three notable articles pag. 142. c. out of auncient writers against the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge first of the Popes supremacy Where good Reader I pray the consider the wrangling and cauilling spirit of this sophister Such tricks of vntrue dealing hath M. R. vsed many Master Iewell in that sermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popish sectaries speaking against their priuate masse and single communion and hauing prooued by euident testimonies of antiquitie the contrary vse and practise of the Church in the end nameth sundry Bishops and Doctors of the Church of whome he saith we haue learned these heresies as our aduersaries account them Among other he reckeneth Anacletus and Sixtus that were Bishops of Rome Master Rainolds taking vpon him to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie by the same witnesses that M. Iewell here alledgeth bringeth in the decretall epistles set forth vnder the names of these two Byshops which no man of wit or iudgement can once imagine to haue bene written by them they are so foolish vnlearned but yet the Church of Rome maketh no small reckening of them being the best euidences she hath to shew for her vnlawfull tyrannical vsurpation To what purpose M.R. doe you obiect those Epistles in the cause of supremacie against M. Iewel speaking of priuate masse and halfe communion Haue you thus solde your selfe to deuise crafty sleights that you may abuse the simplicity of your Reader Master Iewell speaketh of one thing for proofe thereof appealeth to those two Bishops amonge others you bring against him their forged writings for an other matter Replie Arciela 4. Diuis 3. wherein Master Iewell himselfe hath alreadie shewed his iudgement of them But you saie Pag. 145. what other bookes hath he seene of theirs beside these epistles And what though he hath not sene any what though there are none to be seene might not he therfore say that we haue learned of them this doctrine which no man can doubt but they followed and practised and left to their successours behinde them for it being the cleare doctrine of Christ and his Apostles those godlie and faithfull Bishops so neare the Apostles time departed not from it De consec dict 2 peracta And a Bishop of Rome Calixtus by name reporteth that the Apostles ordained and it was the practise of the Romane Church that after consecration all should communicate vnlesse they would incurre excommunication It is but losse of time to answere such palpable cauillation as this booke hath almost nothing els And were it not for regarde I haue to the godlie that desire the aduersarie may be answered though neuer so vnworthie of answere in respect of himselfe might be offended if he should passe without answere I could easilie haue suffered M.R. to haue enioyed quietlie the fruits of his labours and otherwise spent my time more profitablie to my selfe and others Next in like manner S. Leo and S. Gregorie two other Bishops of Rome Pag. 147. c. but long after are obiected and M. R. translateth out of the Centuries a great deale to shewe that by confession of the more famous learned Protestants as he saith the Romane sea had primacie ouer all Churches in Christendome True it is that the Centurie writers in that Chapter doe largelie and plainlie discouer the mystery of iniquity Cent. 5. cap. 7. Col. 774. c. that in those daies did mightelie worke for the obtaining of that vniuersall primacie which afterwards with much endeuour was gotten And as the Church of Rome was then in great estimation and authoritie farre beyond other Churches so the Bishops of that sea vsed all occasion to encrease the credite and prerogatiue thereof especially this Leo and Gregorie also not a litle All this as it is in the Centuries discoursed we confesse and withall iustlie mislike and condemne that ambition in those Bishops but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpose doth this prooue the Popes supremacie Great and many vntrueths auouched by M.R. doth this disprooue Master Iewells chalenge Doe the learned Protestants also confesse the same what notable and shameles vntruthes are these Not one of all these examples alledged doth argue the Popes vniuersall power or headship ouer Christs Church nor commeth neere vnto it That Leo calleth it the chiefest Church that he requireth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople to make relation vnto him if anie matter of controuersie should arise that he willeth Maximus Archbishop of Antioche to write to the sea Apostolike how the Churches there encrease that he reprooued other Bishops if they did ought amisse that he appointed in some places orders and ceremonies and did these and manie other such things as in his epistles is manifest although he tooke vpon him more then he might or ought for aduauncement of his owne seat encroched much vpon the libertie of other Churches yet neuer ment he to make himselfe vniuersall Bishop Though Leo delt in moe matters then appertained to him yet was he farre from the top of the papal supremacie and head of the Church which your Pope claimeth and M. Iewell denieth This was his endeauour to lift his chaire aboue the rest to be accounted a chiefe Bishop to be had in greatest regard to procure to his seate a principall reuerence to obtaine priuiledges and prerogatiues aboue others but of this pontifical power vniuersal iurisdiction which afterwards your Popes vsurped he neuer dreamed for ought that you haue alledged or can furthermore alledge out of his Epistles And though you could what had you greatlie gained against M. Iewell who requireth a lawfull and irrefragable testimonie his being partiall as in his owne matter and for his owne commoditie Yet how farre Leo was from the papall supremacie may in one example appeare that he had not authoritie to call a councell but was faine to be an humble suter to the Emperour Epist 33. that he would by his commandement summone a councell of Bishops in Italie which yet he obtained not that the same Leo fell on his knees before Valentinian Leo was of mean iurisdiction and authoritie in respect of the pope to haue a councell that a Councell by the Emperour Martian being called at Chalcedon he laboured instantlie to haue it somewhat differred vntil a more conuenient time could not preuaile Doth it not euidently hereby appeare that he was not accounted neither by the Emperour nor the Byshops of Christendom Head of the Church vniuersall Bishop And this is the thing in controuersie wherof you haue not shewed anie proofe as yet for all your childish bragging and what you will hereafter doe I need not greatlie stand in doubte For your demonstration following which you full ignorantlie and vainelie commend Pag. 150. comparing it to the brightnes of the sunne in a sommers daie hath no light at all in it to shew that thing which you haue taken in hand to prooue
no more then the moone in the wane giueth light to passengers at midnight And doubtles vnles the Lord had in his displeasure towards you bereaued you of common iudgement and reason you could not yeald your vnderstanding captiue to such loose and light perswasion The question in controuersie is whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the vniuersall Church within six hundred yeares after Christ Cent. 5. p. 781.782 This you say appeareth by the confession of the Centurye writers and so you translate out of them many authorities which being all put in one conclude nothing to this purpose in the end They shew how the Popes haue laboured to get superioritie to themselues especially in the example of Leo who as he was learned and eloquent and stoutlie mainteined the Catholike faith against Eutyches so is he trulie noted of ambition more then beseemed the minister of Christ But admitting the Popes testimonie for the Popes primacie what haue you found in the Centuries against Master Iewell that they warned Bishops of other prouinces to come to generall councels this is not the thing we require Let them write to whome and whither they list this officious writing prooueth not vniuersalitie and supremacie of power as any man maie easilie vnderstand That Leo could not appoint a Councell that he sued to the Emperour to call a Councel that the Councell was gathered by the Emperours not by the Popes authoritie I haue alreadie shewed What maketh then the writing of a fewe letters to prooue the Popes power in summoning councells that they were presidents in generall councels And can you or dare you auouch that this was so in all generall councells And though it were what matter maketh it for your purpose A generall councell must haue a president which presidencie if it were graunted to the Bishop of Rome in respecte of his place which was the first amongst Bishops will you of your wisdome hereof gather that he was Vniuersall Bishop and head of the Church A senslesse and franticke conclusion That he confirmed generall Councells This is like the rest a worthy reason forsooth All Bishops were bound to maintaine and approoue the godly decrees of councells that so heresies might be repressed and the puritie of religion preserued Is it then a great maruell if the Bishop of Rome that was accounted first and chiefe confirmed good councels and disanulled wicked whoe is he that hath the reason of a man that will hereof conclude in sadnes and sobriety the popes supremacy If M.R. be blinded it is no wonder All this and ten times as much can not prooue that the Pope is the head of Christs Church or that he was so esteemed in the primitiue age and therefore that you alleadge out of Luther that before Bonifacius the third in the daies of wicked Phocas the Emperour the Bishops of Rome had no greater authoritie then other Bishops is true For albeit they had gotten greater priuiledges of honour and other preferments partlie through the reuerent opinion which the Emperours Bishops had of them partlie by their owne seeking as appeareth in stories moste euidentlie yet soueraintie of power and iurisdiction ouer the wholl Church had they none vntill Phocas the tyrant bestowed it vpon Boniface the Pope a worthy founder of the Popes Antichristian supremacie How Leo behaued himselfe in magnifiing his owne dignitie aboue measure pag. 154. c. is to plaine by his writings so as although he thought nothing lesse then of that pontificall supremacie and authoritie which afterward in that seat of Antichrist was erected yet hath his pride bene iustlie and worthelie reprooued for claiming more honour then belonged vnto him But you must remember that all authoritie and honour is not that vniuersall supremacie of power which your Pope chalengeth and vsurpeth the which neither Leo desired nor yet Gregorie the great who succeeded him in that sea almost two hundred yeares after did exercise for anie thing that you haue alledged in proofe thereof The Centurie Collectours declare indeed how that mystery of iniquity wrought and encreased then in the Romane sea Centur. 6. p. 425. in that the Bishops thereof tooke vpon them more rule and authoritie ouer their brethren then they ought and namelie this Gregorie in whome the vertue godlines of Romane Bishops died But haue you found in the Centuries such plaine proofes ot the Popes supremacie as you affirme First you bring nothing but the speaches or practises of Gregorie Gregorie the great was no Pope such as the lâ—tter popes haue bene Regist lib. 11. â—p 54. who was a Bishop of Rome secondly you can not thereof gather that he was vniuersall Bishop or head of the Church For that he calleth the Apostolicall sea head of all Churches he meaneth nothing else but that it was the chiefe Churhc Lib. 7. ep 62. which is confessed That he saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolicall sea whoe denieth this but what subiection meane you M. R that the Romane Church had power ouer the Church of Constantinople to commaund ordaine disanull at her pleasure that is vtterlie false and disprooued by all stories that haue written testifiing that the Church of Constantinople accounted her selfe equall in all priuiledges too the Romane saue only that the Roman in order was the first That he intermedled in the doings of certaine Bishops of diuerse prouinces it is euident but not in all Churches of all prouinces ouer the world For the Church of Christendome was then deuided into partes the same were assigned to the gouernment of Patriarches The Romane prouince was greatest containing the Churches of the west wherein Gregorie had authoritie not by Gods worde but by appointment of man and yet his authoritie was no other but the same that the other Patriarchs practised in their prouinces namelie S. Chrysostome long before Gregorie ouer Thrace al Asia and Pontus as Theodoretus writeth Theod. lib. 5. cap. 28. What can you alledge more for Gregorie then I can for Chrysostome Gregory reprooued corrected Bishops of Cicilie Africke Spaine Chrysostome punished and deposed Bishops of Thrace of Pontus of Asia Hereof is concluded no lesse the supremacie of ChrysostoÌ„me then of Gregorie such notable demonstrations can you make Yea how much S. Gregorie alwaies abhorred that tyrannicall supremacie Pag. 159. c. which your Pope of long time hath vsurped ouer the Church S. Gregorie was not onelie himselfe no vniuersall pope but hath also in plaine words condemned both that office title vniuersallie is manifest in that he so often so bitterlie inueicth against the name of vniuersall Bishop which he would not haue done condemning it whollie as most wicked vnlawfull ambitious profane Antichristian if he had thought his owne episcopall gouernment and iurisdiction had extended ouer all Churches For as Iohn of Constaninople chalenged that name in the same sense meaning doth Gregorie reiect it but Iohn
meant onelie thereby to make himselfe a chiefe Bishop ouer all Bishops and to bring vnder his iurisdiction the wholl Church of Christ and therefore it is euident that S. Gregorie vtterlie misliked that anie Bishop whosoeuer should haue an vniuersall authority ouer the whol Church which is to bring the Church in subiection vnder him That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerssall Bishop S. Gregorie himselfe doth testifie in these words who by the name of vniuersall Lib. 4. epist 38. goeth about to make subiect to himselfe all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirme professe defend proclaime by all meanes possible that all the members of Christ must be subiect to him and that no hope of saluation remaineth for anie but such as continue in his obedience Then denie if you can but that the selfe same authoritie which Saint Gregory reprooued in Iohn of Constantinople your popes haue approoued in themselues euen this last 13. Gregorie who latelie deceased and therefore by iudgement of S. Gregorie manie hundred yeares agoe they are Antichristian Bishops The popes of Rome with their vniuersall supremacie long since condemned by Saint Gregorie a Bishop of Rome and not Catholike pastors of Christes Church Wrangle all ye can S. Gregorie hath plainlie condemned your Popes for taking vpon them both the name and office of vniuersall Bishops Andreas Fricius whom here againe you alledge I haue not to deale with all what thing was meant by this name of vniuersall Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregorie himselfe whoe knewe best the meaning thereof If you require further proofe consider that S. Gregorie reporteth also that the councell of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo Lib. 4. cap. 32. but he would not accept of it Did the Councell meane to take from all other Bishops of the world yea themselues all bishoplie grace and power what madnes is it thus to thinke what impudencie to stand in maintenance thereof as you doe Futher when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius in a letter called Gregorie vniuersal Pope Lib. 7. epist 30. Indict 1. meant he to depriue him-selfe of all bishoplie authoritie Nothing lesse And yet Saint Gregorie reprooueth him for so writing and will not suffer himselfe to be so called The name then signifieth that vniuersall authoritie ouer all Bishops and Christians which Iohn claimed and your Popes obtained and long practized and will not yet giue ouer This was vnlawfull in Iohn this Gregorie condemned not onely in others but in the Bishops of Rome also therefore your Popes by witnes of S. Gregorie a Pope are clearely conuicted of vnlawful and Antichristian vsurpation If your Pope refuseth this name of vniuersal Bishop why doth Bellarmine his greatest diuine Couâ—reon 3. Quest 4. recken this for one of the Popes names of dignitie but chieflie why doth the Pope mislike the name and allowe the thing signified by the name Concerning the two other articles pag. 164. c. of Reall presence and sacrifice you are content to saie litle which in effect is nothing For what haue you brought to prooue either of these your opinions you tell vs Saint Gregorie was a Priest and said Masse according to your popish fashion but whe will beleeue your report you haue tolde vs so manie vntruthes That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies that Melancthon saieth he horriblie profaned the communion that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certaine of his miracles about the sacrament that Paulus Vergerius hath written a booke against his trifles fables that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Austen the monke whome he sent into England that the Bishop of Winchester M. Horne calleth this Austen a bussard It is not Austen that he calleth so but Bonifacius whome they name the Apostle of Germanie what maketh all this I beseech you against Master Iewells chalenge how conclude you hereof your Real presence or your sacrifice of the Masse surely your masters that set you on worke and made you an instrument to publish these thinges abused you much that you might abuse others more To Luthers iudgement of Saint Augustine pag. 166. that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he I willinglie subscribe but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries as he calleth them for mangling and abusing him in the question of Reall presence herein I haue nothing to answere in Luthers defense Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christes presence in the sacrament then we do as by the large treatises that haue bene written of this matter doth appeare yea neither Zuinglius nor Caluin nor anie other of our side hath more fullie and directlie written a gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper then S. Austen hath in sundrie places That Luther iudged otherwise it was his errour which he retained of his olde leauen wherewith in time of papistrie his iudgement was corrupted Hereof what argument can you frame against M. Iewell some thing would you faine saie but your words haue no pith of reason in them Saint Chrysostome you saie hath written six bookes of Priesthood pag. 168. and none of ministerhood verilie this is a verie poore argument for the sacrifice of your Masse If this reason holde from the authoritie of Chrysostome I trust the like will not be denied taken from the authority of the scriptures In the new Testament Ministers are named six and six times priests in your sense neuer therefore no Priesthood remaineth and so by consequence no sacrifice But concerning the name of Priest how it hath bene vsed of the auncient writers not in the proper and naturall sense but after the common custome of speach I haue alreadie before declared Thus haue you M. Rainolds vttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge Howbeit if D. Harding were aliue I suppose he would thinke you had deserued small thankes Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter the more ye stirre the lesse ye preuaile your learning is not much your iudgement is lesse you are but a weake instrument to deale with him whom D. Harding could not match M. Iewells chalenge is prooued wise true learned to the praise of Gods trueth shame of papistrie and worthie commendation of that famous Bishop whose memorie is euerlasting and most honourable among the godlie CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence MAster Rainolds leaueth M. Iewell pag. 170. c. and proceedeth to maintaine a quarell of M. Martine against Bezaes traÌ„slation of certaine wordes vttered by the Apostle Saint Peter and recorded by S. Luke Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanitie to spend manie words about so small a matter and therefore suffering this man that knoweth no measure either of speaking or holding his peace to talke his pleasure I will herein vse no more wordes then the thing requireth that is as few
not according to the Hebrew but according to the Septuagints First Master Rainolds your comparison is not equall What are ye to Christ to his Euangelists and Apostles will you be bolde to take as much vppon you as they might herein doubtles you haue not so wiselie be thought your selfe Then shew if you can a place alledged by our sauiour Christ or anie Euangelist or Apostle swaruing in sense from the Hebrew They cite not alwaies the words but they keepe most truelie the sense and meaning euer more Lastlie it is one thing to translate the scripture and an other to cite a place of scripture In citing a place it is sufficient to obserue the true meaning in translating it is necessarie to keepe the wordes as neare as maie be Our sauiour his Euangelists and Apostles were no translatours of scripture but they truelie deliuered the sense of such places as they alledged out of scripture The Apostle you say alledging a place out of the psalme Psa 19.5 Their sound is gone into all the earth followed not the Hebrew First I answere the sense is all one Rom. 10.18 whether you translate their sound or their line is gone forth secondlie Iohn Isaac can tell you Contra Lindā lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau must signifie not onelie a line but also as much as Kol a sound which if it be so Act. 13.41 then hath the Apostle kept the verie word The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc hath no difference in substance The Prophet saith Behold among the Gentiles c. The Apostle citeth the place thus Habac. 1.5 Behold ye scorners Howsoeuer some diuersitie maie appeare in the wordes the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Testament Your third example in Saint Iames sheweth Iam. 4.6 that the Apostle cited the words of the Greeke not of the hebrew which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Testament vsed But to alledge the sense of a place therin to follow some translation is another thing then to translate the text it selfe The Hebrew text is to this sense He mocketh the mockers and giueth grace to the meeke Pron 3.34 Saint James rehearseth the wordes thus God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble The sense is not altered seeing these mockers are the proude men of this world and God mocketh them when he resisteth them But tell me now whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt or no. I think you dare not so affirme seeing your latine vulgar which you account authenticall agreeth with the Hebrew for the two last places Then what is your argument out of these examples gladly would I vnderstand if you could tell That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the olde testament according to the Greeke Haue an eie to M.R. conclusion and it shal appeare he speaketh beside the purpose was it because the Hebrew was contaminated as you speake If it were then must you confesse your latine translation which you so much esteeme to be full of corruption Would you translate these places according to the Greeke because you finde them cited by the Apostles according to the Greeke Expound your dreame Master Rainolds your selfe and tell vs what you saw Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine If he had meant as you surmise he would haue cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also But there you haue it set downe in the text and expounded in the commentary Your spposes haue small weight to ground an argument vpon pag. 290. you may deuise and imagine any thing what you liste Euery canonicall booke of the olde testament is extant in the same language wherin it was written As for your bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees it is no matter in what tongue or by whome they were set forth That S. Matthewe writ his Gospell in Hebrew is affirmed I graunt by auncient fathers but affirmed onelie not prooued and arguments there be manie to the contrarie But admit that so it were the Greeke was set forth in the Apostles daies as the same authors confesse and by them commended to the Church as the true and authenticall history written by S. Matthewe and of vs is so to be accounted As for the Hebrew of that Gospell now extant your selfe beleeue not I thinke it is the same that Saint Matthew writ if he writ anie at all in Hebrue Looke now to the force of this supposition a litle better your selfe if you haue grace to consider it aright which you saie is wanting in me you will confesse it prooueth nothing My words by you translated I acknowledge pag. 291. c. out of which three things you note First that I confesse you refuse not the fountaines but because you thinke them to be corrupt which yet is not by me any where confessed The fountaines indeed you refuse and of this refusall the reason you pretend to be that they are corrupt Yet thinke I not that so you are in trueth perswaded it being contrarie to all reason that the translation generallie should be more pure and incorrupt then the fountaine it selfe from whence it is deriued Secondlie that I affirme you thus to say because the fountaines be not so commodious for you as the translation This to be the true cause in deede any man may soone perceiue that throughlie indifferentlie considereth your dealing this in some examples I haue alreadie shewed and can more at large declare when occasion shall require Thirdlie that I tell you the fountaines are more pure and holesome then the latine edition Verilie this I beleeue and this can I prooue and this shal in the discourse following appeare whatsoeuer you haue alledged or can alledge to the contrarie In your entrie to the question you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare translation by S. Ieromes authoritie pag. 294. who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latine translation of the new Testament Hier. in prefat in nonū Test S. Ierome I reuerence Damasus I commend the worke I confesse to be godlie profitable to the Church But if Ierome or Damasus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine translation how much more ought we to haue in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text which was written not by Ierome or anie such father of meane credite but by the Prophets by the Apostles and Euangelists not at the request of Damasus or other like Bishop but by commaundement from God and direction of the holie Ghost S. Ierome tooke paines at Damasus request in the foure Euangelists of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Testament but this maketh nothing for your assertion but
of the Church For outwarde succession is no more certaine in that Church then in others and it hath bene diuerse times broken of and discontinued by vacations and schismes for manie yeares together If then the Church had bene builded vpon this tottering rocke of externall succession at Rome it had oftentimes bene dashed and ouerthrowen but thankes be to God the Church is builded vpon a surer rocke then is the personall succession of your Popes or els of anie estate of men in the worlde and therefore whatsoeuer becommeth of your Pope or of his chaire and succession the Church falleth not but abideth and remaineth for euer Your stories written in time of Antichristes tyrannie what cause is there whie we should anie whit regarde them the authors thereof being infected with the errors of the Pope and daring not write for the moste parte otherwise then might well stand with his humor And to all histories that since the defection haue commended the faith of that Church we oppose the worde of God which plainelie conuinceth it of manifold and damnable heresies besides we could alledge sundrie writers in all ages that openlie haue reprooued the same The former distinction concerning the Romane Church pag. 25. here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to disprooue and to shewe that my paradox as he calleth it is impossible First he saith I graunted the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godlie Christian for sixe hundred yeares after Christ which forsooth I neuer graunted as he meaneth that simply and absolutelie no manner of corruption in anie parte of doctrine had taken place therin but onelie according to the state of those times and comparison of that general apostasie which afterward ensued So your conceit M. R. that this alteration should whollie be wrought within the space often or twelue years is so vaine childish that nothing can be deuised more foolish and farther of from the purpose No M. Rainolds notwithstanding Antichrist was not openlie aduanced in the Romane Church before Bonifacius the third yet was there in it no small preparation for entertayning of him before that time through corruption of doctrine and manners in that Church though it was in manie things corrupted before yet had it also great sinceritie which by little and little decaied more and more till Antichrist came and was reuealed and after Antichrist was seated there yet was not therefore all puritie lost by and by but in continuance of time it fainted and languished hauing receiued deadlie poison and no remedie being prouided Wherefore this roye of yours was indeed a vanitie of vanities fitte for such a vaine sophister as you are But now because Doctor Saunders and M. Rainolds boldelie affirme that by testimonies of stories no heresie was brought into the Romane Church or anie chaunge of doctrine euer made in the same let me put them in minde briefelie Sigisbâ—rt Gemblacensis in Chronico Ann. 1088. that Sigisberius the moncke an Historiographer mentioned by them both expresselie chargeh Gregorie the seauenth and his successours for maintaining and practizing not onely an error but an heresie also in taking vpon them authoritie to excommunicate the Emperour and other ciuill Princes This heresie hath euer since continued in that See and is at this daie by the Pope and his Popelings auouched and therefore by confession of their owne Historiographers Pag. 55. some heresie hath taken place in the Church of Rome contrarie to Doctor Saunders and Master Rainolds proude assertion That the Romane Church of later time hath not chaunged the faith which the auncient Romane Church professed Master Rainolds promiseth now to prooue by such testimonies as I must needes alowe for vpright and sufficient My selfe is the first then Caluine Luther Martyr Illyricus none of which euer dreamed of such a matter as he taketh in hand to prooue by their confession That I haue said the first Romane Church helde the purity of faith nothing concerneth the later Church in what sense I haue so saide is before declared not thereby to iustifie that Church in euerie particular doctrine custome or ceremonie but onelie that the principall and substantiall articles of Christian religion were in it maintained against the heretikes of those times Then that Caluine Luâ—â—â— c. do graunt that the primitiue Romane Church maintained and beleeued the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse reall presence and Priesthoode is moste vntrue as further in discourse of this booke shall appeere And therefore the conclusion that of these premises should ensue is like the vntimelie fruite that ere it be ripe falleth downe to the ground And as for the common place that followeth concerning the continuance of Christs vniuersall Church pag. 57. to what purpose doth it serue or what argument maie it afforde you we beleeue and confesse to the comforte of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and neuer shall faile so long as the worlde endureth and we account it a profane heresie to teach that Christs Catholike vniuersal Church hath perished from the earth at anie time For this assertion as you truelie prooue shaketh the foundations of all faith and religion But as you haue effectuallie and inuinciblie by manifolde scriptures euinced that Christs Church can neuer be rooted out and no man in the world can open his mouth against you herein so if you had also proued by like euidence of scripture that the Catholike vniuersall Church of Christ is nothing els but the outwarde succession of the Romane see then had you prooued your matters soundlie and confuted our opinion truelie and proceeded orderlie But hauing spoken much concerning the perpetuitie of Christs Church which no Christian can denie or doubt of you bring vs no text not reason to shew that Christs Church either is the Popes succession or els dependeth vpon the same For as touching externall shew and succession of Churches the scriptures haue foretolde that Antichrist shall seduce great and small Apoc. 12.61 13.16 rich and poore free and bonde and that the Church shall flie into the wildernes and there remaine of al which no word could be true if the Catholike Church were tied to the Popes Chaire and the Popes Chaire were the rocke that can not be remooued And yet notwithstanding this generall dispersion and flight of the Church vnder Antichrist the Catholike Church shall for all that continue although not in that outwarde strength and glorie in which sometimes it hath appeered and florished Now this long discourse following is visible Pag. 59. c. and the Testimonies of Melancthon Oecolampadius Caluine and Illyricus at large rehearsed to that purpose all this argueth nothing els but pitifull and grosse ignorance in this man who not knowing what he auoucheth or what he refelleth yet laieth on such loade as though with euerie blow he felled his aduersarie to the ground The militant Church of Christ to be a visihle companie who hath from the beginning of the