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
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.
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
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
tyme as many thousands aliue could disproue him for any affection to that heresie whereto the baptisme of Constantine pertayned nothinge in the worlde As for the stones and pillers of marble in which any such matter is grauen bearing the name of his baptistry except Maister Sander could proue that they were sette vppe in his tyme are simple witnesses against the historye of Eusebius which lyued in his tyme. Nether the forged pontificall of Damasus nor the writings of Beda Ado Marianus Gregorius TureneÌ„sis Zonarus Nicephorus late writers following the fable of the Romish Church are of any credit in respect of Eusebius and the eldest writers of the Ecclesiasticall story that agree with Eusebius that he was not baptised many yeares after Syluester was deade And concerning the donation of Constantine it is too absurd for any wise man to defend which hath bene so long before disproued by Laurentius Valla no enemy of the Romish religion although a discouerer of that fable Agayne his forsaking of the citie of Rome and building of Constantinople is as great a fable for although he bewtified Byzantium and made it an imperiall citye as placed conueniently to keepe the Orientall Empire yet he forsooke not Rome but still retayned it as the chiefe see of his Empire so did the Emperours that followed him vntill after it was wasted by the barbarous nations they made lesse accompt of it And therefore although Constans the Nephew of Heraclius could not conueniently remoue thether yet he remoued froÌ„ thence what he thought good by which it appeared he had authoritie in the citie by the prouidence of God and not by chaunce as M. Sander dreameth that he was prohibited by Gods prouidence in respect of the Popes supremacie or els the world should be gouerned by chaunce But leauing Constantinus the father we must come to Constantius his sonne which was an Arrian of whom Athanasius complayneth that he had no reuerence of the Bishop of Rome Ep. ad Solit. vit agen nether considering that it was an Apostolike see nor that Rome was the mother citie of the Romane Empire There were other Apostolikes sees beside Rome and the Christian worlde was larger then the Romane Empire therefore this maketh nothing for the singular prerogatiue of that see But the noble Emperours Gratianus Valentinianus Theodosius made a law lege 1. Cod. de summ trinit That all their people should continue in that religion as the religion which is vsed from S. Peter vnto this day doth declare him to haue deliuered to the Romanes and which it is euident that Bishop Damasus doth follow and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolike holines This law proueth that the Emperours had authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes And that they ioyned the Patriarch of Rome with the Patriarch of Alexandria not because he of Alexandria agreed with him of Rome but because they both agreed with Peter and Peter with Christ. From these Emperours he commeth to Bonifacius who writing to the Emperour Honorius and humbly desiring his ayde to appease the tumults of his Church vseth these wordes Ecclesiae meae cui Deus noster meum sacerdotiuÌ„ vobisres humanas regentibus deputauit cura constringit ne causis eius quamuis adhuc corporis incommoditate detinear propter conuâ—ntus qui à sacerdotibus vniuersis clâ—ricis Christianae plebis perturbationibus agitantur apud aures Christianissimi principis desim The care of my church to which our God hath deputed my priesthood while you gouerne the affayres of men doth bind me that although I am yet withholden by infirmitie of bodye I should not be wanting to the causes thereof in the hearing of a most Christian Prince by reason of the meetings that are held of all the Priestes and the Clergie with the perturbations of the Christian people These words shewe that the Emperour was supreame gouernour in causes Ecclefiastiâ—â—ll for he writeth concerning the election of the Bishop To whom the Emperour answereth making a lawe against the ambitious labouring for succession that if two Bishops should be chosen they should be both banished out of the citie Con. To. 1. dist 97. I haue set downe the wordes at large to shewe the shamefull salsification of M. Sander who setteth them downe absolutely thus Mihi Deus noster mewn sacerdotium vobis res humanas regeÌ„tibus deputauit Our God hath appoynted my priesthood to me whereas you doe gouerne worldly matters As though he had denied to the Emperour all gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes wheÌ„ he flyeth to his authoritie in a cause Ecclesiasticall and doth not onely acknowledge him to be a conseruer of ciuill peace as M. Sander would haue it To Honorius he ioyneth Galla Placidia the Emperesse in her epistle to Theodosius set before the councell of Chalcedon Assirming that Peter ordayned the primacy of the Bishoply office in the see Apostolike Thus wrote the Emperesse or her Secretary and so it was taken in that time The like sayth Valentinianus in his Epistle to Theodosius his father that antiquitie gaue the chiefâ—y of priestly power to the Bishop of the citie of Rome And Martianus with Valentinian confesse that the Synode of Chalcedon inquired of the faith by the authoritie of Leo Bishop of the euerlasting citie of Rome Adde hereunto that the councell it selfe confesseth Act. â— that Leo was ouer them as the head ouer the members All these proue in deede a primacy of the Bishop of Rome acknowledged in those dayes but not such a primacye as is now claymed For the same councell and Emperours decreed that the see of Constantinople in the East should haue the same authoritie that the see of Rome had in the West the title of senioritie onely reserued to the Bishop of Rome Although the Bishop of Rome Leo by letters and his legats in the councell cryed out against it as lowd as they could Cont. Chal act 16. namely Lucentius cryed Sedes Apostolica c The Apostolike sea ought not to be abased in our presence c. but all the synode and the Iudges continued in their decree The saying of Iustinian in cod de summ trinit is examined and aunswered in the 69. article of M. Sanders treatise which is the true Church before his booke of Images as also the sayings of the Bishop of Patara of Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and Gregory Bishop of Rome The report of the councell of Sinuessa is too full of corruption and confusion to be credited for authenticall authoritie And yet it is playne that Marcellinus the Bishop of Rome was conuicted by witnesses to haue committed Idolatry before he confessed the sinne and receiued sentence of condemnation and accursing of the Synode howsoeuer that patche is thrust in after the Actes of the councell prima sedes c. the first see is not iudged of any which in euery counterfait decretall epistle almost must haue a place To proue that Phocas did not first make the see of Rome heade of
in Protestants Because Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth of the fathers Quâ—d credunt credo c. That which they beleue I beleue also I holde that they holde I teache that they teach I preach that they preach and lib. 2. quos oporâ—ct c. Christian people ought to prefeâ—re the auncient holy truth before your profane nouelties and chose rather to sticke to them then to you And are Pelagians aliue in Protestants because Augustine recâ—iueth the olde writers that were agreeable to the scriptures Did not the Pelagians alledge the authority of the old writers also Lâ—b cont Iul cap. 2. 3 But what should I contend about that which is so cleare in Augustine De baptism câ—nt Dâ—natâ—si cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat â—anctam scripturam canonicam tam râ—t ris quam noui testaâ—â—â—â— â—ertis sâ—is terminis contineri camque omnibus postericribus Episcopâ—rum literis it a praeponi vt de ill a omnino dubitari d. s epâ—ari non pâ—ssâ—t vtrum verum vel vtrum rectuÌ„sâ— quiâ—quâ—â— in ea sâ—riptum esse constiterit Ep sâ—â—porum autem literas que post confiâ—matum canâ—nem vel scriptâ—e sunt vel sâ—riâ—untur per sermâ—nem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in care periti râ—s per alioruâ—n Episâ—â—porum grauiorem auctoritatem doctâ—orumque prudentiam per conâ—ilia liâ—ere reprehâ—ndi si quid in â—is forte à veritate deuiatum est iâ—sa concilia c. Who knoweth not that the holy canonical scripture both of the old and new testament is conteyned in their certeine bands and that the same is so preferred before all later writings of Bishops that of it there can be no doubt or question at all whether that be true or right whatsoeuer is knowen to be written therein But as for the writings of Bishops which since the canon is confirmed haue bene written or bâ— nowe in writing that by some speach perhaps more wise of any man that is more skillfull in that matter and by the more graue authoritie of other Bishops and wisedom of them that are better learned and by councells they may be reprehended if any thinge perhaps in them is gone a straye from the truth and that euâ—n those councells which are helde in euery region and prouince without all controuersie doe giue place to the authoritie of generall councels which are made out of all the Christian worlde and that euen the generall councells are often tymes corrected the former by the later c. as in the 13. motiue By which saying you may playnly see howe the olde fathers were S. Augustines motiue euen none otherwise then they are our retentiue to staye vs in Christian truthe which they write agreeable to the holye Scriptures and therefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristowe bothe where he saythe that in our preachinge and writinge we thinke it not necessary to alledge the tâ—stimonies of tâ—e olde fathers and also that in familiar talke amonge our selues we are not afearde plainely to confesse that the fathers all were Papistes As vayne a cauill it is that the Protestantes are ashamed of their fathers When we acknowledge no fathers vnto whose iudgement we will stande absolutely in all controuersies but the Prophetes and the Apostles and God him selfe by whose spirite they did write As for Simon Magus Eunomus and suche olde heretikes we detest more then the Papistes doe But AErius Vigilantius and Iouinian were playnely of our opinion and of them we are ashamed And doe you Papistes beleeue nothinge common with AErius Vigilantius Iouinian Doe you in no poynte holde that which Arius Macedonius Eutyches did holde Doe you mayntayne no opinion which was taught by Mahomet him selfe you will aunswer that there neuer was heresie but it hâ—lde and taught many articles of truthe which if you holde as they did you are not therefore their children in suche articles wherin they were heretikes Euen so we aunswere you of AErius Vigilantius Iouinian we are not ashamed to beleue any truth which they helde their errours we leaue vnto them selues But I know you will replye that among the errours of AErius the denyall of prayers to profit the deade was one accompted by Epiphanius and Augustine Then it is your parte to shewe what argumentes out of the holy Scripture they bring to proue this opinion to be an errour Otherwise their auctoritie alone is not sufficient to make it a truth Vigigilantius is baighted only by Hierome of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man and a learned As for Iouinian we take not his parte if in all respects he made mariage equall with virginitie which in some respect the Apostle preferreth But we must see of what religion and auctoritie the fathers were First sayth Bristow you may perceaue by Iewells challenge that for Purgatorie prayer for the dead and to Saincts merite of good workes c. there is somthing conteined in the olde fathers which liued within 600. yeares after Christ because he durst not make his challenge of these articles but of the Masse the Pope the eucharistie c. But I pray you Bristow are not these greater matters among you then the other If therefore you be not able to proue your greatest mysteries of antiquitie out of any one father for so many ages what great matter is it if you haue them fauourable in a fewe articles of lesse moment But Bristow with wayght of reason will beare vs downe that all the fathers are on their side wholly and against vs in all poynctes of our controuersie And this is his reason who are driuen to mayteyne the fathers credit and auctoritie Papistes or Protestantes Not Protestantes verily but Papistes ergo the fathers be all for Papistes and against Protestantes A mightie reason of mayne force Dioscorus and Eutyches in the councell of Chalcedon boasted of the auctoritie of the holie fathers and stoode much in defense of their creditte therefore the fathers were whollie on their side But let vs heare L. Humfreys opinion out of his booke of B. Iewells life of Iewells challenge of the fathers and of the Saincts in the calender Nay rather let vs heare Bristow yelping like a little curre agaynst so great a lyon First he snatcheth peeces of his sentences gnawne from the rest and then squeleth out as though he had hearde some maruelous straunge soundes D. Humfrey sayth Iewell gaue the Papistes too large a scope when not content to haue beaten them downe with the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures he made his challenge vpon the testimonie of the fathers and that so many hundreth yeares after Christ. And herein he was iniurious to him selfe that refusing that meane by which he might more easely more straightly haue maynteyned his cause after a maner he spoyled him selfe and the church This is his opinion of Maister Iewells challenge Howe followeth his opinion of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the calender
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
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
to the former doctrine of Peters primacie namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade because they were not in dauÌ„ger of error the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring hath continued in Peters successors more then in the successors of all the Apostles Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle that he might confirme his brethren I haue often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter was proper to Peters person therefore can not be drawne to his successors And what madnes is it to defend that the Pope can not erre when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant. But M. Sander concludeth to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship but by the appoyntment and will of Christ Peter was heade to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest is one as a kingdom one by hauing one king in it Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ ouer all his Church to make it one in the holy Scriptures when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely then was not Peter his superiour in any respect That Paule reprehended Peter M. Sander sayth he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship If that be so why may not euery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike If you graunt they may then haue you so many Canones against you as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession But this fault you say with Tertullian was of conuersation not of preaching that Peter might not seeme to haue erred in doctrine Neuertheles it can not be excused but Peter also erred in doctrine Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe or of Christian libertie but of bearing too much with the Iewes in preiudice of the Gentils whom he compelled to Iudaisme in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine which dissimulation he entred not into for any worldely respect but because he was dâ—ceyued in opinion thinking that in that case he ought so to haue done before he being reprehended by Paule sawe the inconuenience and then myldely yelded to the correction But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles seeing Christ had sayde he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser In deedâ— he shewed herein such greatnes as Christ commendeth but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren Cyprian ad Quintum sayth he did not iudge this reprouing of Peter to be an argument against his supremacie but a witnes of his humilitie but he giueth vs this much to vnderstande that if he had chalenged primacie he had taken vpon him arrogantly his wordes are these Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit c. For nether did Peter whome our Lorde chose the first and vpon whome he builded his Church when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward chalenge any thinge insolently or take vpon him arrogantly to say that he had the primacie and that he ought rather to haue bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers nether did he despise Paule for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche but he did admitte the counsell of truth The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye De bap cont Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis c. VVe haue learned in the holy Scriptures that Peter the Apostle in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence when he vsed to dâ—e otherwise then the truth required about circumâ—sion was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order not of dignitie and authoritie But Gregory much later then Augustiue graunteth to Peter not onely a primacie bâ—t also a maioritie in Ezech. Hâ—m 18. Quatenus c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship should be chiefe also in humilitie And agayne Eâ—ce à minore c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser and he disdayneth not to be reproued Nether doth he call to minde that he first was called to the Apostleship These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise then that he was first called to the Apostleship which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther Zwinglius Caluine c. and their bitter dissentions shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles It is not to be doubted that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues if they come not nearer to them then the Pope and his pompous Clergye let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vpon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized he aunswereth that proueth no more their equalitie then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop to go about busines of the chapter it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the CanoÌ„s But by his fauor where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines to be inferior to the whole chapiter as Peter Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles though the Bishop or Deane in other respects be superior to the Canons and Peter and Iohn were equall to euery one of the Apostles Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vpon a false supposition that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles if they had fallen as Iudas did therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right but by concession election or vsurpation The 12. chapter THat S. Peters prerogatiue aboue the other Apostles is most manifestly seenâ— by his chiefe Bishoply power Howe Christ loued Peter aboue others M. Sander fantasying that he hath proued Peter superior to the Apostles not in their Apostleship but in his Byshoply degree doth yet againe distinguish the order and office of a Byshop from the authoritie and iurisdiction of the
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.
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
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
of equall auctority with the worde of God but in that they agree with the same in condemning the heresies of Arrius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutiches That proude scoffe of Parliament religion bewraieth the stomake of a Vauntparler not the spirit of a diuine or good subiect Popery was also confirmed by Parliament in Queene Maryes time therefore it was Parliament Religion But where as he would compare the laste rablement of Trent in all pointes with those ancient holy Councels he doth euen as much as if he would goe about to proue an Ape to be a man But I may not omit that in shewing the necessitie of the Popes confirmation of Councels out of Annianus Marcellus Lib. 15. Hee helpeth the matter with falsifying the writer sor he deliuereth his wordes thus auctoritate qua potiâ—res aternâ—e â—â—â—â— Episcopi with the authoritie in which the Bishops of the eternall city are better whereas the word is poâ—iuntur by that authoritie which the Bishops of Rome haue or doe enioy But if we shall beleue Marcellinus an heathen writer Liberius Bishop of Rome was of the same mind in condemnation of Athanasius that the rest of the Bishops were which proceeded against him but that he thought it not reason to subscribe to his condemnation before he had seene and heard him For thus Ammon writeth Hunc per subsâ—riptionem abiicere sede sacerdâ—tali parâ—a sentiens câ—eteris iubente principe Liberius monitus perseucranter renitebatur nec visum hominem nec auditum damnare nefas vltimum sâ—epe exclamans apertè sâ—ilicet recalcitrans imperatoris arbitrio Id enim ille Athanasio scmper infesius liâ—et sâ—iret impletum tamen auctoritate qâ—â—a potiuntur aeternâ—e vrbis Episcopi firmari dâ—siderio nitebatâ—r ardente This man speaking of Athanasius condemned before by a Synode of Bishops Liberius being of the same opinion with the rest warned by the Princes commaundement did stiffly refuse by subscription to cast out of his priestly seate crying out often tymes that it was extreme wickednes to condemne a man being nether heard nor seene so openly kicking against the Emperours pleasure Who although he which being alwayes an enemy to Athanasius knew that it was already fulfilled yet he labored with earnest desire to haue it confirmed by the authoritie which the Bishops of the eternall citie haue There can nothing els be gathered of this but that Constantius knowing Athanasius to be depriued by a councell of Bishops of the East would haue Liberius Bishop of Rome to consent to his condemnation because Athanasius was one of the foure Patriarchs was not to be condeÌ„ned but by the rest of the Patriarches Not that it was then thought that all councels were insufficient except they had the Popes confirmation as Bristow doth dreame But Bristow sayth the Protestants regarde no councells because they suffer Lewys Euans in a naughtye booke to cal the councel of Chalcedon a blasphemous proude sacrilegious Antichristian Councell This Lewys Euans while he was a Papist and did write from Louayne in defence of Papistrye was accompted of you a learned man a sober man a godly man but now that God in great mercye hath opened his eyes to see and acknowledge the light of the Gospell you rayle on him and slaunder him at your pleasure For if you had bene able to iustifie your reproche you woulde haue noted in which of his bookes seeinge he hath written many and in what leafe and lyne he had written so vnreuerently of that Councell Howsoeuer it be he is able to aunswer you him selfe Although if he haue erred in the name or iudgement of that councell it were small reason to charge all the Protestantes in England with one priuate mans error The last is that Councells were S. Augustines motiue because he writeth that euen prouinciall Councells must giue place without all doubt to generall Councells De bapt cont Dâ—n lib. 2. cap. 3. but what writeth Augustine immediatly after Ipsáque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod claâ—sum erat cognoscitur quod latebat sine vllo trpo sacrilegae superbiae sine inflata ceruice arrogantiae sâ—ne vlla contentione liutdae inuidiae cum sancta humilitate cum pace Catholica cum charitate Christiana Who knoweth not sayth Augustine That euen generall Councells are often tymes the former corrected by the later when by any tryall of thinges that is opened which before was shutte and that is knowen which before was hidde without any swellinge of sacrilegious pride without any swellinge stubbernes of arrogance without any contention of spightfull enuye with holye humilitie with Catholike peace with christian charitie What saye you Sainct Augustine haue generall Councells often erred that the former were corrected by the later If you mayntayne this saying you shall be no longer of Bristowes religion The 14. motiue is the 26 demaund The fathers Pelagians aliue in Protestants The fathers S. Augustines motiue Protestants be ashamed of their fathers Of what religion and authoritie the fathers were L. Humfries opinion of Iewells chalenge of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the Calender Bristow woulde haue it considered whether euer any Catholike man in matters of fayth did obstinately refuse to beleue the olde fathers consenting in one and agreeing together but onely such as were heretikes I aunswer Bristow playeth the captious and yet foolishe Sophister For in this first demaunde he seemeth to vnderstand all the olde fathers consenting together but in the rest of the chapter he playnely speaketh but of some of the olde writers nowe there is great difference betwene all and some For we denye nothing that all the olde fathers did consent vpon although we denye some thing that some of the olde fathers did allowe For example we denye prayers for the deade which some of the olde writers did allowe But if Bristow woulde breake his heade in peeces with studye he shall neuer be able to proue that all the olde writers did mayntayne prayer for the deade the like I saye of prayer vnto Sainctes and of some prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops of some ceremonies c which being the dregges of a great quantitie of good liquor contayned in the vessells of diuerse of the olde writers and yet of the later sorte of them the Papistes haue onely sucked out letting all the good liquor to runne beside them And like impudent dogges yolpe barke against vs that the fathers are all of their side and contrarye to vs with as good reason as one that hath gotten the excrementes of a man shoulde boast boast that he hath the same man in possession I thinke the reader can not but laughe when he readeth it so often noted by Bristow Pelagians aliue in Protestantes When of all olde heresies we are further from none nor Papistes nearer to any then to the heresie of the Pelagians But why troe ye are Pelagians aliue
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
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
that he deserued so to be and therefore had neede especially to bee confirmed by our Sauiour Christ more then the rest as his offence was more shamefull then of any of the other Therefore the seconde reason that hee bringeth of his restitution if he had lost it is superfluous Ioh. 20 For he was none otherwise restored then the rest were but at this time especially confirmed as his speciall case required His last reason is that admit Peter had not beene restored before this time yet nowe he was restored to a greater authority then any other Apostle had receued at any time and whereas we reply that all the Apostles were equall by testimonie of Cyprian and Hieromes he aunsweareth by distinction forsooth that they were equall in Apostleship and yet Peter was chiefe of tâ—e Apostles and an ordinary chiefe shepheard or high â—â—yshop wherein they were all inferiours to him and â—â—ee was their Primate and their heade and this distinction he promiseth to proue exactly heereafter In the meane time it is a monstrous Paradox that all the Apostles should be equall with Peter in Apostleshipp and yet Peter be the chiefe of the Apostles He that can proue inequalitie to be where he graunteth equallitie to be and in the same respecte is a straunge Logition Fynally where as some men graunting Peter to bee the rock deny the honor to his successors he will proue that the Byshop of Rome and none other hath all that authoritie which Peter sometime had and consequently that the Protestants come neerer to the nature condition of Antichrist then any pope of Rome euer did or can doe The seconde Chapter THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ though not properly a Lordlynesse or heathenish dominion And in what sort this Eâ—clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmeÌ„t ofseculer princes and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared That there â—as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes The high Priest is preferred before the King by Gods law The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes That Moyses was a Priest THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a ministery or seruice by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion but altogether as vnlike to it as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth That no man properly can tâ—e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently vnder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ. he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist â—ut also an Anabaptist For the coÌ„mon seruice that we oâ—â—e vnto Christ hindereth not but that a Christian man â—ay be Lord King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar to eche in things that belonged to them that dominion which he forbiddeth vnto his Apostles like to the princes of the nations Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians but to the ministers of the Church onely in respect of their ministery And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church some kind of primacy also it is cleerer by the scriptures then that it neede any proofe especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth namely where he citeth this text Feed my sheepe to signifie that Peter should giue euery man his dewe portion iust measure of victuals in coÌ„uenient time which thing neither Peter did nether was he able to doe And much lesse any man in succession to him which is not equal in gifts with him And therefore the example of a stuarde who may prouide for a competent number of one family is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde beside him that is almightie For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde yet were they not appoynted to giue to euery man his dewe portion but to appoynt Pastors in euery Church and towne for that purpose Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse 23 they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos which hee calleth Exortem quandam eminentem potestatem A certaine peerelesse and highe power And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time c. True Euery seuerall Pastor or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority yet in that he argueth that the like should be in the whole church militant which is in euery parish it is out of all compasse of reason For that which is possible in the one is altogeather impossible in the other And the argument is no better then if we should say there is one steward in euery Colledge or greate house therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world And wheras he would proue his matter good by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles calleth Peter the first it is to childish friuolous For in euery nomber one or other must be the first it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship therefore his primacy was of order not of auctority Nether is he alwaies first named for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is of the dignity of the Apostles Iames is named before Cephas or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem by consent of most auncient writers neither doeth it folow that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi A prince of the people therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people as M. S. seemeth to say neither had Peter by those wordes feede my shope any auctority committed vnto him more then to the rest of the Apostles As for the name of Lord or tearme of dominioÌ„ sometime geueÌ„ by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment we striue not about it so there be no such dominion by him excercised
so obiect that the gouernment of the clergy as it differeth in matter which is spirituall so also it differeth in forme maner from the regiment temporall w c is with outward pompe of glory with the material sword this with all humility with the sword of the spirit Contrariwise M. Sander answereth this obiectioÌ„ so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptistes sheweth him selfe litle to differ from their opinion First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion as is vsed among the Princes of the earth not altogether such as ought to be amoÌ„g them But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion it appeareth by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benefactors which their subiectes did giue them for their bountifulnes towards them in preseruing them from enemies in peace and wealth Secondly he sayth that although the King be neuer so good yet it is not the Kingly but the Priestly power which God chose froÌ„ the beginning to rule his people withal And although Kings serue Gods eternal purpose they are commaunded to be obeyed yet the making of Kinges ouer Gods owne people at the first came not of God by way of his mercifull election but by way of his angrie permission What Anabaptist could speake more heretically or seditiously against the lawfull auctority of Kings Princes But let vs see his reason Nemrod he sayth was the first King we reade of which either by force vsurped or was aduanced by euell men I aunswere if Nemrod was the first that vsurped auctoritie as a tyrant yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly auctority lawfully nether was he ruler ouer Gods people But what wil hâ—ouy of Melchisedech King of Salem was not he elected of God at the first both to be a King a figure of the King of Kings who should not haue had that dignity if it had not bene of it selfe both lawfull and godly Secondly he sayth God was angrie with his people for asking a King when they had a Priest to rule them I aunswere he was not angrie for their asking of a King but for refusing of a Prince ordeyned by him which was Samuel a Leuite in deede of the familie of Cohath but no Priest of the familie of Aaron For in his dayes were high Priestes Eli Achitob Achimelech But after the dayes of Eli which was both high Priest and Iudge Samuel was ordeyned Prince or Iudge of the people hauing auctoritie aboue Achitob or Achimelech the high Priestes in his time which were sufficient to decide the controuersie of the supremacie if M. Sander would geue place to the Scriptures But who can discharge him of Anabaptistrie where he deny eth the making of a King to be Gods institution affirming it to be the fact and consent of men allowed in deede by God when the Apostle expresly sayeth it is Gods ordinaunce Rom. 13 And where he sayth that Abel Noe Abraham were directly from God chosen to be Priestes as Aaron he sayeth most vntruly for they had in their familie the principalitie of ciuill gouernment as directly as they had the Priesthoode But neither of both in suche sorte as Aaron had the Priesthoode in whom the one was distincted from the other And of AbrahaÌ„ it is testified that he was a Prince ordeyned of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth foorth the excelleÌ„cy of Priests by their auctority in making Christs body with their holy mouth as Hierom speaketh But that proueth not the supremacy of one Priest aboue al men nor of one Priest aboue an other As for the ordeining of Peter to be generall shepherd and high Bishoppe of the whole flocke by commaunding him to feede his shepe when he can conclude it out of that Scripture in any lawfull forme of argument we will yeelde vnto it But this is intollerable impudencie that pretending to shew howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king he asketh to what Christian king did Christ euer saye As my father sent me I send thee as though Christ had euer sayde so to Peter in singular and not to all his Apostles in generall As my father sent me so I send you Ioan 20. Concerning the rocke that he woulde builde his Church vpon and the feeding of Christes sheepe and lambes we shall haue more proper place to examine afterward what supremacie they giue to the Pope or to Peter ether His farther rauing against the dignitie of kinges who list to see let him turne to the 57. page of his booke cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he sayth that the pompe of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith and maketh worldly pompe as vnmeete for a king as for a Bishop But the Scripture he sayth neuer calleth any king head of the Churche nether doe we call any Kinge heade of the Church but onely Christ but in euery particular Church the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chiefe Magistrate not onely in gouerning the common wealth but also in making godly lawes for the furtherance of religion hauing all sortes of men as well Ecclesiasticall as ciuill subiect vnto him to be gouerned by him and punished also not onely for ciuill offences but also for heresie and neglect of their duties in matters pertayning to the religion of God For although many ciuill Magistrats at the first were enemies of the Gospel yet was it prophecyed that kings should be nursing fathers and Queenes nursing mothers vnto the Church Es. 49. Againe it is an impudent and grosse lye when he sayth that God was angry because the gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest was reiected a kingly gouernment called for For they reiected not y e gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest but of Samuel y e Iudge who was no high Priest although he was a Prophet nether was there euer any high Priest Iudge but only Eli. But if all supremacie be forbiddâ—n ouer the whole Church militant sayth M. Sander it is forbidden likewise that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church And this he proueth by a iolly rule of Logicke For the partes according to their degree are of the same nature whereof the whole is O subtile reason by which I wil likewise coÌ„clude there may not be one scholemaister for all the children of the worlde therefore there may not be one schoolemaster for one towne in all the world There can not be one Phisicion for all the world therefore there may not be a Phisicion for euery citie yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world therefore there may not be a Priest in euery parishe Againe he reasoneth thus If a king be supreame head ouer his owne Christian Realme it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianitie or beside it For by his christianitie it is not possible that he should haue greater power then the
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
faith of that disciple on which the church of Christ should be so established and founded that it should not fall Here is an other principall Doctor ioyning with Chrysostom against M. Sander who affirmeth that the rocke is nothing els but Peters faith After these he nameth Theophylact and Euthymius two late writers but he citeth nothing out of them presently But after shewing the force of Gods promise to be effectual to work al meanes necessarie for the performaunce of it he citeth out of Euthymius in Luc 6. that it was like that in Ioh. 1. Christ promised that Simon should be called Peter in Luk. 6 called him Peter All this needed not we doubt not but Simon was called Peter Yea but Cyrillus sayth in Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 64. that he being Prince and heade first cried out saying thou art Christ the sonne c. Therfore he was head before his confession by promise and name I will not here say how contrary M. Sander is to him selfe which in the cap. 3. sayd that his supremacie was graunted to him as a rewarde of his confession But I will aunswere Cyrillus by him selfe in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 28 that Peter was Ordine maior superior in order to auoyde confusion not in degee dignitie or auctoritie And whereas M. Sander vrgeth so vehemently that the name of Peter was not geuen for his confession but was singular to him by promise so that it belonged literally to no Prophet Apostle nor disciple but only to him his successors it is a most fond friuolus matter for the name of Bonarges was specially geuen to the sonnes of Zebedee in respect of their excellent giftes and at the same time that the name of Peter was geuen to Simon which secing it perteineth not to their successors which haue not the same giftes no more doth the name dignity of Peter perteine to any that sit in his chaire if euer he had any fixed chaire among the Gentiles which by Gods ordinaunce was appoynted to be the principall Apostle of the Iewes Moreouer where he laboreth tooth nailc to proue that these wordes vpon this rocke I will build my church are to be referred to Peter as I sayd before I will graunt euen as muche But that Peter by these wordes was made a singular rocke more then all the Apostles vpon which the whole church is builded I vtterly deny neither shall he be euer able to proue it For it is an impudent lye that onely Peter at this time had this high reuelation to acknowledge Christ to be the sonne of God For he aunswered in the name of all the rest who beleued the same which he in their name confessed Did not Andrewe before Peter acknowledge him to be the Messias Did not Nathaniel which was none of the Apostles acknowledge him to be the sonne of God and the King of Israel Ioan. 1. 49. But he reasoneth substantially when he saith thou only art the rocke because thou alone hadst this name c. promised thou alone hadst it geuen thou alone didst confesse me to thee alone I say thou art Peter As though a man may not haue a name whose signification is common to many Salomon alone was promised to be called and was called Iedidiah that is the beloued of God shall we therefore reason that Salomon onely was beloued of God as for that he onely confessed I haue shewed before that it is false for Christ saying thou art Peter meaneth not to say thou onely art a rocke but thou well aunswerest thy name which signifieth a rocke or stone and I wil in deede vse thee as a rocke or stone to builde my church vpon yet not meaning the person but the office and doctrine of his Apostleship But nowe hath M. Sander no lesse then 21. reasons to proue that Peter is the rocke here spoken of w c althogh they may for the most parte be easily auoided yet I will graunt that Peter is one of the twelue stones whereupon the church is builded but not the only stone Therfore his first foure arguments I deny 1. Simon is alone promised to be called Peter 2. he alone is called Peter 3. Christ speaketh to him alone saying And I say to thee c. 4. Christ sayth of him alone thou art Peter therefore Simon alone is the rocke of the church let him proue the cōsequence if he can The next 5. which proue that these wordes are to be referred to Peter although that they be not verie strong yet I graunt the wordes may be aptly referred to Peter the reasons are 1. vpon the pronoune The 2 the worde rocke of which Peter is named 3. the conference of thē together 4. the word I will build 5. the word my church The 10 Argument I denye that Christ. by saying to Peter Feede my Lambes feede my sheepe made him the heade stone of Gods militant Church nexte vnto Christe The eleuenth that Peter is shewed to be the Rocke spoken of by geuing of the Keyes I confesse ebut seeing the keyes are giuen to all the Apostles this proueth Peter to be none otherwise a Rocke then euery one of them That Iohn receued the Keyes I shewed euen now out of Chysostome The twelfth that the propertie of a Rock in constant withstanding of tempests agreeth with Peter I graunt and so it doth to the rest of the Apostles for whome Christ prayed as he did for Peter who also strengthened and confirmed their brethren as Peter did The 13. I confesse that hell gates shall not preuayle against the Church nor against any member thereof which is a small reason to make Peter supreame heade thereof The 14. which is the authorities of those doctors that teach Peter to be the rocke whom he nameth when he citeth their sayings or quoteth their places I will seuerally consider The 15. their reason also when I see them to deriue Peters authoritie to his successors I will waighe likewise The 16. the practise of 1500. yeares I deny The 17. I deny that all generall councells or any generall councell for 600. yeares after Christ acknowledged Peter to be the rocke in that sence the Papistes do now The 18. if the confession of Peter be the rocke yet it is none inconuenience that the church shoulde be builded theron which began to be builded on the same confession offered by Iohn Baptist. The 19. though you confound the diuerse senses geuen by the fathers in your fourth sense yet that proueth not your sense to be true The 20. seeing the Apostles are certeyne foundatiōs and rockes vpon which the church is builded I confesse that Peter must needes be one but that he was the most principall rocke in respect of his name Peter which is a stone I say it followeth no more then that Salomon was best of al men beloued of God because of that name Iedidiah which signifieth beloued of God The 21. that all the Protestantes doe not agree in the interpretation of
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
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
person so no mortall man For those woordes nothing but Peters faith do not exclude Christ because faith cannot be without necessary relation vnto Christ but they exclude the person of Peter as a mortall man because flesh blood reuealed not this confession vnto him but the Heauenly father The 4. authorite is Chrysostome Vpon this Rocke that is vpon this faith and this confession I will builde my church M. San. saith he that beleeued confessed was Peter and not Christ ergo the rock is Peter not Christ. Although this argument haue no consequence in the world yet to admitte that it doth followe I will reply thus but he that beleeued and confessed was not Peter onely therefore Peter onely was not this rock The 5. is Aug. de verbis dom Christe was the rocke vpon which foundation Peter him selfe was also builte M. San. asketh if one Rock may not be built vpon anonother as Peter vpon Christ yes verily but Peter none otherwise then the reste of the Apostles who were all foundation stones laid vpon the great corner stone or onely foundation Rock Iesus Christ. S. Augustine againe addeth in Christes person I wil not builde my selfe vpon thee but I wil build thee vpon me M San. following the allegory of building coÌ„fesseth that Christ is the first greatest stone vpon which by all proportion the seconde stone that should be laide must be greatest that can be gotten next the first If this be so it is meruaile the Angel which shewed vnto Iohn the building of the heauenly Ierusalem shewed him not this second stone by it selfe but the xij stones lying equally one by an other vppon the maine foundation Apo. 21. whereby we see that M. Sand. vttereth nothing but the visions of his owne head The 6. is Origines in 4. sentence in 16. Mat. He is â—â—â—â— rock whosoeuer is the disciple of Christ. M. S. reciteththis seÌ„se as not literal seing Peter is a disciple the first he wil proue Peter next to christ to be y e chief rock In deed according to this sense it must needes be that Peter is one principall rock among so many thousand rocks but because he is named first in the Catalogue of the Apostles it is a sory reason to make him so to excel that he is one rock that beareth al the rest But M. Iewel is frantike in M. San opinion that denying any mortall man to be this rock nowe proueth euery mortall man that is Christs disciple to be this Rock Nay rather M. Sand. is brainsick that cannot vnderstand this reason euery Christian is such a rock as Peter was therefore Peter in being a rock was not made Pope or hed of the vniuersal church Origines procedeth vpon such a rock all ecclesiasticall learning is built But S. Peter is such a Rock saith Maister Sander ergo vppon him all ecclesiasticall learning is built VVho would wish such an aduersary as M. Iewel is who proueth altogither against him selfe Nay who can beare such an impudent caueler that findeth a knot in a rush For your conclusion is graunted M. Sand. that all ecclesiasticall learning is builte vppon S. Peter but so it is builte vpon euery true Disciple of Christe by Origens iudgement Againe Origine sayth If thou thinke that the whole Church is built onely vpon Peter what then wilte thou say of Iohn the sonne of thonder and of euery of the Apostles First M. Sand. chargeth the Bishop for leauing out in English this worde Illum so that he shoulde haue saide vpon that Peter whereby he accuseth him to deny that Peter is a Rock whiche is an impudente lye Secondly when this authoritie doth vtterly ouerthrowe his whole building of the popish rocke he can say nothing but that Iohn was a mortall man and so were all the Apostles aswel as Peter therfore M. Iewel saide not truely that the olde sathers haue written not any mortall man but Christe himselfe to be this Rock when Iohn and all the Apostles be rockes As though there were no difference betwene the onely foundation and rocke of the whole Church which is Christ all the other stones that are built vpon it Last of all Origen sayth Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not preuayle onely against Peter or are the keyes of the kingdom of heauen giuen onely to Peter M. Sander aunswereth It is enough that the gates of hell shall least of all preuayle against Peter he hath chiefly the keyes of heauen But what reason hath he for this impudent assertion Peter of all the Apostles first confessed in the name of the whole Church Admit this were true as it can neuer be proued that this was the first time that any of the Apostles confessed Christ yet no primacy of superiority is hereby gayned if the sentence as Origen expounded it perteyneth to euery faithfull disciple What aduauntage M. Sander hath taken of the Bishops allegations let the readers iudge The eight chapter THe conclusion of the former discourse and the order of the other which followeth THe conclusion consisteth of 7. poynctes In the first he repeateth what he woulde haue men thinke he hath gained in his former discourse concerning Peter to be the Rock of the Church where on it is builte In the second for continuaunce of the building promised there must be alwayes some mortall man which beeing made the same Rocke by election and afterwarde by reuelation shoulde make the same confession whensoeuer hee is demaunded or consulted in matters of Religion If this were true there were no necessitie of the holy Scriptures neither yet of Synodes and Councelles if one Pope were abe to resolue all the demaundes mooued by all menne of the worlde In the thirde he sayeth if there muste be some such one Rocke it is not possible it shoulde be any other but the Bishop of Rome First because he alone hath beene the firste and chiefe in all assemblyes Secondly he only sitteth in Peters Chaire Thirdly and the consent of the world hath taken him so euer indeede but by the aduersaryes confession aboue a thousande yeeres But God be thanked the Churche hath no neede of any such Rock neither is any such taught Ephe. the fourth where the order of the building thereof and of all necessary builders of Fayth and doctrine are fully sette foorth And the three reasons are all false in manner and forme as they are vniuersally set downe as in their proper places shalbe shewed In the the fourth he gloryeth that he hath chosen to proue that poynte which of all other is moste hard That all the Apostles were not the same thinge that Peter was And firste he will aske in what Gpspell or holye Scripture it is written that euery other Apostle was the same Rocke which Sainct Mathewe testifyeth Sainct Peter to haue beene I answeare not onely by necessary collection out of many places of Scripture whiche he him selfe acknowledgeth to be the literall
of the holy Ghoste and by no ordinary authoritie 17 After the sending of the holy Ghost Peter aboue all the rest firste taught the fayth Chrysostome and Cyrill sayth he did it by the consent of all the rest who all stoode vp togither with him although one spake to auoyde confusion when the Apologie was made to answere the slaunderous scoffers But before that they taught euery one a like 18 The multitude conuerted said to Peter and to the other Apostles but to Peter by name VVhat shall we doe If this proue any thing it proueth the equallitie of the Apostles that hauing heard one man preach they demand not of him alone but of all the rest with him what they shall doe 19 Peter made aunswere for all that they should repent be baptised It was good reason seeing he made the apologie for all 20 Peter did the first miracle after the comming of the holy Ghost and by healing the lames feete shewed mystically that he was the rocke to establishe the feete of other I aunswere Iohn healed him as muche as Peter by Peters owne confession Act. 3. 12. and the lame mans acknowledging the benefit to be receiued equally from both in holding Peter and Iohn 21 Peter cōfessed Christ first not only before priuate mē but at the seate of iudgement Act. 4. It is false that Peter cōfessed Christ first before priuate men and at the seate of iudgement he confesseth equally with Ihon. 22 Peter alone gaue sentence with fullnesse of power vpon Ananias and Saphyra Not by ordinarie power but by speciall reuelation and direction of the holie Ghost whatsoeuer Gregorie a partiall iudge in this case doth gather 23 Peter was so famous aboue the rest that his shadow was sought to heale the diseased This was a singular and personall gift which the Pope hath not therefore it perteineth nothing to him 24 Peter did excommunicate enioyne penance to Symon Magus the first heretike Peter denounced Gods iudgement against him but not by way of excōmunication yet the argumēt is naught as all the rest are though the antecedents were graunted 25 Peter was the first that raised a deade body to life namely Tabitha after Christs ascētiō This is neither proued to be true neither if it were should Peter thereby haue greater auctoritie then his fellow Apostles which likewise raised the dead and peraduenture before Peter although S. Luke make no mention of them 26 Peter had first by vision that the Gentiles were called to beleue in Christ. This is false for Paule had that in vision before him Act. 9. 26. 17. 27 God chose that the Gentiles shoulde first of all heare the worde of the Gospell by Peters mouth and shoulde belecue Actes 15. This is false for Peter sayeth not first of all but of olde tyme. And the Eunuche of AEthiopia was baptised by Philippe before Cornclius of Peter 28 Prayer was made for Peter by the churche which was not so earnestly made for any other Apostle that we read of Their earnest prayer for Peter is set forth to shewe that God at their prayer deliuered Peter not that Peter was thereby shewed to be greater in auctoritie 29 Paule and Barnabas came to Ierusalem to the Apostles to fitch a solution from Peter Act. 15. as Theodoret noteth But S. Luke noteth that they came to all the Apostes and Elders at Ierusalem and not to Peter onely nor for his solution but for the solution of the councell 30 In the councell Act. 15. Peter did not onely speake first but also gaue the determinate sentence Both the partes of this proposition are false for Sainct Luke testifieth there was greate disputation before Saincte Peter spake also Sayncte Iames as President of the councell gaue the definitiue sentence accordinge to whose wordes the synodicall Epistle was written in the name of all the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem 31 Sainct Paule came to Ierusalem to see Peter as Chrysostome sayeth because he was primus first or chiefe But Sainct Paule him selfe affirmeth in the same place and diuerse other that he was equall with Peter and the highest Apostles Galathians 2. 8. 2. Corinthians 12. 11. 32 Peter was either alone or first chiefest in the greatest affaires of the church The greatest affaire of the church was the preaching vnto the Gentils in which Peter was neither alone nor first nor chiefest But Paule chiefest Gal. 2. 33 Peter was sent to Rome to occupie with his chaire the mother church of the Romane prouince and chiefe citie of the worlde and there vanquished Symon Magus the head of heretikes c. All this is vncerteyne being not founde in the Scriptures but those stories which reporte it conuinced by Scriptures to be false in diuerse circumstaunces 34 Peters chaire and succession hath bene acknowledged of all auncient fathers c. Although the see of Rome appoynted for the scate of Antechrist hath of olde bene verie ambitious yet it is a fable that hath bene acknowledged by all auncient fathers to haue the auctoritie which the Bishoppes thereof haue claymed For Irenaeus rebuked Victor for vsurping All the Bishops of Africa in councel withstoode Innocentius Zozimus Bonifacius and Caebastinus alleaging for their auctoritie a counterfaite decree of the councell of Nic◠as we haue shewed before in the first treatise the like may be sayed of the councells of Chalcedon of Constantinople the 5. c. which withstoode the Bishoppe of Romes auctoritie in such cases as he pretended prerogatiue To cōclude neither any one nor altogether of these 34. reasons proue Peter to be greater in auctority then the rest of the Apostles and much lesse the Bishoppe of Rome to be greater then Bishops of other seates The tenth Chapter THat the Apostles beside the prerogatiue of their Apostleshippe had also the auctoritie to be particular Bishoppes which thing their name also did signifie in the olde time ALthough the Apostles had all such auctoritie as euerie particular Bishop hath yet had they not two offices but one Apostleship No more then a King although he haue all auctoritie that euerie Constable hath is thereby both a King and a Constable but a King onely Neither doth their staying or as he calleth it residence in some particular citie proue that the Apostles either were or might be Bishops that is geue ouer their generally charge and take vpon them a particular or still reteyning their generall charge to exercise the office of a Bishoppe any longer then vntill the churche was perfectly gathered where they remayned For although the holy Ghost distinguished their vniuersall charge into seuerall partes to auoyde confusion as in making Peter chiefe Apostle of the circumcision and Paule of the Gentiles yet were they not thereby made Bishoppes And although the consent of writers is that Iames was Bishoppe of Ierusalem yet following the course of the Scriptures we must hold that Iamesby decree of the holy Ghost was appoynted to stay there not as a
Bishoppe but as an Apostle for the conuersion of the Iewes which not onely out of all Iurie but out of all partes of the world came thither ordinarily to worshippe Of S. Peters sitting at Antioch as Bishoppe we finde nothing in the Scriptures and lesse of his remouing to Rome But we finde that when Peter came to Antioche Paule withstoode him to his face and reproued him openly which he might not well haue done if Peter had bene supreame heade of the church in his owne see as M. Sander doth fantasie Where he alleageth the text Episcopatum eius accipiat alter and let an other take his Bishoprike to proue that Iudas and so the Apostles were Bishoppes it is too childish fonde an argument seeing the Greeke word which S. Luke vseth the Hebrue word which the Prophet vseth signifieth generally a charge or office and not suche a particular office of a Bishoppe as nowe we speake of He citeth farther Theodorete in 3. cap. 1. ad Tim. to proue y t the name of an Apostle in the primitiue church did signifie such a Bishoppe But howe greatly Theodoret was deceaued appeareth by this that he citeth for proofe Philip. 2. Epaphroditus to be the Apostle of the Philippensians because S. Paule sayth of him Epaphroditus your Apostle and my helper whereas he meaneth that he was their messenger vsing the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the generall signification for a messenger and not for the name of suche an officer as an Apostle or Bishoppe He nameth also Titus and Timotheus which in the Scripture are neuer called Apostles likewise the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem which were in deede the true Apostles of Christs immediat sending and not Bishoppes ordeyned by men And whereas Hierome sayeth that all Bishoppes be successors of the Apostles he meaneth manifestly in auctoritie within their seuerall charges and not that the Apostles were Bishops Likewise where Augustine sayth that the Bishoppes were made in steede of the Apostles it rather proueth that the Apostles were no Bishoppes for then if the Apostles were Bishoppes he should say Bishoppes were made in steede of Bishoppes The last reason is that if the office of Bishoppes had not bene distinct in the Apostles froÌ„ their Apostleship that office woulde haue ceased with the Apostleshippe for the whole being taken away no parte can remayne except it had an other grounde to stande in beside the Apostleshippe as the Bishoppely power had In deede if the Apostleshippe had ceased before Bishoppes had bene ordeyned Bishoplike power woulde haue ceased with it but seeing the Apostles ordeyned Bishops and Elders in euery congregation to continue to the worlds ende the Bishoppes office hath not ceased though the office of the Apostles is expired Wherefore seeing neither by Scripture reason nor Doctors this distinction of offices in the Apostles can be proued when Peter is called heade Prince chiefe first Capteyne of the Apostles by Cyrill or any auncient writer we must vnderstande as Ambrose teacheth a primacie of confession or fayth not of honor or degree de incar dom cap. 4. The 11. chapter HOw farre S. Peter did ether excell or was equall with the Apostles in their Apostolike office VVhere in diuerse obiections are aunswered which seeme to make against S. Peters supremacie BVt that necessity enforceth him M. Sander thinketh it sinne of curiositie to inquire of that equality or inequalitie of the Apostles where as it should suffice vs to follow the present state of the vniuersall Church practised in our time As though the vniuersall Church of any time did euer acknowledge the Pope to be supreame heade although a great part of the world hath of long time so taken him He thinketh it out of contronersie that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles as S. Mathew sayth primus the first Simon which is called Peter And he is not coÌ„tent that he was first in the order of numbring but he will haue him first in dignitie because he is alwayes named first But that is nether true nor a good reason if it were true because he is named first therefore he is of greatest dignitie But Gal. 2. 9 Iames and Cephas Iohn are sayde to haue bene pillers of the Churche and yet Paule equall with them Although if we graunted greatest dignity to Peter yet thereupon did not follow greatest authority For these three Apostles last named were of greatest dignity among the Apostles yet not of greater authoritie then the rest And although the auncient fathers of the worde primus haue deriued the name of primatus or primacy yet haue they also expressed wherin this primacie doth consist namely not in authoritie but in order nether doth those names Prince chiefe heade toppe guide mouth greatest of the Apostles vsed by some of them signifie his authoritie ouer them but his dignitie amongest them But if you aske him wherin Peter was chiefe He answereth â—â—â—â— question is curious For in y e nature order of the apostleship euery Apostle was equall with all his fellowes so is euery Bishop Priest King Duke Knight with euery one of his degree If this be as he sayth then was Peter chiefe nether as Apostle nor Bishoppe But there may be another thinge sayth he coincident to some degree of men not necessary for the being but for their well being One therefore was set ouer the Apostles for vnities sake and to auoyd schismes as Cyprian Hierom write in places before cited This must nedes be a primacy of order and not of authoritie for amonge men of equall authoritie as he confesseth the Apostles were one may be chosen as the President or Primate to auoyd confusion the austeritie remayning equall to euery one but one can not be preferred in authoritie to remayne still equall with his fellowes in auctoritie But wheras Optatus lib. 2. de schism Don. Leo ad Aâ—astas Ep. 82. are cited to proue that the same primacie which Peter some time but yet not alwaies had among the Apostles should be reteyned in succession of his chayre to mayntayne vnitie amonge all men it hath no ground in the holy Scriptures and yet those good men were farre from imagining suche an absolute power of Peters successor as M. Sander defendeth in the Pope although some times he doe handle it so nicely as it might seeme to be a thing of nothing wherein the Pope is aboue his fellow Bishops where I sayd that Peter had not alwayes the primacie of order among the Apostles it is proued both by the 15. of the Actes where Iames was President of the councell Gal. 2. not onely where Iames is named before Peter but also where Peter abstayned and separated him selfe after certayne came from Iames fearing them of the circumcifion left he should haue bene euill thought of as he was before for keeping company with Cornelius and in diuerse other places of the Actes of the Apostles But M. Sander will adde another truth
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
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
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
Homousians Athanasians c. but the doctrine of the Cathotholike Christians agâ—eeing with the woordes of God proued them to be no sâ—ctaryes nor Hetetikes so doth our doctrine iustifie vs what names soeuer be deuised against vs. But Maâ—ster Sander woulde haue vs to shewe a man whose pâ—oper name was Papa or Romanus as though many Heretikes were not called of their hearisie or place from whence they came and not of proper names of men Angelici Apostolici Barbarita Cathari Collyridiani Enâ—ratitae Patripassiani and a great number more were called of their heresie Cataphryges Pepuziani and such like were called of the place where they were Wherefore the name of Papistes and Romanistes agreeth â—ith the example of olde heretikes As for the longe tarying large spreadinge and straunge commng in of the Popishe heresie is therefore without example in all poyntes lyke because Antâ—christ is not a common pettit heretike but the greatest and most daungerous enemy that euer the Gospel had The names of Benedictines Fraunciscanes c. Maister Sander woulde excuse because these sectes maintaine no doctrin dissenting froÌ„ the Pope but all seeke the perfectiou of the Gospell by diuerse wayes as though there were any other way but Iesus Christ. Sainct Paule 1. Cor. 1. condemneth the holding of Peter of Paule of Apollo when the Doctrine was all one and counteth them schismatikes that so did And the purer Pâ—imatiue church condemned such apish immitators of the Apostles in forsaking all things and possessing nothing in abstayning from Marriage c. for Heretikes and called them Apostolicos witnesse Epiphan Cont. Aposto haer 61. The thirde Marke of an Antichristian is dissagreement among Heretikes and heere not content to charge vs with the dissagreeing of Anabaptistes from vs he amplysieth the dissention betweene Luther and Zwinglius about the presence of Christes body in the sacrament for which contradiction he thinketh it muste needes followe that one of them is an Antichriste I aunswere euery errour stifely mayntayned maketh not an Heretike except it be in an article of fayth necessary to saluation Cyprian againste the Byshopps of Rome Stephanus and Cornelius helde an errour in Baptisme as greate as that same of Luther dissenting from Zwinglius in the Supper of the Lorde yet is not Cypryan accoumpted for an Heretike Maister Sander replyeth and sayeth that Cyprian was not so stubborne that he woulde excommunicate them that held the contrary Luther also and Zwinglius althoughe they coulde not bee reconcyled in opinions yet agreed to abstaine from contention at Marpurge Anno domini 1529 Sleid. lib. 6. Maister Sander sayth further that in the contention of Cyprian and Stephanus the Catholike Faythe was not fully and vniuersally receiued in any generall Councell But hee forgeteth that the Byshoppe of Rome was one partie whose iudgement should haue ended the striefe if his authoritie had beene such then as he vsurped moste ambiciously afterward Nowe where as he defendeth the Papists for their vnitie which he sayeth could not bee with out the spirite of God I aunsweare he might as well defend the Doctrine of the Mahometistes where is greater vnitie then euer there was amonge the Papistes who to omit an hundreth small contentions of the schoolemen are not yet agreed of the greatest question of all whether the Pope be aboue the councell or the councell aboue the Pope For seeing some of the Papistes make the Popes determination to be the rule of truth other make the councell there is no vnitie among the Papistes in truth when they are not agreed what is the onely rule of trueth whereas we all agree that the word of God is the only rule of truth wherby we would haue all doctrine tried and examined The fourth marke of an Antichrist is to reigne but a short tyme and here he woulde haue vs to marke howe Luthers kingdome is come to an ende whose doctrine Melancthon hath chaunged although Illyricus woulde defend it What depe roote y e doctrine of God deliuered by Luther hath taken it is so well knowne that it can not be dissembled Neither hath Melancthon departed from him except it were in his opinion of the reall presence Wherefore this is a great impudency to triuÌ„phe ouer the decay of Luthets doctrine which dayly encreaseth to the ouerthrow of the Popish kingdom The fall of Hosiander an heretike no man either marueleth or pitieth The doctrine of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius of the Sacrament is the same that Caluine teacheth as euery wise man doth know and their learned workes shall liue and be in honor when the Popes decretalls and his Masse bookes c. shall stoppe mustard pottes and be put to viler vses Neither is Caluines doctrine failed by our othe of supremacie for Caluine in the right sence of it taught the same supremacie of Christian Princes which we sweare to acknowledge in our soueraigne Neither doth Beza teache any otherwise of the descending of Christ into hell then Caluine did nor otherwise expounded the place of the Psalme cited in Actes the 2. then Caluine doth as all men that wil read them both may see notwithstanding the shamelesse cauill of M. Sander The long continuaunce of the Popish kingdome is a small cause to bragge of when it being sound enemie to the kingdome of Christ is nowe entered so farre into destruction out of which it shall neuer escape although Maister Sander sayth it doth florish when it is banished out of so many regions and dayly decreaseth in euerie place Gods holy name be praised therefore The fift marke of Antichrist he sayeth is to preach without commission as Luther did who was sent of none I aunswere in the state of the church so miserablie deceaued as it was in his time God sendeth extraordinarily immediatly from him selfe as Helias Helizaeus the Prophetes were sent to the Iewes Israelites which were not of the Priests ordinary teachers so Christ sent his Apostles and Euangelists And so was Luther and such as he sent to repaire the ruines of the churche And yet the Papistes haue small aduauntage against the calling of Luther seeing he was a Doctor authorised to preache in that church where he first beganne which after he had reformed the abuses therof and restored true doctrine in many poyntes banished by the false doctrine of Antichrist The same reformed church hath euer since sent forth ordinarie pastors and teachers and shall doe to the end of the world The sixt marke of an Antichrist is that heretikes preferre the temporall sword before the spirituall And therefore Antichrist shall by force of armes compell men to a new faith for he shall come as S. Paule sayeth in virtute that is to say in power or strength O impudent falsifier of the holy Scripture doth not Sainct Paule say that his comming shalbe according to the efficacy of Satan in all power signes and lying wonders in al deceitfulnes of vnrighteousnes 2. Thes. 2. by which is shewed seduction by false
nothinge els but an impudent and vnskillfull quarelling against Beza wheras you Papists defend against the manifest institution of the cuppe the practise of the primitiue Church the communion in one kind of bread onely Con. Const. Sess. 13. 21. The tenth marke of an Antichristian is to agree with the members of Antichrist which are heretikes To agree with them in heresie is a poynt of Antichristianisme I confesse but not to agree with them in any thing For euery heresy affirmeth things that are true But let vs see in what points of heresie he chargeth vs to agree with the olde heretikes First Eunomius sayde that no sinne should hurt him if he were partaker of the faith which he taught so the Protestants saye of their faith Yea sir but their faith is not Eunomius faith yet they say not that no sinne shall hurt them but no sinne shall condemne them so say you Papistes of your popish faith Secondly Acesius the Nouatian Bishop affirmed that mortall sinnes committed after baptisme might not be forgiueÌ„ of the Priest but of God alone The Protestants deny the Priest to haue any right to forgiue sinnes This is a lowd lye false sclaunder for we hold that the minister of God hath authoritie to forgiue all sinnes that God will forgiue according to the power giuen to them Ioan. 20 But you Papistes agree with the heretike in this poynt that you deny the Priest to forgiue all sinnes according to the power giuen but haue your casus Episcopales Papales by which you abridge the power giuen by Christ. Thirdly the Messalians denyed that baptisme doth plucke vp the roote of sinnes the same is the opinioÌ„ of the ProtestaÌ„ts The Protestants haue none opinion common with the Messalians who affirmed that our owne merits satisfaction with prayers continual were necessary for plucking vp the roote of sinnes whereas we affirme that baptisme saueth vs according to the Scripture 1. Pet. 3. 21. by forgiuenes of our sinnes whereby euen the roote of sinne is plucked vp although coÌ„cupiscense remayne after the acte of baptisme which you Papistes also confesse to remayne to be the roote of sinne although you graunt it not to be sinne But we limit not the effect of baptisme to the time passed before y e acte of baptisme onely as you doe but extend it to our aeternall saluation he that beleueth is baptised shall be saued Marke 16. 16. Therefore you Papists both in this in your coÌ„tinual lipplabor maintained in your Abbeyes agree with the Messalians Fourthly AErius taught that we must not pray for the dead nor keepe the accustomed fastings that there is no difference betwene a Priest a Bishop The superstition of praying for the dead was iustly reproued by AErius so was the fast of custom and decree rather then of consideration for the first that praied for the dead were heretikes Montanists as Tertullian his sect the first that made prescript lawes of fasting was Montanus the heretike also as Eusebius witnesseth lib. 5. cap. 18. Of the third opinion was Hierom Euagrio affirming that the distinction was made by men and not by God Fifthly Iouinian iudged virginitie equall with mariage so doe the Protestants I haue shewed before howe it is equall and how it is superior Sixtly S. Hierom reproueth Vigilantius of heresie for denying prayer to Sainctes and giuing honour to reliques For praying to Sainctes there is no mention in S Hierom the immoderate honoring of reliques was iustly reproued and yet it was not then the one halfe of that it hath bene since Hieronym although he rather rayle then reason against Vigilantius as â—rasmus hath noted yet he desendeth not the adoratioâ— or worshipping but the reuerent estimation of reliques Seuenthly the Arrians would not beleue the consubstantiality of the same because that word was not written in the Scripture So do the Protestants deny many thinges vpon the like pretence This is a meere sclaunder for we stande vpon the sence of the Scripture and not the wordes onely Eightly Eusebius noteth it for an haynous impietie in Nouatus that he was not consummate with crisme which the Protestants call greasing In deede Cornelius Bishop of Rome reporteth that Nouatus was baptised in tyme of necessitie being very like to dye Iacens in lecto pro necessitate perfusus sit nec reliqua in eo quâ— baptismum subsequi solent solemniter adimpleta sunt nec signaculo Chrismatis consummatus sit vnde nec spiritum sanctum vnquam potuerit promereri Lying in his bed according to the necessitie he was baptised nether were the other things that are wont to follow baptisme solemnly fullfilled nether was he consummate with y e seale of Chrisme wherby he could neuer obtayne the holy Ghost First I saye this is noted as no impietie in Nouatus but as a defect of necessitie Secondly that the Chrisme which Cornelius speaketh of was ether a seale of the extraordinarye gifts of the holy Ghost which in some remayned in the Church vntill that tyme or els he magnifieth that ceremony intollerably to deny the holy ghost to such as had it not being none of the institution of Christ and contrary to that the Papistes them selues hold at this day Ninethly Lucius the Arrian persecuted holy Monkes so doe the Protestants Nay they punish none but filthy idle Idolaters and hypocrites Tenthly the Montanists and Luciferians sayd there was a stewes made of the Church They sayde so falsly when the Churche was chaste but Esaye say de truely how is the faithfull citie become an whore when the Church of Israell was so in deede Eleuenthly the Donatists sayd the Church was lost from all the world preserued only in Africa So say the Protestants that the Church was lost in all partes of the world and raysed vp againe in Germany The Protestants say not so For the Churche hath bene scattered ouer the face of the earth since the first preaching of the Apostles vnto this day But the Papistes saye that the Church was lost out of all the world and preserued only in a part of Europe when of all partes in the world onely a part of Europe which is the least part of the world was subiect to the Church of Rome Tweluethly the Seuâ—rians vsed the law and the Prophets but they peruerted the sense of the Scriptures by a certayne peculiar interpretation of their owne So doe the Protestants Nay so do the Papistes that submitte all vnderstanding of the Scripture be it neuer so playne to the interpretation of their Pope and popish Church as the commaundement of Images forbidden and the cuppe to be receyued of all doe most manifestly declare Lastly it hath alwayes bene a tricke of Iewes and heretikes to be still in hande with translating holy Scriptures that by chaunging they may get some appearance of Scripture on their side as Theodotion Aquila Symmachus So doe the ProtestaÌ„ts now Hieronym was no heretike yet did he
gouerne all the faythful by helpe of many inferiour officers As thoughe the Church had not inferior officers in the Apostles time If S. Peter then was not able to rule w c had such greate giftes muchlesse the Pope which is nothing comparable with him in gifts is often a wicked man an here tike is able to gouerne all the Church for he hath not so great an helpe of the conuersion of the worlde as he hath a want of Peters gracious giftes meete for such a gouernment Secondly he would haue vs mark the peculiar names of a Rock of a pastor of a confirmer of his brethren which are giueÌ„ by Christ to S. Peter alone which argue that Peters supremacy must necessarily continue for euer But who will graunt to M. S. that Christe gaue these peculier names to Peter alone indeed that which is meÌ„t by the names is ordinary and perpetual in the Church Peter was a Rock not his person but his doctrine that remaineth stil in the Church he was a shephearde and confirmer of his brethren and there bee nowe many shepheards and confirmers of their brethren Thirdly he sayth the Church neuer wanted a visible rock on the earth beside the eternall Rock Christ who in this life might bee so strongly fastened in the Faith of Christe the great Rocke that he though not for his owne sake yet for the Churches sake might be able to stay vppe all other small stones which ioyned vnto him vntill Christ came in the fleshe who likewise appoynted Saincte Peter and his successors to be this ordinary rock as Adam Enos Henoch Noe Abraham Isaac Iacob Moyses Aaron and his successors who sate in the chaire of Moyses vntill the comming of Christ. Against this I say that the church militant on earth hath her foundation in heauen and not on earth therfore the churche hath not a visible rocke in earth Againe it is not true that some one hath alwayes bene this visible rocke on earth For who was greater Abraham or Melchisedech out of all controuersie Melchisedech then was not Abraham the onely rocke After the death of Iacob and the twelue Patriarkes who was the visible rocke vntill Moyses was called And yet had God a church among the Iewes all that time Thirdly who is so impudent to say that all the successors of Aaron were so strongly fastened in the faith that they were able to stay all the small stones that leaned vpon them Was not Vrias the high Priest an idolater 2. Reg. 16. What were Iason Menclaus Lysimachus by the reporte of the booke of Machabes Was not Caiphas Annas Sadducees by the testimonie of S. Luke Act. 5. and of Iosephus Where is then the visible rocke whose faith neuer failed c we see there was none suche before Christ therefore there neede to be none suche after him His fourth reason is of the name of a pastor which signifieth an ordinarie office for as the sheepe continue after S. Peters death so must there be also a shepheard as Peter was But how proueth he that Peter was an only shepheard forsooth Chrysostom sayth lib. 2. de sacerdotio Christus sanguinem c. Christ hath shedde his bloode to purchase those sheepe the care of whom he did commit both to Peter to Peters successors But whom doth Chrysostom take for Peters successors the Bishops of Rome only No verily but all true pastors of the church as his wordes going before doe manifestly declare Neque enim tum volebat testatum esse quantum à Petro amaretur siquidem id multis nobis argument is constabat Verum hoc ille sum agebat vt Petrum caeteros nos edoceres quanta beneuolentia ac charitate ergasuam ipse ecclesiam afficeretur vt hac ratione nos quoque eiusdem ecclesiae studium curamque toto animo susciperemus For his purpose was not then to testifie vnto vs howe muche he was beloued of Peter for that was euident vnto vs by many arguments But this thing then he intended that he might teache both Peter and all vs what beneuolence and loue he beareth towarde his church that by this reason we also might take vpon vs with all our hart the loue charge of the same church This sentence sheweth that Chrysostome accounted him selfe euery true pastor of the church a successor of Peter and not the Bishop of Rome alone As for Leo a Bishop of Rome I haue often protested that he was more addicted to the dignitie of his see then the Scripture would beare him and therefore was ouerruled and resisted in the generall councel of Chalcedon His fift argument is a rule of lawe where the same reason is the same right ought to be The reason of Peters confession and power is such as agreeth to any ordinary office of the church therefore the office of Peter being a rock of strengthening his brethren and feeding Christes sheepe is an ordinarie office But I say that Peters confession made him not a rock but declared him so to be being appoynted of Christ for one of the twelue foundations of the churche the office of strengthening and feeding as it was not singular in Peter so it is not ordinarie that it should be singular in any man His sixt reason Irenaeus Optatus and Augustine did recken vp such successors of Peter as had liued till euâ—rie of their ages or times Therefore Peter had successors in his pastorall office It is not denyed but he had them and other Bishoppes also successors in his pastorall office at least the Bishoppes of Antioche whereby your owne cofession he was Bishoppe before he came to Rome Therefore his succession was not singular to the Bishoppes of one see His seuenth reason no man may preache to them to whom he is not sent therefore there must be a generall pastor to sende other to preache to them that are not conuerted to plant newe Bishoprikes to controll them that are negligent to supplie the thinges that lacke to excommunicate such as liue in no diocesse c. For sending he quoteth Rom. 10. where mention is onely of the sending of God and of the sending by men But all his questions and doubtes may be aunswered Either the whole church in generall councells or euerie particular church in their synodes as they shall see most expedient may sende preachers as the Apostles and Elders sent Peter and Iohn into Samaria order all such matters as he imagineth must be done onely by the Pope But he asketh who shall summon all other Bishoppes to generall or prouinciall councells And I aske him who summoned the foure great principall generall councells and so many prouinciall councels but the Emperours and Princes in whose dominion they were gathered So that here is no necessary affaires of the church that doth require one generall pastor or Pope of Rome when all thinges may and haue bene done best of all without him As for placing of Bishoppes in sees