was before called of S. Hierome To this Bilson pag. 88. First saith that the text is corrupted and that it should be ipse and referred to Peters person But this is a mere surmise refelled in all the copies in Europe Secondly he saith that though it be ipsa and grammatically agree with the substantiue Petra which followeth yet it may be meant of Peters person But if Saint Austin had meant that Peter alone had bene the Rock and that his successors partaked nothing with him in that he would neuer haue byd vs number his successors too and then tell vs that that was the Rock Wherfore Reynolds Confer pag. 384. confesseth that Saint Austin applyed this text the gates of hell c. to the Church of Rome And Bilson himself as doubting of either of the former answers saith thirdly that Saint Austin said not that Peters Seat is the Rock of the Church but that hell gates preuaile not against it But to our purpose all is one that in Saint Austins iudgment Peters Seat that is Peters successors in Seat are either the Rock of the church Theodoret or so surely founded theron as the gates of hell shall not preuaile against thē 13. Thirdly Theodoret an ancient and Grecian Doctor writing to Renatus saith of the Roman See Tenet enim sancta Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum That holy seat hath the gouernment of all the Churches of the world Which words are so plaine as Iuell Art 4. Diu. 21. findeth no better answer than iudging others by his owne humor to say That man naturally aduanceth his power at whose hands he seeketh help As if Theodoret were such a man as would giue an Antichristian title for so Protestants acount the gouernment of the Churches in the world or S. Leo accept it for flatery Finally the great Councel of Galcedon ep ad Leonem calleth Pope Leo their head and say that to him Concil Galcedon Vineae custodia a Domino commissa est The custodie of the Vinyard that is the Church was committed by our Lorde And thus I hope I haue sufficiently proued both by reuelation from heauen by the authoritie of the Church then aliue and since by the examples of Popes euer since S. Peters tyme bv confession of Protestants and finally by reason taken out of scripture that S. Greg. had lawful authoritie to send S. Austin Now let vs come to S. Austins orders CHAP. X. That S. Austin was rightly ordered to administer the Sacraments and preach the word of God 1. THat S. Augustin was created Priest at Rome is euident by his saying Masse preaching and Christening as soone as he came to Canterburie as is before rehearsed out of Beda lib. 1. cap. 26. And after he had conuerted King Ethelbert he came saith Beda cap. 27. to Arles where of Etherius Archbishop of that Citty he was consecrated Archbishop of the Nation of Englishmen according as S. Greg. the Pope had commanded And the King saith the same S. Beda cap. 26. gaue him place for his See in the Citty of Canterburie Here by the way I note that wheras S. Greg. lib. 7. epist 30. saith that S. Austin was created Bishop a Germaniarū Episcopis he doth not gain-say S. Beda who saith he was created by the Bishop of Arles because France was of the writers of that tyme called Germanie as appeareth by Venantius Fortunatus in Carmine de Nuptijs Sigeberti Brunechildae which might be partly because the French at that tyme and long after gouerned a great part of Germany partly also because the Francks who then ruled in France were Germans come out of Germanie But to our purpose That S. Austin vvas rightly ordered That S. Austin was rightly created Priest appeareth by that he was made by the authoritie of S. Gregory or his predecessors whome protestants account to haue bene true Bishops of Rome And Doct. Reinolds Confer pag. 362. acknowledgeth the Pope to haue yet Bishoply power ouer his owne Diocesse S. Austin therfore being a Roman and made by the Bishoply authoritie of the Pope was rightly made Priest And in lyke sort it may be proued that he was rightly consecrated a Bishop For he was made by the authoritie of the Pope with the consent of the King of England Secondly I proue that S. Austin was lawfully consecrated Bishop by the consent of the Christian world For S. Greg. commanded him to be made Bishop the French Bishops made him the English Christians receaued him and the East Church to whome S. Greg. wrote of the matter neuer disliked him and all the Christian world hitherto hath approued him Nether did the Britons though enemyes take any exceptions against his orders Thirdly because all protestants call S. Austin a Bishop and number him first in the Catalogue of the Archbishops of Canterburie And if their Bishops and Ministers will haue any orders at all they must confesse that S. Austins orders were good and sufficient For as Doct. Feild saith lib. 3. of the Church cap. 39. In England they which had bene Bishops in the former corrupt state of the Church so he termeth Catholick tymes did ordaine Bishops and Ministers And Sutclif answer to exceptions pag. 88. saith Couerdal and Scory who were Bishops in King Edwards tyme layd hands vpon Bishop Parker Bel in his Funerall professeth openly that he hath not departed from the substance of his Popish orders but onely from the ceremonies therof Besides euident it is that what Bishop or Priest so euer had bene made in King Henries tyme was neuer consecrate a new in King Edwards dayes Who had bene made in Queene Maries dayes was acounted to haue sufficient orders in Queene Elisabeths Reigne And yet what Priest apostateth from his faith is without more orders thought to haue orders ynough fore ministring the Sacraments and vvord of God or protestants haue no order at all And thus hauing shewed that S. Austin was the first Preacher of Christian fayth to our English Nation and that he had both sufficient learning and vertue to discharge such a function and withall lawfull commission and right orders to administer the Sacraments and preach the word of God now let vs see what kind of faith and religion it was which he preached and first what kind in generall and afterward what it was in particuler CHAP. XI That the Faith which Saint Austin preached to our English Ancestors was the vniuersall Faith of Christendome at that tyme. 1. THis I proue first by the testimony of those that liued in that tyme S. Austins vniuersal religion proued by S. Greg. among whome the cheefest and principal is S. Gregory him selfe who hauing bene long tyme the Popes Legat in Constantinople and after being Pope and receauing letters from all partes of Christendome could not be ignorant what was the vniuersal faith of East West and of all Christendome at that time He I say writing to S. Austin lib. 9. Epist 58. hath these
and others And about the same tyme also he sent S. Patrick to Irland as testifie Marianus in Chron. Cambd. in Hibernia Bale cent 1. cap. 49. where he saith that Saint Patrick preached sinceram Christi religionem And thus yow see how before S. Gregory Ancient Britons Scotts Picts and Irish receaued preachers frō Rome Popes sent preachers hither to all the ancient inhabitants of these two Ilands and that they receaued his Legats which Legats also for the most part were Britons Which declareth plainly what opinion those ancient Nations had of the Popes authoritie to send preachers hither 5. In like sorte after S. Gregories tyme the Pope sent preachers both hither and into other Contries For about the yeare 635. Pope Honorius sent hither Saint Birin P. Honorius who conuerted the West Contrie as Beda saith lib. 3. cap. 7. Godwin in vita Birini Bale cent 13. cap. 4. And cap. 5. he addeth that he sent also Saint Felix who conuerted the East-Angles In the yeare 668. P. Vitalian Pope Vitalian sent hither S. Theodore and Saint Adrian as writeth S. Beda lib. 4. cap. 1. Godwin in Theodor. Bale cent 13. cap. 6. and others About the yeare 690. Pope Sergius 1. P. Sergius sent S. Willebrord and other English Mōks to preach to the Frisons and Saxons as testifieth Marcellin in Sur. tom 2. Beda lib. 5. cap. 11. 12. Bale cent 1. pag. 78. cit About the yeare 719. Pope Gregory 2. sent Saint Boniface an English man called the Apostle of Germany P. Gregory .2 thither to preach as testifie Bale cent 1. pag. 79. and all German writers About the yeare 870. Pope Adrian 2. P. Adriā 2. sent Saint Cyrill and Methodius to preach to the Morauians and Slauonians Baron Martyrol 9. Martij Sigebert in Chron. About the yeare 970. Pope Iohn 14. inuited saith Bale cent 2. P. Iohn 14. cap. 30. the Kingdom of Polonie to Papisme and sent thither Cardinall Giles About the yeare 989. Pope Iohn 15. P. Iohn 15. sent S. Adilbert to preach to the Hungarians Bohemians About the yeare 1000. Saint Boniface was sent by the Pope to the Russians About the yeare 1145. Pope Eugen 3. sent Adrian an English man and afterward Pope P. Eugen. into Norway as Bale saith cent 2. pag. 178. About the yeare 1252. Pope Innocent 4. P. Innocent 4. sent the Franciscans and Dominicans vnto the King of Tartarie whome they conuerted and christened as writeth Bale cent 4. cap. 17. About the yeare 1494. Pope Alexander 6. sent Bucill and 11. P. Alexander 6. Monkes more into the West-Indies then newly discouered by the Spaniards And at the same tyme were Franciscans sent by the Pope into the East-Indies and since that Dominicans Iesuits and other religious men haue bene sent into diuers barbarous Prouinces of both Indies Africk and Brasile And in almost all these missions haue those which were sent by the Pope conuerted those Nations to whome they where sent God cooperating with them and confirming their words with miracles following are therfor termed the Apostles of those Contries And if this so long continuance of the Popes sending Preachers into all parts of the world and Gods meruailous and miraculous concurse with them by the conuersion of the Nations to which they were sent be not ynough to prooue that S. Gregory had sufficient authoritie to send Saint Austin hither I know not what authoritie can be sufficient CHAP. IX That Saint Austin was lawfully sent hither to preach S. Austins mission prooued by reason prooued by reason BY reason I will prooue it First Out of vvhat protest grant Bilson out of that which Protestants haue granted For It is well knowne saith B. Bilson de Obedien part 1. pag. 60. that the Pope was not onely Patriarch of the VVest parts but of the foure Patriarches which were the cheefe Bishops in Christendom in order and accompted the first And pag. 318. Patriarch of the VVest we grant he was The same in other termes confesfeth Iuell art 9. diuis 26. where he saith Iuell The Pope had in his prouince one great parte of Christendome Reinolds And Reynolds Confer pag. 541. where he calleth his diocese a Princely diocese and insinuateth it to contayne all the West Church the Popes Patriarchat lavvfull For the East he diuideth among the three other Patriarchs Likwise the graunt that he vsurped not his Patriarchat But saith Bilson pag. 60. cit it was giuen him by consent of men and pag. 319. it came by custom as the Councell of Nice witnesseth D. Doue of Recusancy p. 80. VVhat authoritie the Pope hath had ouer the Latin Church hath bene giuen him by human constitutions and generall consent of Princes and States Caluin lib. 4 Institut cap. 7. § 1 Decreto Nicenae Synodi primus inter Patriarchas locus tribuitur Romano Episcopo Finally they grant that the Popes Patriarchat ouer the West is not new Popes Patriarchat ancient but begun euen in the tyme of the primitiue Church For Feild lib. 3. of the Church cap. 1. saith In the tyme of the Nicen Councell and before as appeareth by the Acts of the Councell there was three principall Bishops or Patriarchs of the Christian world namely the Bishop of Rome of Alexandria of Antioch Thus breefly yow see the Popes Patriarchat ouer the West granted to be most ancient and lawfull Hence I argue thus A Patriarch hath authority to send preachers to all partes of his Patriarchie Ergo the Pope had authority to send preachers to England England euer vnder the Popes Patriarchat which is a parte of the West The Antecedent none can deny The Cōsequent notwithstanding Bilson lib. cit pag. 320. doth strangly deny But no maruell if strange and vnheard of shifts be found to maintaine falfe doctrine For saith he Pope Innocent 1. epist 91. inter epist Aug. confesseth he had no authoritie to call one poore Briton out of this Realme And the Britons would yeeld no subiection to Austin the Romish Legat. Therfor England was not within the compas of the Popes Patriarchat 2. But the first of these proofes is a manifest vntruth and the second a meere folly For vntrue is it that Saint Innocent confessed he had not authoritie to call one out of Britany For the Briton of whome he spake was Pelagius the heretick who at that tyme was not in Britany but in Palestine as testifyeth Saint Austin epist 32. writen the same yeare which was an 416. Nether had Pelagius bene in Britany long tyme before that For as Baron sheweth an 405. out of Saint Chrysostom and Isiodor Pelusiot He was brought vp in the East and after that liued as Saint Austin saith epist 95. longe tyme in Rome where being discouered he fled as Baron telleth an 412. into Sicilie and thence into Palestine where being by his hypocrisy and fraud absolued from heresie and finding fauor at the Bishop of
Hierusalem but contrariwise condemned by Pope Innocent and Zozimus he stayed and for any thing I finde ther dyed For if him self had brought his heresy into Britany Beda lib. 1. cap. 17. Would neuer haue ascribed the bringing of it to one Agricola long after And therfor I doubt of that which Bale cent 1. cap. 38. citeth out of Walden that Pelagius was à suis Britannis pulsus in exilium ob heresim vnles by driuing into banishment he ment keeping out of the Contrey as perhaps Pelagius was Besides Innocent saith not that he had not authoritie to call Pelagius wheresoeuer he were yea he insinuateth the cōtrary but that Pelagius if he were obstinat would not come at his call and that others that dwelt nerer to him myght do it more conueniently than he who dwelt so far of as Rome is from Palestine His words are these Qui Pelagius si confidit c. VVhich Pelagius if he trust and knowe that he deserueth not to be condemned of vs because he reiectets that which he taught he should not be sent for of vs but he himselfe should make haste that he may be absolued For if he think yet as he did when will he present himselfe to our iudgement vpon any letters whatsoeuer knowing that he shal be condemned And if he were to be sent for that might be better done of them who are nerer than so far of as we are But there shall want no care of him if he will be cured 3. Bilsons proofe out of the Britons deniall of subiection hath no more color or reason than a few rebells deniall of subiection hath to prooue a Prince to haue no authoritie ouer a parte of his Kingdome Cathol Britons euer tooke the Pope to be their superior For their Catholick Ancestors did euer acknowledg themselues vnder the Pope his iurisdiction as appeareth both by that which hath bene said before as also because the Archbishops of the Britons not long before Saint Austins comming were the Popes Legats as writeth Galfrid a man of good account among Protestants lib. 9. cap. 12. Dubritius saith he Primat of Britannie and Legat of the See Apostolick was famous with such great pietie And had Palls from Rome as is euident in the life of Saint Sampson Nether did the heretick Britons refuse to be subiect to Saint Austin because they thought Saint Gregorie to haue no authoritie to apoint an Archbishop ouer them for vndoubtedly they would haue alleadged this as a reason of their refusal if they had so thought it but onely because as Saint Beda reporteth lib 2. c. 2. VVhy the Britons refused to be vnder S. Austin they sayd with them selues If he would not so much as arise to vs If wee should subiect our selues to him he would despise vs. If he had risen to them they were determined to subiect them selues to him as Beda there saith which they neuer would haue done if they had doubted his authority insufficient Secondly I prooue it by reason grounded in scripture Secōd reason in proofe of S. Austins mission The authority which Christ left in his Church to preach to all Nations he gaue to euery Apostle as appeareth by his words Matth. 28. Docete omnes gentes Teach all Nations And Protestants who teach euery Apostle to haue bene head of the rest of the Church besids them selues do not deny Therfore this authority must remaine in some successor of one or other of those Apostles and must not be onely in the whole Church because it must descend to some such as Christ gaue it vnto Authoritie to send preachers to all nations must remaine in some one Bishop Besides if authority to send to all Nations were not in some one Bishop or other but in the whole Church onely when soeuer there were Preachers to be sent to Infidells ther ought to be a generall Councell called which were both absurd and was neuer practised in Gods Church But authority to preach or send preachers to England was more likly to be in Saint Gregory than any other Bishop For touching the Patriarchs or Bishops of the East it is a thing vnheard of that any of them should haue iurisdiction ouer England And as for the Bishops of France certain it is they neuer had any authority ouer England And the same I may say of Scotland Ireland Flanders Spaine and all other Contries The doubt onely may be of Britons because they once had authority ouer the Contry No Bishop could sēd preachers to Englād but the Pope which the English possessed But that could yeald them no spirituall authority ouer the English in Saint Austins tyme because nether was the English euer subiect to the Britons nor was ther in Saint Austins tyme any British Bishop aliue who had had any diocese within England Therfore they could at that tyme clayme no more authority to send Preachers into England than the Bishops of Wales can now Wherfore if this authority was then in any Bishop as needes it must be it was in the Bishop of Rome who euer since the primitiue tyme of the Church hath vsed to send preachers hither as is before shewed And if any require the Princes approbation for the lawfullnes of a Preachers mission this also S. Austin had as is euident by S. Beda l. 1. Protestāts confesse the Pope to haue bene the cheef B. of Christendom D. vvhitak c. 25. Besides Protestants confesse the Pope to haue bene alwaies the cheefe Patriarch Bishop of Christēdom Saith D. Whitaker lib. 6. cont Dur. p. 464. I will not deny that the Bishop of Rome was Primat of all Bishops And p. 148. Rome the Seat of the first Patriarch The See of Rome saith Caluin l. 4. c. 7. § 26. Caluin was in tymes past the cheefe of all Iuell art 4. diu 16. Iuel Of the Patriarches the Pope had the first place both in Councell and out of Councell And. 26. Of the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was euer the first And .32 Victor sayth that Rome is the cheefe or head ouer all others which of our parte for that tyme is not denyed Bishop Bilson pag. 60. Bilson saith it is well knowne that the Pope was the cheefe of the Patriarchs D. Reinolds Confer pag. 568. Among all the Apostolick Churches Reinolds the Roman for honor and credit had the chiefty And 554. Chrysostome and Basile gaue the Pope a supreheminence of authority pag. 368. Cyprian giueth a speciall title of honor and preheminence to the Church of Rome The Fathers apply the name of the Rock to the Bishop of Rome Finally Fox in his Acts pag. 18. saith that in Lyrinensis Pascasin Iustinian Athanasius Hierome Ambrose Austin Theodoret and Chrysost S. Peter with his successors is called Head of the Church Cheefe of Bishops Prince of the Apostles And the like confesse all other Protestants Therfor if authority of sending preachers remaine in any Bishop it is most lykly
Church where he addeth that this is cleare and out of all controuersie And p. 368. Christ said of his whole Church that the gates of hell c. Therfore the whole Church was founded on Peter The same he repeateth Conclus 1. p. 615. and Conclus 2. p. 625. and generally all Protestāts graunt the same For out of this place they proue that the Elect can not fall from God because Christ here sayd that Hell gates should not preuaile against his Church That is say they against his Elect. In like sort the said Reinolds Conf. p. 386. saith that these words My Sheepe Iohn 10 where it is sayd my sheepe heare my voice included all the Elect. Therfore Ioan. 21. the very same words include all the Elect beside Peter who is excepted because he is apointed to feede them vnles we will not vpon any different occasion ministred by scripture but vpon our own preconceited opinion expound the same word now one way now an other Finally the sayd Reinolds Conf. pag. 103. confesseth that by Thy Bethren Luc. 22. Christ ment all the faithfull Then surely he included all the Apostles Thirdly by authoritie of Fathers 6. Thirdly I proue that S. Peter was head of the whole Church by the authoritie of holy Fathers whome because Whitaker cōfesseth as yow heard before to teach most clearly that the Church i◠founded vpon Peter I wil omit their words and remit those that list read them to Bellarm. l. 1. de Pont. c. 10. Onely I will shew that they teach that the Church as it includeth the rest of the Apostles is founded vpon Peter onely Cyprian epist ad Iulian. Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum The Church which is one is founded vpon one who by the commaundemēt of our Lord receaued the key therof In which words we see that as the Church is sayd to be one onely so it is said to be founded vpon one onely And lib. 1. epist 8. Ecclesia vna Cathedra vna c. One Church and one Chaire was by our Lords word founded vpon Peter And Saint Hierom. in 2. Isaiae after he had said that the Apostles were Montes mountains addeth Super vnum montium Christus fundat Ecclesiam loquens ad eum Tu es Petrus c. Vpon one of the Montains Christ foundeth his Church and speaking to him thou art Peter c. S. Leo serm 2. de Anniuers saith Saint Peter was plus ceteris ordinatus c. ordained more than the rest whiles he is called a Rock a Foundation and apointed porter of the kingdome of heauen And for this cause the Fathers when they speak of Peter in respect of the rest of the Apostles they manifestly prefer him in authority before them ceteris praelatus discipulis Preferred before the rest of the disciples saith S. Basil homil de Iudicio Eccles And this is so euident as D. Reinolds Confer pag. 179. confesseth that the Fathers call Peter the mouth the Top the highest the President the head of the Apostles and. pag. 562. The Prince the Top the Cheefest of the Apostolick company the Teacher of the whole world and a Father of the houshould And graunteth also that some of these Titles touch gouernment and signifie a preheminence in gouernment Reinolds deuiseth an authoritie in S. Peter to auoid his supremacie Whervpon he is inforced pag. 180. to acknowledg that Saint Peter was superiour among the Apostles as a President of a Parliament in France or as a Consull among the Romans But who wel considereth shall easely perceaue that this is but an authoritie deuised of purpose to delude the words of the Fathers who speaking of Saint Peters authoritie ouer the Apostles vse the very words which we do to declare his supremacy And therfor if they be vnderstood by their own words and not as Reinolds pleaseth to expound them they vsing the same words as we do must be vnderstood as we are But because this question is some what beside my present purpose I will vrge it no farther Onely I would know of Reinolds how Peter did come by his Consulship ouer the Apostles which he graunteth to him Did the Apostles giue it him But where readeth he that Did Christ bestow it on him But where if not Math. 16. and Iohn 21. In which places if Christ gaue him any authoritie ouer the Apostles he gaue him as full power ouer them as ouer other Christians For ther is no limitation of his power towards some more than towards others but they are as well to be foūded on him as others are he was to feede them as wel as others Nether doth this his authoritie ouer the rest of the Church and the Apostles too preiudice the supreme authority of Christ ouer all any more than the lyke authority which the Protestāts graunt euery Apostle had ouer the rest of the Church Secōdly I would know of Reinolds why he doth not graunt this Consulship ouer the whole Church to the Pope or at least to some one Bishop or other but wil make euery Prince head of the Church in his Kingdome That S. Peters authority remaineth in some Bishop of the Church 7. Now that this authority of Saint Peter remaineth still in the Church and descended from him to some Bishop I proue because all the ends for which ether Christ declared or the Fathers affirme that Christ instituted this authoritie to remaine as well after his death as before The first was that the gates of hell should not preuaile against the Church Math. 16. Secondly that what is loosed in earth may be loosed in heauen ibi Thirdly that Peter might cōfirme his Brethren Luc. 22. Fourthly that he might feede Christs sheepe Io. 21. Fiftly that one being made head occasion of Schisme might be taken away Hierom. lib. 1. cont Iouinianum Sixtly that the origine of the vnitie of the Church might appeare Cyprian de simpl Praelat because as he saith lib. 1. epist 3. Priestly vnity rose from Peters chaire And epist ad Fulcian Our Lord began the origine of vnitie from Peter This cause alleadgeth also Leo. epi. 84. and Anast and Optat. l. 2. contra Parmen But all these ends remaine after Saint Peters death Therfore the authoritie also remaineth Besides S. Austin saith l. de Pastor c. 1. Christiani sumus propter nos Praepositi non nisi propter vos Therfore Saint Peter being made Cheefe of Gods Church for the good of it left his authoritie in the Church Whervpon S. Austin tract 50. in Ioannem saith that when Peter receaued the keyes Ecclesiam sanctam significauit he represented the holy Church because he receaued them as her Gouernour vnder Christ and for her good And therfore as long as she remaineth the authority which Saint Peter receaued for her good must remaine Aarons authoritie remained in his Successors Therfore Peters Secondly I proue it because God in the ould law instituted one high Priest who vnder him in
Luther was sent ordinarily by man some say that he was sent by his Magistrat and Prince the Elector of Saxonie 5 Sleid. Engl. lib. 1. fol. 10 saith the D. vvas at first displeased vvith Luther and fol. 22. the D. professeth not to montaine Luhers doctrin See fol 26 But this can not be First because Frederick then Elector at the first nether encouraged saith Fox pag. 771. nor supported Luther but often represented heauines and sorrow for his procedings Secondly because the Elector was a Romā Catholick when Luther begā a whil after How then cold he first send Luther to preach that doctrine which before Luther he nether beleued nor knew of Thirdly because power to preach is supernaturall and mere spirituall because it pertaineth to care of soules and their direction to a supernaturall end But the power of Magistrates is naturall ciuil and pertaineth to direction of men to their natural end as common to Heathen as to Christian Princes And who will say that Heathen can send men to preach and giue them care of soules Againe who can giue power to preach and administer the Sacraments may also himselfe preach and administer Sacraments for none can giue what he hath not himselfe But woemen may be Princes who yet can not preach Therfor Magistrats can giue no power to preach And this diuers learned Protest do grant For Bilson l. of obed approued by publik authority p. 296. plainly saith that their Bishops haue not their authority frō the Prince and that the Prince giueth then not Commission to preach but only liberty and permission Bilson And 303. The charge saith he which the Preachers and Bishops of England haue ouer their flock procedeth not from the Prince And p. 322. Princes haue no right to call or confirme preachers which he repeateth p. 323. And Fulke in 1. Cor. 14. Fulk The authority saith he of ciuil Magistrates doth giue Bihops nothing that is peculier to Ecclesiastical Ministers Finally howsoeuer soueraigne Princes cold send men to preach yet subiects as that Prince Elector was to the Emperor cold not against their soueraignes will send any And therefore Luther nether was nor cold be sent first to preach of Duke Frederik Luther not sent by anie Protestant Church 3. For this cause other say that Luther was sēt by his Church So Fulk in Ioan 10. But this is easily disproued by what hath bene shewed before cap. 1. by the Protestants confession of the nullity or at least inuisibility of their Church befor Luthers preaching For howsoeuer he might be confirmed of a Church which himselfe founded Ther must be a Protestant preacher befor ther be a Protest Church and no Church can send her first preacher yet cold he not be first sent to preach of a Church which before he preached was not at all or at least was not visible Wherfore I demand whē the people sent Luther to preach Protestancy whiles they were Rom. Catholick But that can not be for no man will send one to preach opposit doctrine to his Or after that Luther by his preaching had made them Protestants But then had he preached before he could be sent of them and they could not be his first senders 4. Others finding no Protestant people or persō who could send Luther to preach Protestancy before he preached it are faine to flie to their vtter enemies to wit the Roman Church and say that she first sent Luther So D. VVhitak cont Dur. pag. 820. Sutclif Answere to Except pag. 88. Feild l. 3. of the Church c. 6. 39. Fulk in Rome 10. and English Potestants commonly thought some of them be ashamed to affirme it in plaine termes Luther not sent of the Rom. Church Their only reason is because no other can be found to send Luther But if they meane of sending to preach Protestancie it is most false and incredible False because both P. Leo 10 and Emper. Charles 5. then spirituall temporall heads of the Rom. Catholicks forbad Luther to preach Protestancy and the one condemned him as an heretik for so doing the other outlaueth him And incredible it is that the Rome Church shold send a man to preach a religion so opposit to hers as Protestācy is this were for her to set one to cut her own threate And if they meane of sending to preach Papistrie that auaileth them nothing For I hope they wil not say that authority or Commission to preach one religiō is authority to preach the contrary or that the Roman Church when she gaue Luther authority to preach Papistry ment to giue him authority to preach Protestancy any more than Protest Bishops when they giue their Minister authority to preach Protestancy meane to giue thē authority to preach Brownisme or Anabaptisme Besids that the purer sort as our Ministers teach that Popish Priests haue no calling as you may see in Penry against some pag. 31. And in truth al Protestāts shold teach so if they would speak cōsequētly to their own doctrine VVhat Church can send men to preach Gods vvore is Gods Church For if she haue authority power to send men to preach the word of God then is she the Church of God for sure it is that God gaue this authority to no other cōpany but to his own Church only And Protest in going out of this Church impugning her wēt out of Gods Church impugne her Moreouer if the Ro. Church gaue Luther his authority to preach she also could take it away For as willet saith wel Synopsis p. 203. authority of preaching in Ministers may be restrained or suspēded by Church gouerners we see the practise herof towards the silēced Ministers By what authority then preached Luther after he was fordidden by the Rom Church Finally if Luther had his authority to preach frō the Rom. VVhat confusion vvill fall vpon Protest if they saie their first preachers vvere sent by the Rom. Church Church which in the opiniō of Protestāts is the whoare of Babilō the Church of Antich the Sinagog of Sathā Luther his Ministers must needs be miniōs of the Babiloniā whore officers of Antich Ministers of Sathan in their preaching execute the function which he whore Antichrist Sathan bestowed vpon them 5. Herupō others vtterly despairing to find out any cōpany or person to whome they might hansomly attribute the sendind of Luther fly to extraordinary sending by God alone saying that Luther their first preachers were sent only of God thervpon call thē Apostles or Euangelists So Cal. 4. instit c. 3. § 4. the sinod at Rochel An. 1607. art 32. others yea the Declaratiō of disciplin printed at Geneua 1580. pag. 139. saith plainly that in our dayes there was no place of ordinary calling therfore the Lord extraordinarily stirred vp as it were certain new Apostles to lightē the world again with the light of the Gospel Luther not sent extraordinarily
commission to direct him 10. But diuers learned Protestants finding no colorable answer to make to this demand Protestāts confesse that their Ministers vvant laufull sending and authoritie do plainly confesse as Sadeel a Minister of Geneua testifieth in a book written against such that their ministers are legitima vocatione destituti destitute of lavvfull calling Others though not so plainly do graunt the same in saying that such as ate fit may teach the word without sending Which Caluin insinuateth in cap. 13. Actor wher he saieth that we need no testimonie from heauen that God sendeth some Because saith he vvhome God hath indued vvith sufficient gift seing they are framed and fashioned by his hand we receaue them giuen to vs of him no otherwise than as the prouerb is from hand to hand VVhom Calvin allovveth to preach vnsent And to this same end tended Bilsons complaint l. of obed pag. 300. that the wicked saith he alwaies asked the godly for their authoritie as the Ievvs asked S Ihon Baptist and Christ Bilson And Ib. So long as we teach saith he the same doctrin vvhich the Apostles did vve haue the same povver vvhich they had And pag. 301. He that defendeth truth is armed vvith authoritie sufficient though all the vvorld vvere against him And that a man may preach without commission he bringeth a similitude that when a cittie is on fire or entred by enemies euerie one may crie Alarme though he be no officer and pag. 310. and 311. he produceth the example of Frumentius and Aedesius who taught infidels the Christian faith hauing no sending to that purpose 11. Here thou seest Gentle Reader that confessed by learned Protestants which I intended in this chapter to wit that Luther his first partners were not sent to preach ether of God or man but seing forsooth the Church al on fire with idolatrie See Bal. Cent. 6. c. 85 Cent. 8. cap. 100. Manie principal Ministers preached vnsent The vvāt of sending in Luther Caluin and such like vvold alone conuince them to be false Prophets entred by enemies and thinking thē selues fit for that purpose came rūning of their own accord crying Alarme which Luther did not stick to bost of saying as Caluin reporteth l. de reformat p. 463. Behold I call my self Preacher and with this title haue I adorned my self And who readeth the liues of our first Protestant preachers ether in Bale or Fox shall see that euerie one of them fel to preach vnsent of anie And the forsaid Declaration of disciplin p. 141. saith plainly that manie of their worthie mē for the loue they had to the Gospel thaught it lawful for thē in these times to take vpō thē this Apostolical office 12. But this alone that Luther Caluin such like did preach and administer sacraments as Pastors being not sent nor hauing authoritie giuen them therto wold suffice to cōuince them to haue bene false prophets vsurpers theeues though no other exceptiō cold be takē against them For to preach that is as Pastor to teach without lauful sending or Commission is flatly against Scripture against the example of Christ his Apostles and all the Pastors of Gods Church against reason and Finally against the doctrin and practise now observed of Protestants It is flat against Scripture For Rom. 10. S. Paul asketh how shall they preach vnles they be sent VVant of sending the verie brand of false prophets In so much as both the Prophets Christ and the Apostles do brād false Prophets with this mark of coming vnsent I sent not saith God Hierem. 23. Prophets they ran As manie saith Christ Ioan. 10. as came of them selues are theeus robers Some going out of vs saie the Apostles Actor 15. haue trobled you with words whom we commanded not Loe how the holie ghost hath branded false Prophets with this note of coming vnsēt It is also against the example of Christ the Apostles For of Christ it is said Hebr. 5. Nether doth anie take honor to him self but who is called of God as Aaron So Christ did not clarifie him self to be made a Bishop And Ioan. 17. and 20. Christ him self auoucheth his sending by his Father And of the Apostles it is manifest that they preached not before they were sent of Christ To preach vnsent is to imitate Core Dathan ande Abiron Nether can Protestants produce anie Pastor of Gods Church since the Apostles time which preached before he was sent And to do the contrarie is not to imitate Christ and his Apostles but that schismaticall crue of Core Dathā Abirō whome the earth therfore swallowed hell deuoured See S. Cipr. lib. de simplic Prelat Tertul. de prascrip It is also against reason For as Pastor to preach and administer Gods Sacraments is an act of spirituall and supernaturall authoritie which none can haue vnles it be giuen vnto him and learning vertue or other talents what soeuer wherwith a man is fit to execute such authoritie are things far different from it as is both euident by it self and appeareth in woemen who may haue as much learning vertue and other habilities as some men yet none of them can as Pastors preach or administer the Sacraments because they are incapable of Pastorall authoritie Moreouer to be a Preacher and Pastor is to be Gods Embassador and steward or dispenser of his spirituall goods and misteries And if none can be Embassador of an earthly Prince vnles he be sent none steward of his house vnles he be apointed none officer ouer his people vnles he be constituted How can any be Embassador to God without sending steward of his goods without apointing gouernor of his people without his authoritie And I maruel how Protestants can call Luther Latimer and such like their Apostles and ether confesse that they were not sent at all but came of their owne good wills or can not shew of whome they were sent seing that the verie name of an Apostle signifieth one sent 13. Finally Protestants them selues condemne such preachers as come vnsent Bilson him self l. cit we detest saith he these that inuade the pastorall function without lavvfull vocation and election It is not lavvfull saith the English Clergie in the 23. Article of their faith for any man to take vpon him the office of publik preaching or administring the Sacraments No man saith their Synod in Haga Art 3. ought to take vpon him to preach or administer the Sacraments vvithout a lavvfull calling although he be a Doctor or a Deacon or an Elder And their Synod at Rochel 1607. Art 32. none must intrude him self into the gouernment of the Church Thus teach all Heretiks after they haue gotten possession But before their owne aptnes and talents the glorie of God and the saluation of soules and truth of their doctrine was warrant and authoritie ynough for them to preach as appeareth by what hath bene cited out of Bilson Caluin and others
But to conclude this matter with Luther words He 1. Galat. fol. 11. saith Luther Let the Preacher of the Gospel be sure that his calling is from God and he calleth phantasticall spirits who intrude them selues He that preacheth vnsent cometh to kil And fol 12. It is not saith he ynough to haue the word and pure doctrine but also he must be assured of his calling and he that entreth without this assurance entreth to no other end but to kill and destroie People need be assured of Preachers sending Ibid. the people haue great need to be assured of our calling that they maie know our word to be the word of God And in the same chapter Ther are manie saith Luther who complaine that they haue the talent of the Lord and therfore are vrged by commandment of the Gospel to teach otherwise with a most foolish conscience they beleue that they hide the Lords money and are guiltie of damnation The diuel saith he doth this that he may make them instable in their vocation O good brother let Christ quitt the of this The Gospel saith he gaue his goods to seruants called Notē Expect his calling in the meā time be secure yea if thou wert wiser than Salomon or Daniel yet if thou beest not called flie more thā hell to preach If God need the he will call the. And againe The diuel vseth to stir vp his Ministers that they run vncalled and pretend this most burning zeal that they are sorie that men are so miserably seduced that they wold teach the truth and deliuer the seduced from the snares of the diuel Thus Luther and likwise Beza epist 5. and others which I wold they had followed in their first preaching Protestancie Aptnes to preach far short of authoritie to preach 14. As for Caluins reason before cited I saie that abilitie to preach cometh far more short of that spirituall and supernaturall power to preach and administer sacraments which Gods Pastor hath than abilitie to gouerne mens bodies goods in a kingdom cometh short of temporall power to gouerne such matters And therfore if none how able soeuer he be or think him self may take vpon him to be an officer in the common wealth vnles he be apointed much les may one take vpō him to be a Pastor in the Church and gouerne soules vnles he haue authoritie therto giuen which the Declarer of the disciplin noted p. 32. When he said How fit soeuer a mā semeth to be for anie charge yet nothing is to be taken in hand without the authoritie of God who will vse in his affaires whom him pleaseth VVhy the Ieues did ill to ask Christ for his commission As for the example of the Iews brought by Bilson I graunt they did ill in asking Christ and S. Ihon for their commission because their preaching was both plainly fortold before by God and then confirmed by the daily miracles of Christ others wrought for authorizing of Saint Ihon both in his conception and Natiuitie If Luther were Christ or Caluin S. Ihon and their preaching as plainly fortold by God and confirmed by present miracles we shold do like to Iews in asking them for their Commission But seing they produce nether extraordinarie holines nor miracles VVhy vve do vvell to aske Luther for his nor prophetie not anie thing els to testifie their sēding we shold shew great lightnes of hart yea madnes to beleue them to be Gods messengers without all Commissiō The similitudes which Bilson bringeth make nothing against as may be returned against him self For vs any man or woman too when the house is on fire or the cittie in danger Gteat difference betuen-teahhing of priuat men and ptoaching as Pastors may crie fire alarme if officers do not perceaue the danger So we saie that when a man or womā also perceaueth heresie to be taught which the Pastor doth not he or she ether may giue notice or warning therof But yet as not withstanding this none can in what danger soeuer take vpon him to be Captaine and command others of authoritie but he onely who hath such authoritie giuen him So none in what danger of heresie soeuer can take vpon him to be a Pastor and guider of soules preaching tanquam authoritatem habens but onely he who is lawfully called therto But Bilsons error is in that he distinguisheth not betwene the aduertising or teaching of priuat mē and the preaching of Pastors which is an act of spirituall function and authoritie and therfore must suppose that authoritie From the same procedeth his bringing of the example of Frumentius and Aedesius who as priuat men yea as woemen maie in case of necessitie when no others is to be had being captiues amongst infideles taught them the Christian faith Socrat. lib. 1. c. 19. Raffin lib. 1. cap 9. Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 23. But nether of them tooke vpon him to be Pastor to the Infidels or as such to administer to them the word and Sacraments Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 24. before Frumentius came to S. Athanasius was by him made Bishop and lawfully sent And by as good example might Bilson haue proued that women may preach euen without sending because a woman being in like sorte captiue among infidels taught them the Christian faith and was cause of their conuersion 15. And thus thou seest Gentle Reader euidently proued both by manifest proofs and open confession of Protestants VVhat the Protestāte and their doctrin be if Luther vvere not sent to preach that Luther preached Protestancie without sending and so without all authoritie and consequently that the Protestants Church is a companie without a Pastor their doctrine a message without an Embassador and their Bishops and Ministers without prelacie or pastorall authoritie but such as S. Cipriā describeth l. de vnit Eccles vvho amongst stragling companions of them selues take authoritie vvithout Gods giuing make them selues prelats vvithout anie orderlie course and no bodie giuing them a Bishoprick chaleng the name of Bishops English Ministers condemn◠the calling of the English Clergie And not Catholiks onely thus think but euen the purer sorte of our English Clergie For the dangerous Positioner lib. 3. cap 6. telleth how it was concluded by them in a Synod at Couentrie An. 1588. That the calling of Bishops is vnlavvfull That it is not lawfull by them to be ordeined into the Ministerie That Bishops are not to be acknowledged for Doctors Elders or Deacons as hauing no ordinarie calling And cap. 14. he recounteth how some Ministers renounce the calling which they had of Bishops and account ther orders onely a ciuil thing necessarie for them to keep the ministerie And c. 16. that the English Prelats haue no authoritie to make Ministers And thus much of Luthers want of Mission Now let vs see his orders CHAP. XI That Luther was neuer ordered to preach the Protestants word or administer their sacraments 1.
AS in the former chapter I did not denie that Luther was once sent to preach the Catholik word or doctrin So Nether in this do I denie that he was rightly ordered to preach the same word to saie Masse and to administer the Catholik sacraments But as he brought a new word so he brought also a new sacrament consisting both of Christs bodie bread also for preaching and administration of which new word and sacrament I saie he was neuer ordered And that his Catholik preisthood could be no sufficient Ministerie of the Protestant word and sacraments is manifest manie waies First by reasō Luthers preishood could be no Protestant order For preisthood cheefly cōsisteth in authoritie to offer sacrifice for the quick and the dead as is euident by these words wherwith men are made Priests Take power to offer sacrifice to God and to saie Masse for the quick and the dead And Caluin 4. instit c 5. para 5 saith we order none but to sacrifice D. Sutlif in his Chaleng pap 34. and in his answer to the Cath. Supplicat sec 19. writeth that our priesthood is apointed onely to offer sacrifice for the quick the dead The like saith the Declar. of disciplin p. 20. and it is manifest But the Protestāt Ministerie detesteth all authoritie of saying Masse of offering sacrifice praying for the dead order to sacrifice saith the said Declarer l. cit is to abolish the sacrifice of Christ ib. hāds are laid vpō preists to an end most contrarie to the Gospel How then can preisthood become protestātish Ministerie vnles one contrarie become the other or as the said declarer saith wel how cā one the same ordering serue to giue one man at the same time offices so diuers and contrarie one to the other 2. Reinolds Secondly I proue it by the iudgment of Protestants For D. Reinolds in his epist befor his Confer calleth our priesthood impious D. Whitaker cont Dur. p. 821. biddeth vs keep our orders to our selues VVhitaker And pag. 653. vve iudge saith he no othervvise of your priests than of Christs aduersaries and enemies of his priesthood And pag. 662. you haue nether lavvfull Bishops nor priests nor Deacons Powel in his Considerations vpon Catholiks reasons Povvel The popish ordination saith he is nothing els but a mere prophanation D. Fulk Answ to a Counterf Catholik pag. 50. you are highly deceaued if you think we esteme your offices of Bishops Fulke Priests or Deacons anie better than laie men and you presume too much to think that we receaue your ordering to be lawfull Penrie Penrie against Some p. 8. Of this I am assured that Popish Priests are no Ministers Declarer The forsaid Declarer p. 20. saith Priests oile and power of sacrificing is no sufficient warrant for them to be Ministers it is a prophane oile and can giue no men authoritie to dispose of the Misteries of God Shameles boldnes for Luther to plaie the Minister vvithout nevv orders Some Sutlif which he proueth their at longe and calleth it a shameles boldnes of Popish Priests to take in hand to be Ministers of the Gospel without anie new calling or apointing thervnto and termeth their orders horrible orders D. Some also as Penrie saith p. 20. calleth Popish preisthood sacriledg D. Sutlif Answ to Exceptions p. 82. The Pope is nether true Bishop nor priest for he was ordeined preist but to offer sacrifice and to saie Masse for the quick and the dead But this ordination doth not saith he make a Priest nor had true priests and elders euer any such ordination And p 87. The Romish Church is not the true Church hauing no Bishop nor Priests at all but onely in name Diuines of Geneua The like he hath in his Chaleng p. 33. seq Finally the Diuines of Geneua in the Proposions pag. 245. conclude that in the Romish Church there is no holy order or Ministrie indeed no lawfull calling but a mere vsurpation Thus thou seest by the iudgment of learned Protestants that Luthers priesthood was so far from right orders and lawfull Ministerie as it was impious opposit to Christ priesthood a mere prophanation nothing better than lay men haue maketh no Minister horrible secrilegious Luther ether a laie prophan impious sacrilegious and horrible Minister or no Ministers at all and what not And he hauing no other orders as is certaine what an impious enemy to Christ prophane lay horrible and sacrilegious Minister must he haue bene if he were any 3. Thirdly I proue it by practise of Protestants that Popish preisthood is no Ministrie For at Geneua when two Bishops of Niuiers and Troie fled thither Lanoyrapliqua Christius 2. Ch. 17. and tooke vpon them the Ministry with out all more ordering the Consistory vpon mature deliberation therupon concluded that they could not do so And in England euerie one knoweth that it is made treasō to receaue popish preisthood and aboue one hundred haue bene executed therfor which they wold neuer do if they thought it to be Protestātish Ministerie what a disorderly religion then must that be which was begun by a man who was neuer ordered to preach it or admininister the sacramēts or seruice therof But what he did therin did only by vertue of impious prophane Lib. de missa angulari horrible sacrilegious and treasonable orders with which before he had said as himselfe confesseth Masse 15. years togeather And what orders hath our Protestant English Clergie Note wherof the greater number as euery one knoweth and both the Answere to an Examination printed at Geneua pag. 33. and others in Dange Posit lib. 2. cap. 13. confesse in the beginning of Queene Elizab. time were Popish Priests neuer ordered to saie the Cōmunion but the Masse quite opposit therto And albeit some of thē were ordered to say Protest seruice yet they were made of such Bishops as ether were Popish Priests themselues as Couendale and Skorey were or had byn made of such Bishops And so all their orders were ether Popish or come originally from Popish Priests See Suruey cap. 16. who not being able to giue other orders than they receaued them selues did ether giue Popish orders or none at all And our English ether haue them or none Wherfore sith English Ministers orders came from Parker who was first Archb. of Canterbury vnder Queene Elizabeth and that he was made Bishop as Sutlif faith Answ to Except pag. 88. of Couendall Skorey who receaued their orders of Cranmer English Ministers haue onely such orders as they account sacrilegious or no orders at all he his of P. Clement 7. I wold know what orders and what authority to giue orders the Pope gaue to Crāmer Surely no othere did the Pope giue or meane to giue then Popish and if Cranmer receaued no other he could giue no other to Couendall and Skorey nor they any other to Parker nor he