyprian or Hierome were alleadged for this equallitie it were sufficient for him to say they were no Euangelists For he sheweth it written thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter You see these men that bragge of the Doctors will be holden by them as long as they liste The 6. whereas all holy Scriptures is on the popish Catholicks side he lamenteth the vnhappines of these dayes in w c men altogither vnlearned in them by the bare naming of Gods word haue among Pedlers won their spurres and amonge the ignoraunt haue gotten the opinion of knowledge As truely as none but Pedles and ignoraunt men imbrace this doctrine which we teach so truely all Scriptures be on M. Sand. side Among so many Princes noble men and excellent learned men as at this day acknowledge this doctrine to be the trueth M. Sanders head was very sleepy when he could see none but Pedlers and ignoraunt persons The seuenth he will take vpon him to shew by what meanes Sainct Peter excelled the other Apostles and sheweth in what order he will proceede which seeing it is contained worde for worde in the titles of the seuen Chapters next following I though it needelesse heere to rehearse The ninthe Chapter THat Saincte Peter passeth farre the other Aposlles in some kinde of ecclesiasticall dignitie THat S. Peter had some excellent gieftes peraduenture more then some of the Apostles that he had greate dignity among the Apostles may easely be graūted but that he had auctority ouer them such as the Pope claymeth ouer all Bishops is of vs vtterly denyed Neitherd oeth any one nor all together of M. Sāders 34. argumentes proue that he had one iote of auctority ouer his brethren 1 He was first in order of nombring of the twelue Apostles 2 He was promised to be called Cephas before the twelue were chosen 3. He was named Peter at the time of the choise ergo he hadde the Popes auctoritie ouer them Who would graunt the consequence of these arguments Let vs see what the other be 4 It was sayd to him alone thou art Peter vppon this rocke I will build my Church I deny that it was said to him alone for all the Apostles were likewise rockes vppon which he would build his Church The like I say of the 5. that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were promised to him alone for euery one of the Apostles receiued thē aswel as he being or dained with equal power of binding losing of remit ing retayning sinnes Mat. 18. 18 Ioan. 20. 23. Notwithstanding the wordes at one time were spoken to Peter alone yet did they giue him no singular auctority The 6 Christ payed tribute for Peter as vnder head of his family ergo he was greater then the rest A fond argument This Didrachma was payd for euery man in the City where he dwelt because Peter had a house and a family in the Cytie Christ payed for him with whom he lodged and him selse But if you drawe it into an allegorie These absurdities will follow First that Christ maketh his Church and splrituall kingedome subiect to tribute yea to Moses lawe by which that kind of tribute was due Secondly you deuide Christes church into two householdes Didrachma was to be payde for the heade or firste borne of euery house And you shewe your ignoraunce in referring this payment to Num. 3. which was only for the firste borne wheras this was for all men And for the firste borne was dewe fiue siccles whereof euery one was halfe an Vnee of Siluer at the leaste whereas Didrachma contayning but two Drachmaes whereof euery one was equall with the Romane pennie coulde be but xvj pence at the moste of our monie It is a strong argument that the payment of trybute which argueth subiection should make Peter so greate a Lorde that he should be out of all subiection which if Chrysostome had considered hee woulde not haue grounded Peters primacie vppon so friuolus an Argument The seuenth Christe preached out of Saincte Peters Bote to shew that in his Chaire his doctrine should alwayes be stedfastly professed An Argument to be answeared either with laughing or hissing The 8. Though all the Apostles were to be sifted yet Peters Fayth alone is prayed for This is vtterly false for Christe prayed for all his Apostles fayth Ioh. 17. if specially for Peter it was in respecte of his greater daunger and not in respect of his greater dignitie The 9. Peter firste entred into the Sepulchre ergo he was made pope He entred for farther confirmation of his Fayth concerning Christes resurrection this maye be imputed to diligence but not to dignitie 10 The Angell sayth Tel his Disciples and Peter naming him seuerally because of his shamefull fall he had more neede of comforte The 11. Ambrese thinketh Peter was the first man that saw him Nay rather the Souldiors which kept the graue saw him before Peter the women also which would geue them dignity aboue Peter if firste seeing were a matter to argue dignity or auctority of the seer The 12. onely S. Peter walked on the Sea that signifieth the worlde to be his iurisdiction As he walked by Fayth so by weakenesse of fayth he beganne to sinke And the Sea that he walked on was but a lake or meere therfore cannot well signifie the whole worlde beside the argument is as sure as if it were bound with a strawe 13 S. Peter is shewed to haue loued Christe more then the reste and is alone commaunded to feede his sheepe He had good cause to loue him more because greater sinnes were forgiuen him but it is false that he onely was commaunded to feed Christes sheepe for all the Apostles were likewise commaunded 14 It is saido to Peter thou shalte stretch foorth thy hands and followe thou mee by which a particular kinde of death on the crosse is prophecied A violent death but no particular kinde of death is shewed by these wordes And although it were yet Peter in beeing Crucifyed was made no greater then Andrewe who was crucifyed also if the storyes of both be true 15 Peter aunsweared alwayes for the Apostles ergo hee was chiefe No more then the foreman of the Iewrye although it is not true that he alwayes aunsweared for the rest for sometime Thomas sometime Philip sometime Iudas aunsweared Iohn 14. 16 Peter pronounced Iudas Iscariot deposed That was by speciall instinct
same And in order and office he confesseth that all Byshopps of the worlde are equall as Hierome sayeth ad Euagrium and Cyprian De vnitate ecclesâ—e but not in authoritie But seeing he rehearseth the testimonie of Hierome imperfectly I will set it downe at large that you may see whether it will beare his distinction He writeth against a custome of the Church of Rome by which the Deacons were preferred abooue the Priestes whome hee proueth by the Scripture to be equall with Byshoppes excepte onely in ordaining Quid enim facit exempta ordinatione Episcopus c. For what doth a Bishop excepting ordination which a Priest or Elder doth not Neither is it to be thought that there is one church of the city of Rome and an other of the whole worlde Both Fraunce and Britayn Africa and Persia and the East and India all barbarous nations worship one Christ obserue one rule of truth If auctoritie be sought the world is greater then a citie Wheresoeuer a Bishop be either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tunis he is of the same worthines of the same Priesthoode Power of riches basenes of pouerty make not the Bishop higher or inferior But they are all successors of the Apostles And lest you should thinke he speaketh onely of equalitie in order office not in authority He doth in an other place shew that the authoritie of euery Priest is equall with euery Bishop by Gods disposition that the excelling of one Bishop aboue other Priests came only by custom In Titum cap. 1. Sieut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subiectos it a Episcopi nouerint se magis consuctudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maieres Therefore as Priestes do know that by custom of the Church they are subiect to him that is set ouer them so let Bishops know that they are greater then Priests rather by custom then by truth of the Lordes appoyntment If the authoritie then iurisdiction of Bishops dependeth vpon custoÌ„ not vpon gods appointment Peter was not by our lords appointmeÌ„t preferred in bishoplik authority before the rest of y e Apostles nor the Bishop of Rome before other Bishops Priestes but only by custom as Hierom saith S. Cyprians wordes also inferre the same Episcopatus vnus est cuius à singulis in solidum pars tenetur The Bishops office is one whereof euery man doth partake the Bishops office wholy Now if authoritie iurisdiction doe pertayne to the Bishops office euery Bishop hath it wholy as to follow M. Sanders example whatsoeuer is incident to the nature or kind of a man is equally in euery man But now the greatest matter resteth to proue how S. Peter had more committed to his charge then the rest of the Apostles and that he taketh on him to proue by this reason Peter loued Christ more then all the rest of the Apostles therefore he gaue him greater authoritie in feeding his sheepe then to the rest But I deny the argument For Peter loued Christ more then the rest because Christ had forgiuen him greater sinâ—es then to the rest Luc. 7. 47. In consideration whereof he required greater diligence in doing his office but gaue him not a greater charge or authoritie Now where M. Sander reasoneth that Peter loued Christ most because Christ first loued him most and Christ loued him most because he would make him gouernour of his Church it is a shamefull petition or begging of that which is in question For the nearest cause of Peters greater loue was the greater mercy which he founde which mercy proceeding from the loue of God as the first infinite cause can haue no higher superior or former cause But Peter in respect of greater loue shewed to him in that greater sinne was forgiuen him was bound to shewe greater loue toward Christ which he required to be shewed in feeding his sheepe yet this proueth not that greater authoritie was giuen him or that he did feede more then all men For S. Paule sayth truly of him selfe I haue labored more then they all 1. Cor. 15. 10. wherby it appeareth that Peter as a man was not equall with Christ in the effect of excellent loue which was in him in comparable And whereas M. Sander talketh so much of his commission of feeding I say these words feede my sheepe c. be not wordes of a newe commission but words of exhortation that he shew exceeding diligence in the commission equally deliuered to all the Apostles As my father hath sent me so I send you Ioan. 20 21. But the auncient fathers expound it so that it might seeme to be a singular commission to Peter It can not be denyed but diuers of the auncient fathers otherwise godly and learned were deceyued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue which appeareth not in the Scriptures but was chalenged by the Bishops of Rome which seemed to haue a shew of some benefit of vnitye to the Church so long as the Empire coÌ„tinued at Rome the Bishops of that â—â—ie retayned the substance of Catholike religion yet did they neuer imagine that such blasphemous tyrannicall authoritie yea such false hereticall doctrine as afterward was mayntayned vnder the preteÌ„ce of that prerogatiue shoulde or ought to haue bene defended thereby But let vs see what M. Sander can saye out of the aunâ—ient writers August in Hom. de past cap. 13. writeth Dominus c. Our Lord hath commended vnitie in Peter him selfe There were many Apostles and it is sayde to one feede my sheepe God forbid there should now lacke good pastors but all good pastors are in one they are one This maketh nothing for Peters authority ouer the rest but only the author supposeth the vnitie of all Pastors to be allegorically signified in that Christ speaketh that to one which is common to all good sheepeheardes namely to feede his sheepe And againe de sanct hom 24 In vno Petro c. The vnitie of all pastors was figured in one Peter So might it wel be without giuing Peter authoritie ouer all Pastors Chrysostom is the next lib. 2. de sacerdotio who sayth that Christ did aske whether Peter loued him not to teache vs y t Peter loued him but to enforme vs quanti sibi curae sit gregis huius praefectura howe great care he taketh of the gouernment of this flock Here he would haue vs marke that Chrysostom calleth it a rule gouernment of the flock which Christ intendeth Yea sir we see it very wel but you would make vs blind if we could not see that Chrysostom speaketh not of a general rule graunted to Peter only but of the gouernment of euery Churche by euery Pastor And therefore you daunce naked in a net when you alledge the words following absolutely as though they pertayned to Peter
The church which is one was founded by our Lordes voyce vpon one which receaued the keyes thereof And againe de simplicitat praelat Quamsis c. Although Christ after his resurrection geueth equall power to all his Apostles and sayth as my father sent me so do I send you receaue the holy Ghost If you remit to any man his sinnes they shal be remitted And if you râ—teine them they shal be reteined yet that he might shew the vnitie he disposed by his auctoritie the originall of that vnitie beginning of one But Cyprian proceedeth Hoc erant c. Vere by the rest of the Apostles were the same thing that Peter was endued with equall fellowshippe both of honor and of power but the beginning proceedeth from vnitie that the church might be shewed to be one These wordes are playne to declare that Cyprian acknowledgeth no inequalitie of the Apostles in respect of any auctoritie they had Also that the building of the church vpon one and the receauing of the keyes of one was not an ordinarie office to discende by succession but a singular priuiledge for that one tyme to shewe the beginning and not the continuaunce of the power to proceede from one but to be helde alwayes of one which is Iesus Christ without any shadowes of one Bishoppe on earth to signifie the same when Christ is reuealed with open face vnto vs nowe sitting in heauen 2. Cor. 3. 18. The like thing teacheth Optatus lib. 2. de schism Vt in â—na c. That in one chaire in which Peter sate vnity might be kept of all men least the rest of the Apostles shoulde euerie one challenge a chaire to him selfe so that he shoulde nowe be a schismatike and a sinner that agaynst a singular chaire should place an other Therfore in that one chaire which is chiefe in giftes Peter sate first His meaning is to defende the vnitie of the churche against the Donatistes but of the auctoritie of Peters chaire ouer all other Bishoppes chaires if he had spoken any thing M. Sander would not haue concealed it which doth vs great wrong to thinke that we can not distinguishe a chaire of vnitie from a chaire of auctoritie The place of Hierom cont Iouin lib. 1. hath bene aunswered once or twise shewing that among the Apostles which were equall Peter was chosen to be primate to auoide contention which was a primacy of order and not of auctority As for the collection of Lco Bishoppe of Rome that Peters primacy was a platforme for other Bishops to vnderstaÌ„d that they must haue a Bishop ouer them if the very Apostles had an head among them sauoreth of the ambition incident to that see which was appoynted to be the seate of Antichrist Although neither Leo him selfe challeÌ„ged so much as the Pope doth nowe neither the Bishops of his time would yeeld vnto him in so muche as he challenged For beside the whole generall councel of Chalcedon that concluded against him about the priuiledges of the Bishop of Constantinople wherein they made him equall with the Bishoppe of Rome the title of seniority onely reserued it appeareth by his Epistles that many Bishops acknowledged not such primacy ouer them as he claimed whereof he complameth in diuerse of his Epistles The place of Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 3. that heresies haue sprong because one Iudge is not acknowledged in steâ—de of Christ for the time to whom the whole brotherhood might obey He can not deny but it is ment of Cyprian of one Iudge in euery diocesse But he reasoneth a fortiori that there ought to be much rather one Iudge ouer all the world Howbeit I haue shewed the in consequence of this argument by example of one Phisitian one Schoolemaister one Iudge in temporall matters ouer the whole worlde to whom it is as impossible to discharge suche an office ouer all as it is profitable for one suche to be in euerie towne He sayth that particular flockes are voluntarie and likewise particular pastors but one flocke and one pastor is of absolute necessitie on earth In deede the limites of particular flockes and the persons of particular pastors are left to the appoyntment and choise of the church But that there should be particular flockes and pastors it is of Gods ordination though God by his Apostles appoynted it to be so yet is it of as absolute necessity while the church is dispersed in diuerse places of the world as that there is one flocke and one shepheard ouer all Iesus Christ and yet he is not ashamed to challenge vs pag. 298. Let the text be named where Christ did institute many parishes Whereas he him selfe pag. 294. quoteth Tit. 1. Act. 14. which places proue that Christ did institute many parishes except he will say the Apostles did it without the institution of Christ which he confesseth they did not without the speciall inspiration of the holy Ghost or else will say that the inspiration of the holy Ghost in the ordinaunce of many parishes differeth from the institution of Christ. But he that wrangleth thus impudently and vnreasonably agaâ—nst the playne institution of many parishes by Christ bringeth a playne text where it is sayd Feede me sheepe to one pastor Hath this man any foreheade thinke you that calleth this a playne text to proue that there shoulde be one sheepehearde vpon earth ouer all the flocke because Christ vpon speciall occasion exhorted one man to feede his flocke Are all thinges that were spoken to him singular vnto him Christ sayd to him and to none other of the Apostles come after me Satan thou art an offense to me for thou sauerest not the thinges that are of God but of men Christ sayed to Peter and to none other put vp thy sworde into thy scaberd Christ sayed to Peter and to none other thou wilt denye me thrise O paynted rocke of the Popishe Churche that hathe no better grounde then this saying feede my sheepe when he that challengeth auctoritie hereby of all other feedeth least and poysoneth most But let vs returne and see what auctoritie of olde fathers he hath to proue one pastorall preheminence ouer all the churche Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 8. Deus vnus est Christus vnus vna ecclesia Cathedra vna super petram Domini voce fundata There is one God and one Christ and one churche and one chaire founded vpon Peter by our Lordes voyce Heare I say first of all that he doth falsifie Sainct Cyprians wordes turning peâ—ram into petrum so that his saying is There is one chaire by our Lordes voyce founded on the rocke An other altar or a new Priesthoode can not be appointed beside one altar and one Priesthoode Whosoeuer gathereth elsewhere scattereth abroad c. But if the worde were petrum and not petram yet the whole discourse of that Epistle sheweth that Cyptian meaneth by these wordes to set forth not the past orall preheminence of one man ouer the whole church but one
Bishop in euery diocese For he writeth against fiue Elders or Priestes which had chosen one Felicissimus a schismatike to be Bishop in Carthage against him But what other malicious ignorance or shameles impudence is this that he peruerteth the saying of Christ of him selfe to the Pope There shall be one sheepefold one shepheard Ioan. 10 Yet see his reason A flocke of shepe is one by force of one pastor therefore if the Pastor on earth be not one the flocke is not one on earth If this argument be good howe is the flocke one vpon earth when there is no Pope For the see hath bene voyde diuerse times many dayes many monethes somtime many yeares Howe was the flocke one when there were two or three Popes at once and that so often and so long together Therefore the flocke on earth is one by that one onely shepheard Iesus Christ whose diuine voice all the shepe heare though in his humanity he be ascended into heauen and not by any one mortal man to whom they can not be gathered nether being so farre abroad dispersed can heare his voyce And the whole order of the church on earth tendeth to an vnitie in Christ not in one man whatsoeuer as one generall pastor For if that one shoulde be an heretike and all the church tend to vnity in him the whole church should be wrapped in heresie with him That diuerse Popes haue bene heretiks as Libeâ—ius Anastasiâ—s Vigilâ—us Honorius Ihon the 23. in knowne condemned heresies it is too manifest by recordes of antiquitie that it shoulde be denyed wherefore Christ instituted no such ordinary auctoritie to be limited in one successioÌ„ that it should haue prehemineÌ„ce imisdiction ouer all the churche Seeing vnity is best mainteyned in doctrine by his word in gouernment by the discipline by him appoynted And vnity in truth can not be had at the handes of a man which is a lyer experience sheweth that the iurisdiction which the Bishoppe of Rome hath claimed hath bene occasion of most and greatest schismes and dissentions that haue bene in particular churches wheÌ„ no man would obey his ordinary pastors and Bishops without the appealing to the see of Rome beside so many schismes as haue bene in the same see which haue set all the Christian world together by the cares while they were deuided in factioÌ„s some holding with one Pope and some with an other and some with the third and some with none of them all The 15. Chapter THat the Bishop of Rome is that one ordinarie pastor who succeedeth in S. Peters chaire and is aboue all Bishoppes according to the meaning of Gods worde VVhy S. Peter dyed at Rome S. Augustines minde touching the supremacy of the Pope of Rome THe first reason is that although Peter at the first was rather high Bishoppe of the circumcision theÌ„ of the Gentiles yet because he did at length settle him selfe at Rome by Gods appointment and left a successor there he sayeth he may well affirme that the Bishop of Romes primacy is warranted by Gods word A strauÌ„ge kind of warantise for to omit that the primacy ouer the Gentils by Gods worde is giuen to another namely to Paule from whom he can neuer proue that it was taken afterward Where hath he any worde of God to proue that by his appointment Peter setled him self at Rome and appoynted there a successor He quoteth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who reporteth that Linus the first Bishop of Rome was ordayned not by Peter onely but by Peter Paule the Apostles who founded the Church there euen as Polycarpus by the Apostles in Asia was made bishop in Smyrna which Church with the Church of Ephesus founded by Paule and continued by Iohn the Apostles he citeth as witnesses alike with the Church of Rome of the tradition of the Apostles against Valentinus and Marcion which being voyd of Scriptures bragged of the tradition of the Apostles But of Peters primacie or his successors ouer all Bishops Irenaeus sayth not a word No more doth Tertullian whom likewise he quoteth de praescrip but euen as Ireneus would haue the tradition of the Apostles against those heretikes that boasted of it to be tryed by the coÌ„fession of those Churches that were founded by the Apostles His second reason is vpon a false supposition that he hath already proued Peter alone to be the rocke to haue chiefe authoritie in feeding c. all which thinges are vntrue That Peter came to Rome he is not content that it be testified by all auncient Ecclesiasticall writers But he sayth it is witnessed by the expresse word of God 1. Pet. 5. The Church which is gathered together in Babylon saluteth you Although the history of Peters comming to Rome and sitting there 25. yeares testified by so many writers is proued false in many circumstances by the playne worde of God yet I am content to admitte that he came thither towarde the later ende of Ne roes raigne But that in his Epistle he sent salutations from Rome I can not admitte seeing that in such manner of salutations men vse not to write allegorically albeit that in the reuelation of Saint Iohn Rome the sea of Antichrist is mystically called BabyloÌ„ But Babylon from whence S. Peter did write is more probably to be taken for a citye of that name in Egypt where Marke was with him whoÌ„ the consent of antiquitie affirmeth to haue bene Bishop of Alexandria a citie of Egypt also who coulde not haue bene with him at Rome Seeing it is manifest by the first and seconde of the Epistle to the Galathians and by diuerse of Saint Paules Epistles that if euer Peter was at Rome it was but a short tyme in the later ende of Nero his Empire Whereas Marke dyed in the eyght yeare of his raigne before Peter coulde be at Rome For in the tenth yeare Paule was brought prisoner to Rome Saint Luke accompanying him who would not haue omitted to shewe that Peter was there to haue mette him as the rest of the brethren did if he had then bene at Rome Agayne Paule in so many Epistles as he writeth from Rome sending salutations from meane personages would not haue omitted mention of Peter if he had bene there Saint Luke then affirming that he taryed two yeares in prison at Rome which must be vntil the twelfe yeare of Nero it followeth that if Peter came he came very late to Rome within two yeare before his death at which tyme it was not possible that Marke which was dead foure yeares before could be at Rome with him wherefore Babylon in that text can not be taken for Rome Another reason of the Popes supremacy he maketh that Peter not onely came thither but also dyed there A simple reason why the city of Rome should haue that prerogatiue because she murthered y e Apostles Rather might IerusaleÌ„ clayme it in which Christ the head of all dyed After this he telleth the fable
gather againe the Lords sheepe into his folde The 9. note is That notwithstanding Cyprian dissented from Pope Stephanus in opinion concerning the baptizing of suchas had ben baptised by hereâ—kes yet hee denyed not his prerogatiue but kept still the vnitie of the militant Church in acknowledging the visible head thereof He quoteth his ep Contra Stephan wherin is no word of acknowledging the Popes prerogatiue but contrary wise euery childe may see that seeing he did boldly dissent in opinon froÌ„ the B. of Rome wrote against him he helde no such prerogatiue of that sea as the Papists now maintaine that the bishop of Rome cannot erre In deede Cyprian professeth that notwithstanding he differed from him in opinion yet he would not deparâ—e from the vnitie of the Church but what is this for acknowledging of a visible head wherof M. S. speaketh much but Cyprian neuer a word neither in that place nor in any of all his workes The next authoritie is Hippolitus whose words Prud rehearseth Peristeph in passion Hip. Respondetfugite c. Hâ—s aunsvvere vvas O flee the sâ—smes of cursed Nouates lâ—re And to the Catholike fâ—lke and stocke your selues againe restore Let onely one faith rule and raâ—gne kept in the Church of olde VVhich faith both Paule doth sâ—l retaine Peters chair doth holdâ— No dout this was a good exhortation so longe as the temple of Peter aâ—d Paule at Rome did holde the olde catholike faith from which seeing the Pope is now fled we may not honor the emptie chaire of Peter to think there is his faith where his doctrine is not After Hippolitus followeth Sozomenus who reporteth that Athanasius and certaine other Byshops of the Greeke Church came to Rome to Iulius the byshopp there to complaine that they were vniustly deposed by the Arians Wherevpon the Byshop of Rome finding them vpon examination to agree with the Nicene couÌ„cel did reâ—eiue them into the communion as one that had care of them all for the worthynes of his owne See and did restore to euery of them their owne Churches c. Heere M. Sander hath his 9 obseruations he delighteth much in that number But it shall not neede to stand vpon them it is coÌ„fessed that in Sozomenus time the writer of this story who iudgeth of things done according to the present state in which he lyued the sea of Rome was growne into great estimation and counted the first See or principall in dignitie of all Byshops Seas in the worlde Yea it is true that Socrates a writer of Historyes as well as he sayeth That long before his time the Byshops Sea of Rome aswel as of Alexandria was growne beyonde the bands of Prâ—esthood into a forraine Lordship dominion Soc. lib. 7. cap. 11. But if we consider the recordes of the very time in which Iulius lyued we shall not finde that the dignitie of his Sea was such as that he hadde such authoritie as Sozomenus aseribeth to him and much lesse such as M. Sander imagineth of him In Epiphanius there is an Epistle of one Marcellus which beside that he called him his fellow minister acknowledgeth no such dignitie of his Sea lib. 3. to 1. And Sozomenus himselfe testifyeth that the Bishops of the East derided contemned his commandementes lib. 3. Cap. 8. cap. 11. they were as bolde to depose him with the byshops of the West as he was to check them that they called not him to their councel Wherein as I confesse they did euell yet thereby they shewed euidently that the Christian worlde in those dayes did not acknowledge the vsurpation of the bishop of Rome as M. Sander saith they did Neither durst they eaer to dissent from him if it had beene a Catholike doctrine receiued in the Church that the Byshopp of Rome is head of the Church Byshop of all Byshops Iudge of all causes and one which cannot erre As for Athanasius Paulus c. and other Byshops beeing tossed to and fro by their enemyes no maruaile if they were glad to finde any comfort at the Byshop of Romes hands hauing first sought to the Emperors for refuge of whome sometime they were holpeÌ„ sometime they wer hindred as informatioÌ„ was giuen either for them or against theÌ„ But Arnobius he sayeth giueth a maruailous witnes for the church of Rome in Psa. 106. Petrus in deserto c Peter wandering in the desert of this worlde vntill he came to Rome preached the baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floods are blessed from Peter vnto this day He hath made the going forth of the waters into thirst so that he which shall goe forth of the Church of Peter shal perish for thirst It is a maruelous witte of M. Sander that can find such maruelous prerogatiue of Peter in this place which Arnobius would haue in the example of Peter to be vnderstoode of all men Quid est ascendunt Disce in Petro vt quod in ipso inueneris in omnibus cernas Ascendit Petrus c. What meaneth this they goe vp as highe as heauen Learne in Peter to thend that y t which thou shalt find in Peter thou mayst see in all men Peter went vp as high as heauen when he sayd Although I should dye with thee yet will I not deny thee c. and so applying the vnderstanding of the Psalme to Peter and in him to all ChristiaÌ„s he coÌ„meth to that maruelous testimony of the church of Rome which M. Sander reporteth shewing how after his repentance God exalted him to be a preacher of that baptisme of Iesus Christ in whome all floodes are blessed from Peter to this day Where M. Sander vseth a false translation saying the floodes are blessed of Peter and expoundeth the floodes to be the churches whereas Arnobius speaketh of all waters which in Christ are sanctified to the vse of baptisme from the Apostles time vntill this day But it is a Catholike argument that whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Peter goeth out of the Church of Christe therefore Rome is the mother Church and Peter the heade thereof Euen lyke this whosoeuer goeth out of the Church of Paule or of any of the Apostles wheresoeuer they planted it doth perish therefore Corinth and Paule or any other Citie the Apostle that preached there may be taken for the head and Pastor and mother Church of all other yet is this with M. Sander a meruailous testimony Optatus succeeded Arnobius Cont. Pamen de nat lib. 2. Negare nonpotes c. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that to Peter first the bishops chaire was giuen in the citie of Rome in which Peter the head of al the apostles hath sit wherofhe was also called Cephas in which chair vnitie might be kept of al men so that he should be a scismatike w c should place any other chaire against the singular chaire Vnto Peter succeeded Linus vnto Linus succeded Clemens so nameth all the Byshops vntil Siricius which liued in
Arbitramur c. VVe think these men that haue so pernitious and froward opinions will giue plaâ—e more easily to the authority of your holines beeing taken out of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures by help of the mercy of our lord Iesus Christ which â—ouchâ—â—feth to rule you when you consult to heare you wheÌ„ you pray by these words they shew that they hope y e here tikes being reproued by the B. of Rome out of the woâ—d of God wil the rather giue place w t out imagining that the B. of Romes authoritie is so stablished by the scriptures that whatsoeuer he decre coÌ„trary to thescriptures the same should be imbraced But a farther confirmatioÌ„ of the epistle of Innoce he bringeih out of Aug. Ep. 106. Where he saith Pope Innocent did write an answere to the Bishops in althings as it became the prelate of the Apostolike sea But these words neither proue that epistle to be written by Innocent nor if it were do allowe his pretended auth ority because that was no matter whereof they required his answere But to put it out of dout Both these Councels haue decreed against the vsurpation of the Romish sea As the councel Mileuitan cap. 22. decreed that no man should appeele out of Africa vnder paine of excommunication The laste authoritie cited out of Augustine is Epistle 162. speaking of the Churche of Rome In qua semper Apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus In which alwayes the principalitie of the Apostolike chaire hath flourished A matter often confessed that the fathers especially of the later times since Constantine aduanced the Church in wealth dignitie esteemed the church of Rome as the principall Sea in dignitie but not in absolute authoritie such as in processe of time the Byshops of Rome claymed and vsurped For euen the same Augustine with 216. Bishops refused to yeelde to the Bishop of Rome clayming by a counterfaire Canon of the Councell of Nice to haue authortie to receaue appeales out of Africa Epi. con Aphr. ad Bonifac whiche they couâ—pte an intollerable pride and presumption and in Epist. cont Aphri ad Coelestiâ—â—m fumosum typum seculi A smokey pride of the worlde which the Pope claymed and an absurde authoritie that one maÌ„ should be better able to examine such causes then so many Byshops of the prouince where the controuersie began and by the olde Cannons shoulde be ended To Augustine he ioyneth Prosper Bishop of RhegiuÌ„ in Italie which affirmeth in lib de ingrat that Rome the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the pestilence of Pelagius which Rome being made head vnto the worlde of pastorall honor holdeth by religion whatsoeuer it doth not possesse by warre And againe Rome through the primacie of the Apostolike Priesthoode is made greater by the castell of religion then by the throne of power First how vntruly he boasteth that the see of Peter was the first that did cut of the heresie of Pelagius you may ease y see by that the councel of Africa did before condemne it had somwhat a doe to perswade Innocentius Bishop of Rome to it Whereby you see that Prosper was ouer partiall to the see of Rome to whome yet he ascribeth a principallity or primacy of honor not of power or auctority The testimonies of Leo Gregory Bâ—shops of Rome as alwaies so now I deeme to be vnmeete to be heard in their owne cause though otherwise they were not the worst men yet great furtherers of the auctoritie of Antichrist which soone after their dayes tooke possessioÌ„ of the chaire which they had helped to prepare for him The last testimonie out of Beda which liued vnder the tyranny of Antichrist I will not stande vpon M. Sander may haue great store of such late writers to affirme the Popes supremacie The 16. Chapter THat the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke theÌ„ selues to be the supreame heads of the church in spirituall causes but gaue that honor to Bishops Priests most specially to the sea of Rome for S. Peters sake as well before as after the time of Phocas A Priest is aboue the Emperour in Ecclesiastical causes The othe of the royal supremacy is intollerable Constantine was baptised at Rome Phocas did not first make the see of Rome head of all churches COncerning the supremacy of our soueraigne which this traiterous Papist doth so maliciously disdaine although it be expounded sufficiently by her Maiestie in her iniunction not to be suche as he most slaunderously doth deforme it yet I will here as I haue done diuerse times before in aunswere to these Papistes professe that we ascribe no supremacie to our Prince but such as the worde of God alloweth in the godly Kinges of the old Testament and the church hath acknowledged in the Christian Emperours and Princes vnder the new Testament First therefore we ascribe to our Prince no absolute power in any Ecclesiasticall causes suche as the Pope challengeth but subiect vnto the rules of Gods worde Secondly we ascribe no supremacie of knowledge in Ecclesiastical matters to our Prince but affirme that she is to learne of the Bishops and teachers of the church both in matters of faith and of the gouernment of the church Thirdly we allow no confusion of callings that the Prince should presume to preach to minister the Sacramentes to excommunicate c. which perteine not to her office But the supremacie we admit in Ecclesiasticall causes is auctoritie ouer all persons to coÌ„maund and by lawes to prouide that all matters Ecclesiasticall may be ordered and executed according to the word of God And such is the true meaning of the othe that he calleth blasphemous and intollerable And as for examples of honor geuen to the Bishoppes by Christian Princes which he bringeth forth they deny not this supremacy nor make any thing against it The first is of the Emperour Philippus counted of some for the first Christian Emperor although it be not like to be true yet admitting the story written by Eusebius to be so This Prince without due repentance offered him selfe to receaue the holy misteries being refused by the Bishop of the place tooke it pacieÌ„tly submitted him selfe to the discipline order of y e church I answer this example toucheth not the auctority he had in ecclesiasticall causes For in receauing of the Sacramentes the Prince differeth not from a priuate person But he pusheth at M. Nowell with a two horned argument called a dilemma If the Priest in these causes be superior to y t Emperor other causes be greater or lesser then these If they be greater the Emperour which is not supreame gouernor ouer the lesser causes can not be in the greater if they be lesser then the Priest w c gouerneth the Emperor in greater causes must nedes gouern him in lesser causes These hornes are easily auoyded not by distinctioÌ„ of the causes but of the gouernments The gouernment of
doctrine but he shall mainteine his kingdom by cruelty as it is manifest in the Reuelation cap. 13. 17. c. But M. Sander hath a great quarel against the B. of Winchester for saying in his booke against Feckenham that the ciuil Magistrate may visit correct reforme and depose any Bishop in their owne realme Which is directly to say that the power of the King is higher and greater in Gods churche then the power of a Bishop And what inconuenience is this in thinges perteining to his office seeing that the Bishops power in his spirituall office of preaching ministring c. is confessed to be aboue the King Hereby we make the body aboue the soule saith M. Sander the tēporal reigne aboue the kingdom of heauen Not a whit no more thē Salomon in deposing Abiather Christiā Emperors in deposing proude Bishops of Rome Onely this we say that M. Sander dissembleth The cause must be iust for which ◠King shoulde depose a Bishop or pastor for thinke there is equall right in deposing of the greatest Bishop the poorest Priest from his benefice This latter was alwaies lawful by the cōmon lawes vpon iust cause Now if the cause be iust it must be either manifest or doubtfull If it be manifest as Abiathers was for murther treason adulterie c. the King obseruing the processe of the lawe as in all other mens causes may proceede against a Bishop If the cause be doubtfull it is either for life or doctrine The triall of the Bishops life ought to be as all other mens are with due cōsideration of his accusers The triall of doctrine is not in the Kings knowledge ordinarily but in the knowledge of the eccle siasticall state who are iudges of the doctrine by reason of their knowledge to depose him from his ministery by reason of their calling if he be culpable and the King hath power to exclude him frō his place from his life also if his offence deserue it But that in spiritual matters the King should rule y e Bishops pastors otherwise then Gods word woulde haue them ruled none of vs did euer affirme for that were tyranny not Christian gouernment And of such tyranny of Constantius the Arrian Emperour doth Athanasius complaine In Episi ad sol vit agent and shew the iudgement aunsweres of the Christian Bishops Paulinus Lucifer Eusebius Dionysius Liberius Hosius vnto him when he would haue enforced them to subscribe against Athanasius for defending the eternall diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ. But yet the same Athanasius appealed him selfe to the godly Emperor Constantinus the great although in the end the Emperour being caried away by multitude of false witnesses as any mortall mā may be deceiued as Dauid was about Mephibosheth gaue wrong sentēce against him Socr. lib. 1. ca. 34. And whē the same Emperor in his letters before threatned to depose him if he were disobediēt he neuer repined but acknowledged his auctority Si cognouero quòd aliquos eorum qui ecclesiae student prohibueris aut ab accessu ecclesiae excluseris mittā euestigio qui te meo iussu deponat ac locum tuum transferat If I shall know sayth the Emperour that thou wilt prohibit any of them that fauour the church or exclude them from entring into the churche I will sende one immediatly which shall depose thee by my commaundement remoue thy place Socr. li. 1. ca. 27. Thus Athanasius iudging Constantius the hereticall Prince for an Antichristian image in vsurping auctority in matters of faith against the truth obeieth Constantinus a defender of the truth seeketh aide of his auctority in ecclesiasticall causes according to the truth M. Sander fearing we would obiect against him that Constantinus Martianus other godly Emperors vsed to sit in generall coūcels with the Bishops replieth that it was only to kepe peace wheras they did not only kepe peace but also prescribe commaūd the Bishops to proceede according to Gods word as Constantine did in the Nicene councell Euangelici enim c. The bookes of the Gospells of the Apostles the oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs in the vnderstanding of God Therfore setting all hateful discord aside let vs take out of the sayinges of Gods spirite the explication of the questions They did also publish the decrees of the councell by their auctoritie like as they called the councells together to make their decrees But Ambrose sayth Ep. 32. that euen an heretical Emperour comming to yeares of discretion will be able to consider what maner a Bishop he is who layeth the Priestly right vnder the lay mens feete By which saith M. Sander you may see what maner a Bishop M. Horne and his fellowes be w c geue the most proude intollerable title of supreame head gouernor to lay Princes I answere in geuing this title they meane to take nothing from the right of the clergie cōfesse with Augustine that there is no greater then a Priest in his office although Moses after the distinction was no Priest but a ciuil Magistrate in his calling aboue Aaron that was high Priest And although M. Sander say this is the diuinity of England only to acknowledge the Prince to be chiefe gouernor he sayeth most vntruly for all learned men of all countries doe acknowledge the same in such sorte as we do in England and not as he in Flanders either dreameth or slaundereth vs to do For we confesse with Valentinian the good Emperour that the Prince must submit his head to his godly pastor in matters perteyning to his spirituall power Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 5. And yet we allowe the same Valentinian writing to the Bishoppes of Asia and Phrigia Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 8. Qui omnes noxios daemones student abigere precibus suis c. They which studie by their prayers to driue awaye all hurtfull deuells knowe to submit them selues to publike offices according to the lawes they speake not against the Emperors power but they keepe the commaundementes of a sincere and great Emperour and the commaundementes of God and are subiect to our lawes but you are found disobedient Finally we neuer ment to geue the Prince by flatteriē auctoritie in suche matters as belong to Bishops alone neither would we haue a confusion of the office of an Emperour and a Bishop wherefore neither the saying of Leontius to Constantius nor of Eulogius to Valens which were both heretikes would enforce men to receaue the heresie of Arrius doth any thing at all touch vs who limit the supremacie of Princes within the compase of Gods worde and Christian religion against which neither Prince nor Priest hath any auctoritie to commaund The seuenth marke of Antichrist is the withstanding of the externall and publike sacrifice of the church by which he meaneth the sacrifice of the Masse Nay rather it is a setting vp of a new altare sacrifice propitiatorie against the only