there is a reall vnion and consequently a reall communion betweene vs and Christ as I haue prooued there must needes be such a kinde of presence wherein Christ is truly and really present to the heart of him that receiues the sacrament in faith And thus farre doe we consent with the Romish Church touching reall presence The dissent We differ not touching the presence it selfe but onely in the maner of presence For though we hold a reall presence of Christs bodie and bloode in the sacrament yet doe we not take it to be locall bodily or substantiall but spirituall and mysticall to the signes by sacramentall relation and to the communicants by faith alone On the contrarie the Church of Rome maintaines transubstantiation that is a locall bodily and substantiall presence of Christs bodie and bloode by a chaunge and conuersion of the bread and wine into the saide bodie and blood Our reasons I. This corporall presence ouerturnes sundrie articles of faith For we beleeue that the bodie of Christ was made of the pure substance of the virgin Marie and that but once namely when he was conceiued by the holy Ghost and borne But this cannot stand if the body of Christ be made of bread and his blood of wine as they must needes be if there be no succession or annihilation but a reall conuersion of substances in the sacrament vnlesse we must beleeue contrarieties that his bodie was made of the substance of the Virgin and not of the Virgin made once and not once but often Againe if his bodie blood be vnder the formes of bread and wine then is he not as yet ascended into heauen but remaines still among vs. Neither can he be saide to come from heauen at the day of iudgement for he that must come thence to iudge the quicke and dead must be absent from the earth And this was the auncient faith Augustine saith that Christ according to his maiestie and prouidence and grace is present with vs to the end of the world but according to his ASSVMED FLESH HE IS NOT alwaies with vs. Cyril saith He is ABSENT IN BODIE and present in vertue vvhereby all things are gouerned Vigilius saith That he is gone from vs according to his humanitie he hath left vs in his humanitie in the forme of a seruant absent from vs when his flesh was on earth it was not in heauen being on earth he was not in heauen and beeing now in heauen he is not on earth Fulgentius saith One and the same Christ according to his humane substance was absent from heauen vvhen he was on earth and LEFT THE EARTH when he ascended into heauen Reason II. This bodily presence ouerturnes the nature of a true bodie whose common nature or essentiall propertie it is to haue length breadth and thicknes which beeing taken away a bodie is no more a bodie And by reason of these three dimensions a bodie can occupie but one place at once as Aristotle said the propertie of a bodie is to be seated in some place so as a man may say where it is They therefore that holde the bodie of Christ to be in many places at once doe make it no bodie at all but rather a spirit and that infinite They alleadge that God is almightie that is true indeede but in this and like matters we must not dispute what God can do but what he wil do And I say further because God is omnipotent therefore there be some things which he cannot doe as for him to denie himselfe to lie and to make the parts of a contradiction to be both true at the same time To come to the point if God should make the very body of Christ to be in many places at once he should make it to be no bodie while it remaines a bodie and to be circumscribed in some one place and not circumscribed because it is in many places at the same time to be visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament and thus should he make contradictions to be true which to doe is against his nature and argues rather impotencie then power Augustine saith to this purpose If he could lie deceiue be deceiued deale vniustly he should not be omnipotent And Therefore he is omnipotent because he can not doe these things Againe He is called domnipotent by doing that which he will and not by doing that which he will not which if it should be fal him he should not be omnipotent Reason III. Transubstantiation ouerturnes the very Supper of the Lord. For in euery sacramēt there must be a signe a thing signified and a proportion or relation betweene them both But popish reall presence takes all away for when the bread is really turned into Christs body and the wine into his bloode then the signe is abolished and there remaines nothing but the outwarde formes or appearance of breade and wine Againe it abolisheth the endes of the sacrament whereof one is to remember Christ till his comming againe who beeing present in the sacrament bodily needes not to be remembred because helpes of remembrance are of things absent Another ende is to nourish the soule vnto eternall life but by transubstantiation the principal feeding is of the body and not of the soule which is onely fed with spiritual food for though the body may be bettered by the food of the soule yet cā not the soule be fed with bodily food Reason IV. In the sacrament the bodie of Christ is receiued as it was crucified and his blood as it was shedde vpon the crosse but nowe at this time Christs body crucified remaines still as a bodie but not as a bodie crucified because the act of crucifying is ceased Therefore it is faith alone that makes Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the sacrament Again that blood which ran out of the feet and hands and side of Christ vpon the crosse was not gathered vp againe and put into the veines nay the collection was needelesse because after the resurrection he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life and none knowes what is become of this blood The Papist therefore cannot say it is present vnder the forme of wine locally and we may better say it is receiued spiritually by faith whose property is to giue a beeing to things which are not Reason V. 1. Cor. 10. 3. The fathers of the olde testament did eate the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ. Now they could not eate his body which was crucified or drinke his bloode shedde bodily but by faith because then his bodie and blood were not in nature The Papists make answer that the fathers did eat the same meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke with themselues not with vs. But their answer is against the text For the Apostles intent is to prooue that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians because
bodie without which a bodie can not be 4 In the Creede we confesse that Christ is ascended into heauen and there after his ascension sits at the right hand of his Father and that according to his manhoode Hence I conclude that Christs bodie is not really and locally in the Sacrament and in euerie Host which the priest consecrateth This argument was good when Vigilius against Eutyches said WheÌ„ it the flesh was on earth it was not in heauen and because it is now in heauen it is not on earth and he addes afterward that this is the Catholike faith confession And it was good when Fulgentiâ—s saide According to his humane substance he was absent from earth when he vvas in heauen and he left the earth vvhen he ascended into heauen And The same in seperable Christ according to his whole manhood LEAVING THE EARTH locally ascended into heauen and sits at the right hand and according to the same whole manhoode he is to come to iudgement And it was good when Cyril said No man doubts but that when he ascended into heauen though he be alwaies present by the power of his spirit HE VVAS ABSENT IN RESPECT OF THE PRESENCE Oâ— HIS FLESH And it was good when Augustine said According to the flesh which the Word assumed he ascended into heauen HE IS NOT HERE there he sits at the right hand of the father and he is here according to the presence of his maiestie And He went as he was man and he aboad as he vvas God he went by that whereby he was in one place he aboad by that whereby he was euery where 5 Again in that we beleeue the Catholike church it follows that the Catholike church is inuisible because things seene are not beleeued And the answer commonly vsed that we beleeue the holines of the Church will not serue the turne For the words are plain and in them we make confession that we beleeue not onely the holines of the church but also the church it selfe 6 Lastly the articles Remission of sinnes Resurrection of the bodie and Life euerlasting containe a confession of speciall faith For the meaning of them is thus much I beleeue the remission of mine owne sinnes and the resurrection of mine owne bodie to life euerlasting and that by the iudgement of learned Antiquity Augustine saith If thou also beleeue that thou shalt rise againe and ascend into heauen because thou art sure of so great a patrone thou art certen of so great a gift And Make not Christ lesse who brings thee to the kingdome of heauen for remission of sinnes Without this faith if any come to baptisme he shuts the gate of mercie against himselfe And Whosoeuer faithfully beleeueth and holdes this profession of his faith in vvhich all his sinnes are forgiuen him let him prepare his will to the wil of God and not feare his passage by death And The whole Sacrament of baptisme stands in this that we beleeue the resurrection of the bodie and remission of sinnes to be giuen vs of God And He gaue these kaies to the Church that whosoeuer in his Church should not beleeue his sinnes to be forgiuen they should not be forgiuen vnto him and whosoeuer beleeued and turned from them abiding in the lap of the said Church at length shalbe healed by faith and amendment of life And That vvhich thou hast heard to be fulfilled in the glorious resurrection of Christ beleeue that the very same shall be fulfilled in thee in the last iudgement and the resurrection of thy flesh shall restore thee for all eternitie For vnlesse thou shalt beleeue that thou art to be repaired by death thou canst not come to the reward of life eternall And in auncient time the article of the resurrection hath beene rehearsed on this manner The resurrection of THIS FLESH and the last applied vnto it TO EVERLASTING LIFE Hence then two maine opinions of the church of Rome are quite ouerthrowne one that we cannot by special faith be certen of the remission of our sinnes and the saluation of our soules the other that a man truly iustified may fall away and be damned Now this cannot be if the practise of the auncient Church be good which hath taught vs to beleeue euerlasting life ioyntly without remission of sinnes To come vnto the decalogue first of all it is a rule in expounding the seuerall commandements that where any vice is forbidden there the contrarie vertue is commaunded and all vertues of the same kind with all their causes occasions furtherances This rule is graunted of all and hence it followes that counsells of perfection if they haue in them any furtherance of vertue are inioyned in and by the law and therefore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the law Secondly the commandement Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image c. hath two seuerall parts The first forbiddes the making of carued or grauen images the second forbids the adoration of them Now the first part is notably expounded by Moses Deutr. 4. 16. Take good heede vnto your selves that ye corrupt not your selves and make you a grauen image or representation of any figure in the likenesse of male or female Marke the reason of this prohibition in the same place for saith he ye savv no image in the day the Lord spake vnto you in Horeb. and v. 15. Ye heard the voice of the vvordes but savv no similitude saue a voyce Now the reason beeing vnderstood of the image of God himselfe the prohibition must needes be so vnderstood Againe there is no question that God directs his commaundement against a sinne in speculation but against some common and wicked practise of the Iewes and that was to represent God himselfe in likenesses and bodily formes Esai 40. 18. And that was also the practise of the Gentiles that were farre more grosse in this kinde then the Iewes Rom. 1. 23. This then is plaine to any indifferent man that the first part of the commandement forbids the making of grauen images or likenesses of the true Iehova thus the Romane Catechisme vnderstands the wordes As for the second part it must be vnderstoode according to the meaning of the first and therefore it forbids vs to bowe downe to any image of God Hence then it followes that to worship God or Saints in or at images to worship images with religious worship is abhominable idolatrie And common reason might teach vs thus much For they that adore and worship the true God in images doe bind the presence of God his operation grace and his hearing of vs to certen things places signes to which he hath not bounde himselfe either by commaundement or promise and that is otherwise to worship God and to seeke for his blessings then he hath commanded himselfe to be worshipped or promised to heare vs. Vpon this ground is plainely ouerthrowne the excuse which they make that
Euphrates where was the confusion of languages and where the Iewes were in captiuitie which Babylon is in Scripture reproched for Idolatry and other iniquities The second Babylon is in Egypt standing on the riuer Nilus and it is now called Cayr of that mention is made 1. Pet. 5. v. 13. as some thinke though indeede it is as likely and more commonly thought that there is meant Babylon of Assyria The third Babylon is mysticall whereof Babylon of Assyria was a type and figure and that is Rome which is without question here to be vnderstood And the whore of Babylon as by all circumstances may be gathered is the state or regiment of a people that are the inhabitants of Rome and appertaine thereto This may be prooued by the interpretation of the holy Ghost for in the last verse of the 17. chapter the woman that is the whore of Babylon is said to be a citty which raigneth ouer the kings of the earth now in the daies when S. Iohn penned this booke of Reuelation there was no citie in the world that ruled ouer the kings of the earth but Rome it then beeing the seate where the Emperour put in execution his Imperiall authoritie Againe in the seuenth verse shee is saide to sit on a beast hauing seuen heades and ten hornes which seuen heads be seuen hills v. 9. whereon the woman sitteth and also they be seuen kings Therfore by the whore of Babylon is meant a citie standing on seuen hills Now it is well knowne not onely to learned men in the Church of God but euen to the heathen themselues that Rome alone is the citie built on seuen distinct hills called Caelius Aventinus Exquilinus Tarpeius or Capitolinus Viminalis Palatinus Quirinalis Papists to helpe themselues doe alledge that old Rome stood on seuen hills but nowe is remooued further to the plaine of Campus Martius I answer that howsoeuer the greatest part of the citie in regard of habitation be not nowe on seuen hills yet in regard of regiment and practise of religion it is for euen to this day vpon these hills are seated certaine Churches and Monasteries other like places where the Papal Authoritie is put in execution and thus Rome beeing put for a state and regiment euen at this day it standes vpon seuen hills And though it be come to passe that the harlot in regard of her later daies euen changed her seate yet in respect of her yonger times in which shee was bred and borne shee sate vpon the seuen hills Others because they feare the wounding of their own heads labour to frame these wordes to an other meaning and say that by the whore is meant the company of all wicked men in the world wheresoeuer the deuil being the head thereof But this exposition is flat against the text for in the second verse of the 18. chapter shee is opposed to the kings of the earth with whome shee is said to commit fornication and in the last verse shee is called a citie standing on seuen hills and raigning ouer the kings of the earth as I haue said therfore must needes be a state of men in some particular place And the Papists themselues perceiuing that this shift will not serue their turne make two Romes heathenish Rome and that whereof the Pope is head now say they the whore spoken of is heathenish Rome which was ruled by cruel tyrants as Nero Domitian and the rest and that Rome whereof nowe the Pope is head is not here meant Behold a vaine and foolish distinction for Ecclesiasticall Rome in respect of state princely dominion and crueltie in persequuting the Saints of God is all one with the heathenish Empire the See of the Bishop beeing turned into the Emperours court as all histories doe manifest But let the distinction be as they suppose yet by their leaues here by the whore must be vnderstood not onely heathenish Rome but euen the Papall or Ecclesiasticall Rome for v. 3. of this chapter the holy Ghost saith plainely that shee hath made all natious drunke with the wine of the wrath of her fornication yea it is added that shee hath committed fornication with the kings of the earth whereby is signified that she hath endeauoured to intangle al the nations of the earth in her spirituall idolatrie and to bring the kings of the earth to her religion Which thing cannot be vnderstoode of the heathenish Rome for that left all the kings of the earth to their owne religion and idolatrie neithet did they labour to bring forraine kings to worshippe their Gods Againe chapt 18. v. 16 it is said that the ten hornes which be ten kings shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked which must not be vnderstoode of heathenish Rome but of popish Rome for whereas in former times all the kings of the earth did submit themselues to the whore nowe they haue begun to withdrawe themselues and make her desolate as the king of Bohemia Denmarke Germanie England Scotland and other parts therefore this distinction is also friuolous They further alledge that the whore of Babylon is drunke with the bloode of the Saints and Martyrs chap. 17. 6. shedde not in Rome but in Ierusalem where the Lord was crucified and the two prophets beeing slaine lie there in the streets Rev. 11. â—8 But this place is not meant of Hierusalem as Hierome hath fully taught but it may well be vnderstoode of Rome Christ was crucified there either because the authoritie whereby he was crucified was from the Romane Empire or els because Christ in his members was and is there dayly crucified though locally in his owne person he was crucified at Ierusalem And thus notwistanding all which hath bin said we must here by the whore vnderstand the State and Empire of Rome not so much vnder the heathen Emperours as vnder the head thereof the Pope which exposition besides the authority of the text hath the fauoure and defence of auncient and learned men Bernard saith They are the ministers of Christ but THEY SERVE ANTICHRIST Againe The beast spoken of in the Apocalyps to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies and to make warre with the Saints of God is now gotten into Peters chaire as a lyon prepared to his praie It will be said that Bernard speakes these latter wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation It is true indeede but wherefore was he an vsurper he rendreth a reason thereof in the same place because the Antipope called Innocentius was chosen by the kings of Almaine France England Scotland Spaine Hierusalem with consent of the whole Cleargie and people in these nations and the other was not And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not onely this vsurper but all the Popes for this many yeres are the beast in the Apocalyps because now they are onely chosen by the colledge of Cardinalls To this agreeth the decree of Pope Nicolas the second
they did eat the same spirituall meat and dranke the same spirituall drinke with the Corinthians otherwise his reasō prooues not the point which he hath in hand namely that the Israelites were nothing inferiour to the Corinthians Reason VI. And it is said the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath so it may be saide that the sacrament of the Lordes supper was made for man not mā for it therefore man is more excellent thē the sacrament But if the signes of bread and wine be really turned into the body and blood of Christ then is the sacrament infinitely better then man who in his best estate is onely ioyned to Christ and made a member of his mysticall bodie whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sacrament or outward elements indeede are not better then man the ende beeing alwaies better then the thing ordained to the ende It remaines therefore that Christs presence is not corporall but spirituall Againe in the supper of the Lord euery beleeuer receiueth whole Christ God and man though not the godhead now by this carnall eating we receiue not whole Christ but onely a part of his manhoode and therefore in the sacrament there is no carnall eating and consequently no bodily presence Reason VII The iudgement of the ancient Church Theodoret saith The same Christ who called his naturall bodie foode and bread vvho also called him selfe a vine he vouch safed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie NOT CHANGING NATVRE but putting grace to nature whereby he meanes consecration And The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature For they REMAINE IN THEIR FIRST NATVRE and keepe their first figure and forme and as before may be touched and seene and that which they are made is vnderstood beleeued adored Gelasius saith Bread and wine passe into the substance of the bodie and blood of Christ yet so as the SVBSTANCE OR NATVRE OF BREAD AND VVINE CEASETH NOT. And they are turned into the diuine substance yet the bread and wine REMAIN STIL IN THE PROPERTIE OF THEIR NATVRE Lumbard saith If it be asked what conuersion this is vvhether formall or substantiall or of an other kinde I am not able to define And that the Fathers held not transubstantiation I prooue it by sundrie reasons First they vsed in former times to burne with fire that which remained after the administration of the Lords supper Secondly by the sacramentall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against hereticks which argument they would not haue vsed if they had beleeued a popish reall presence Thirdly it was a custome in Constantinople that if many parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was ended that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them who neuertheles were barred the Lordes table And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies tooke the bread after the administration was ended for common bread Againe it was once an order in the Romane church that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread which had bin consecrated But this order cannot stand with the reall presence in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and bloode Nicholaus Cabasilas saith After he hath vsed some speach to the people he erects their mindes and lifts their thoughts from earth saith Sursum corda Let vs lift vp our heartes let vs THINKE ON THINGS ABOVE and not on things that are vpon the earth They consent say that they lift vp their hearts thither where is their treasure and where Christ sits at the right hand of his father Obiections of Papists I. Their first reason is Ioh. 6. 55. My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed therefore say they Christs body must be eaten with the mouth and his blood drunke accordingly Ans. The chapter must be vnderstood of a spirituall eating of Christ his bodie is meate indeede but spirituall meate and his bloode spirituall drinke to be receiued not by the mouth but by faith This is the very point that Christ here intendes to prooue namely that to beleeue in him is to eate his flesh and to drinke his bloode are all one Againe this chapter must not be vnderstoood of that speciall eating of Christ in the sacrament for it is saide generally v. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you and if these very words which are the substance of the chapter must be vnderstood of a sacramentall eating no man before the comming of Christ was saued for none did bodily eate or drink his bodie or bloode considering it was not then existing in nature but onely was present to the beleeuing heart by faith II. Obiect An other argument is taken from the wordes of the institution This is my body Ans. These wordes must not be vnderstood properly but by a figure his bodie beeing put for the signe and seale of his bodie It is obiected that when any make their last wills and testaments they speake as plainely as they cā now in this supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament and therefore he spake plainely without any figure Ans. Christ here speaketh plainely and by a figure also for it hath bin alwaies the vsuall manner of the Lord in speaking of sacraments to giue the name of the thing signified to the signe as Gen. 17. 10. circumcision is called the couenant of God in the next v. in way of exposition the signe of the couenāt Exod. 12. 11. the paschal lambe is called the Angels passing by or ouer the houses of the Israelites whereas indeed it was but a signe thereof 1. Cor. 10. 4. The rock was Christ 1. Cor. 5. 7. The Passeouer was Christ. And the like phrase is to be found in the institution of this sacrament cōcerning the cup which the Papists themselues confesse to be figuratiue when it is said Luk. 22. This cuppe is the new testament in my blood that is a signe seale and pleadge thereof Againe the time when these wordes were spoken must be considered and it was before the passion of Christ whereas yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed and cōsequently neither of thē could be receiued in bodily manner but by faith alone Againe Christ was not onely the author but the minister of this sacrament at the time of institution thereof and if the bread had beene truly turned into his bodie and the wine into his blood Christ with his owne hands should haue taken his owne bodie and blood and haue giuen it to his disciples nay which is more he should with his owne hands haue taken his owne flesh and drunken his owne bloode and haue eaten himself For Christ himselfe did
touching the meanes of purgation They say that men are purged by suffering of paines in purgatorie whereby they satisfie for their veniall sinnes and for the temporall punishment of their mortal sinnes We teach the contrarie holding that nothing can free vs from the least punishment of the smallest sinne but the sufferings of Christ and purge vs from the least taint of corruption sauing the bloode of Christ. Indede they say that our sufferings in themselues considered doe not purge and satisfie but as they are made meritorious by the sufferings of Christ but to this I oppose one text of scripture Hebr. 1. 3. where it is saide that Christ hath purged our sinnes BY HIMSELFE where the last clause cuts the throat of all humane satisfactions and merits and it giueth vs to vnderstand that whatsoeuer thing purgeth vs from our sinnes is not to be found in vs but in Christ alone otherwise it should haue bin saide that Christ purgeth the sinnes of men by themselues as well as by himselfe and he should merit by his death that we should become our owne Sauiours in part To this place I may well referre prayer for the dead of which I wil propound two conclusions affirmatiue and one negatiue Conclus I. We hold that Christian charitie is to extend it selfe to the very deade and it must shew it selfe in their honest buriall in the preseruation of their good names in the helpe and releefe of their posteritie as time and occasion shall be offered Ruth 1. 8. Ioh. 19. 23. II. Conclus We praie further in general manner for the faithfull departed that God would hasten their ioyfull resurrection and the full accomplishment of their happinesse both for the bodie and soule and thus much we aske in saying Thy kingdome come that is not onely the kingdome of grace but also the kingdome of glory in heauen Thus farre we come but nearer the gates of Babylon we dare not approch III. Conclus To pray for particular men departed and to praie for their deliuerance out of purgatorie we thinke it vnlawfull because we haue neither promise nor commandement so to doe The eighteenth point Of the supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall Our consent Touching the point of supremacie Ecclesiasticall I will set downe how neare we may come to the Romane Church in two conclusions Conclus I. For the founding of the primitiue Church the ministerie of the word was distinguished by degrees not onely of order but also of power and Peter was called to the highest degree Ephes. 4. vers 11. Christ ascended vp on high and gaue gifts vnto men for the good of his Church as some to be Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastors and Doctors Now howsoeuer one Apostle be not aboue another or one Euangelist aboue another or one pastour aboue another yet an Apostle was aboue an Euangelist and an Euangelist aboue all pastours and teachers And Peter was by calling an Apostle and therefore aboue all Euangelists and Pastors hauing the highest roome in the ministerie of the new Testament both for order and authoritie Conclus II. Among the twelue Apostles Peter had a threefold priuiledge or prerogatiue I. The prerogatiue of authoritie II. Of primacie III. Of principalitie For the first by the priuiledge of authoritie I meane a preheminence in regard of estimatiō wherby he was had in reuerence aboue the rest of the twelue Apostles for Cephas with Iames and Iohn are called pillers and seemed to be great Gal. 2. v. 6 9. Againe he had the preheminence of primacie because he was the first named as the forman of the quest Math. 10. 2. The name of the twelue Apostles are these THE FIRST IS Simon called Peter Thirdly he had the preheminence of principality among the twelue because in regard of the measure of grace he excelled the rest for when Christ asked his disciples whome they said he was Peter as beeing of greatest abilitie and zeale answered for them all Math. 16. 16. I vse this clause among the twelue because Paul excelled Peter euery way in learning zeale vnderstanding as farre as Peter excelled the rest And thus neere we come to popish supremacie The difference The Church of Rome giues to Peter a supremacie vnder Christ aboue all causes and persons that is full power to gouerne order the catholik Church vpon the whole earth both for doctrine regiment This supremacie stands as they teach in a power or iudgement to determine of the true sense of all places of Scripture to determine all causes of faith to assemble generall councells to ratifie the decrees of the said councels to excommunicate any man vpon earth that liues within the Church euen princes and nations properly to absolue and forgiue sinnes to decide causes brought to him by appeale from all the parts of the earth lastly to make lawes that shall binde the conscience This fulnes of power with one consent is ascribed to Peter and the Bishops of Rome that follow him in a supposed succession Nowe we holde on the contrarie that neither Peter nor any Bishop of Rome hath any supremacie ouer the Catholike Church but that all supremacie vnder Christ is pertaining to kings and princes within theire dominions And that this our doctrine is good theirs false and forged I will make it manifest by sundrie reasons I. Christ must be considered of vs as a king two waies First as he is God and so is he an absolute king ouer all things in heauen and earth with the Father the holy Ghost by the right of creation Secōdly he is a king as he is redeemer of mankinde and by the right of redemprion he is a soueraigne king ouer the whole Church and that in speciall manner Now as Christ is God with the Father and the holy Ghost he hath his deputies on earth to gouerne the worlde as namely kings princes who are therefore in scriptures called gods But as Christ is Mediatour and consequently a king ouer his redeemed ones he hath neither fellow nor deputie No fellow for then he should be an imperfect mediatour No deputie for no creature is capable of this office to doe in the roome and stead of Christ that which he himselfe doth because euery worke of the Mediatour is a compound worke arising of the effects of two natures concurring in one and the same action namely the godhead and the manhood and therefore to the effecting of the said work there is required an infinite power which farre exceedes the strength of any created nature Againe Heb. 7. 24. Christ is said to haue a priesthood which cannot passe from his person to any other whence it followes that neither his kingly nor his propheticall office can passe from him to any creature either in whole or in part because the three offices of mediation in this regard be equall Nay it is a needlesse thing for Christ to haue a deputie to put in exequution any part of his mediatourship considering a deputy