made such a monstrous iumbling of three opinions in one he is not ashamed to charge Maister Iewell for leauing the moste literall sense and mingling three opinions of these foure in one as though his sense which is farthest of from the meaning of Christ were the onely or moste literall sense But seeing hee wisheth Maister Iewell or any of vs to discusse the meaning of Christe particulerly with all circumstaunces for my parte considering all circumstaunces I think the most simple and plaine meaning of Christe is that Peter it a Rocke or stone vppon which the Church is buylded but none otherwise then euery one of the Apostles is Ephe 2. and 20. verse and in the Apocalips the 21. chapter and 14. verse Of which M. Sander also confesseth euery one to be a Rock in his kinde But nowe let vs see the fiue circumstaunces by which Maister Saunder will proue Peter for to bee such a Rocke as none of all the reste of the Apostles is but he The firste Christe promised Symon before he confessed that he shoulde be called Peter whiche was the firste cause of beeing the Rocke Iohn I. Admit this to bee a promise not an imposition of a name in respect of the giftes of fortitude constancie where with he woulde endue him this proueth him not to be a singular rocke The second he was named Peter before he coÌ„fessed which was the performaunce of the promise Mark 3. I dout not but that he had coÌ„fessed Christ before he was made an Apostle although he had not made that solemne confession expressed in Matthew 16. Wherefore this circumstaunce is a friuolous argument And his brother Andrewe which first brought him to Christ confessed Iesus to be the Messias before Peter was come to Christ. The thirde when he had confessed the Godheade of Christ which was the fruâ—ct of the gift of the promise Christ pronounced him to be such a rocke whereupon he would build his church which was the reward of his confession But all the Apostles made the same confession therefore the same reward was geuen to all that they should euerie one be a rocke or stone on which the church should be builded The fourth Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle which was the warrant of the perpetuitie of his strong confession Luc. 22. Christ prayed for all his Apostles Ioan. 17. the speciall prayer for Peter was in respect of his greater weakenes when he was left to him selfe The last to shew what strength Peter should geue to his brethren after his conuersion Christ bad him feede his lambes wherby he was made such a rock wherby he should stay vp his church by teaching ruling y e faithful as whose voyce the sheepe should be bound to heare in payne of damnation First I answere that the strength or confirmation which he should geue to his brethren was not all one with his feeding of the lambes but was vsed to the strengthening of his weake brethren the rest of the Apostles whom after his maruelous conuersion he did mightely confirme though in his fall he was shewed to be the weakest of all Then I say the feeding of the sheepe of Christ was committed to him with the rest of the Apostles in which he had no prerogatiue of auctoritie geuen but an earnest charge to shewe his greater loue by greater diligence in his office So that hitherto Peter is none otherwise a rock then euery one of the Apostles is The fourth Chapter DIuerse reasons are alleaged to proue chiefely by the circumstance and conference of holy Scripture that these wordes thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will builde my church haue this literall meaning vpon thee ô Peter being first made a rocke to thend thou shouldest stoutely confesse the faith and so confessing it I will build my church the promise to be caelled Peter was the first cause VVhy the church was built vpon him the Protestants can not tel which is the first literall sense of these wordes vpon this rocke will I build my church FIrst it is to be remembred that M. SaÌ„der in the chapter before reiecting the interpretatioÌ„ of three of the greatest Doctors of the church Origen Augustine and Chrysostom not only is bound in equity to geue vs the same liberty which he taketh him selfe but also to confesse that these three principal doctors following other senses then his were ignoraunt of that which he all other Papists make to be the chiefe article of Christian faith namely of the supremacie of Peter when they acknowledged not Peter to be the rocke wherupon Christ would build his church and therfore would neuer haue subscribed to his booke which he instituteth the rock of the church But nowe to the argument of this chapter Chrysostomis cited to proue that where Christ sayth to Peter thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cepha which is by intepretation Peter a newe name is promised to Simon in Ioan. Hom. 18. Honorifice c. Christ doth forespeake honorably of him For the certeine foretelling of things to come is the worke only of the immortal God It is to be noted that Christ did not foretell at this first meeting all thinges which shoulde come to passe afterwarde to him For he did not call him Peter neither did he say vpon this rocke will I builde my church But he sayd thou shalt be called Cephas For that was both of more power and also of more auctoritie There is nothing in this sentence but that we may willingly admit Peter was not yet instructed that he might be one of the twelue foundations of the church as he was afterward And that Chrysostom iudged no singular thing to be graunted by that saying of Christ Mat. 16. to Peter appeareth by his wordes in Euang. Ioann Praef. Where he applieth the same to Ihon. Tonitrui enim filius est Christo dilectissimus columna omniuÌ„ quae in orbe sunt ceclesiarum qui caeli claues habet For the sonne of thunder is most beloued of Christ being a piller of all the churches which are in the worlde which hath the keyes of heauen Neither doth Cyrillus whom he citeth make any thing for his purpose In Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Simon c. And he telleth afore hande that his name shalbe Peter and not nowe Simon by the very word signifying that he would build his church on him as on a rocke and most sure stone These are the wordes of Cyrillus but that he meaneth not his person but his faith he sheweth manifestly in his booke de Trinit lib. 4. speaking vpon the text of Math. 16. the grounde of M. Sanders booke Peiram opinor per agnominationem nihil aliud quam inconcussam firmissimam discipuli fidem vocauit in qua ecclesia Christi it a firmata fundata esset vt non laberetur I thinke he called a rocke by denomination nothing els but the most vnmoueable and stedfast
denyed a testimony of the booke of wisedom de praedest Non debuit They should not reiect the saying of the booke of wisedom which in the church of Christ hath deserued so long a rew of yeares to be recited in the steppe of the readers of the church of Christ and with worship of diuine auctoritie to be heard of all Christians from the Bishops to the lowest sorte of lay men c. And againe Et Etiam temporibus c. Euen the notable interpreters that were next to the Apostles times when they brought forth that booke for witnes beleued that they brought nothing but a diuine testimonie Touching this defense first I aske of Bristow how he can proue that the booke of Machabees hath had such continuaunce of credit Secondly howe this saying of Augustine coÌ„cerning the booke of wisedom can be true when Hierome plainly reiecteth it as not Canonicall praefat in Prouerb Thirdly I demaunde how Bristow can defend his maior if we admitte this saying of Augustine to be true for not Pelagius as Allen sayth expressely nor any Pelagians as Bristow seemeth to meane but such as defended the Catholike faith against Pelagius reiected this saying of the booke of Wisedome which booke also we refuse although not for that saying and what one article of our doctrine doth that booke impugne nay rather there is testimonies therein manifest agaâ—â—st Images against Purgatory and merites yet can not we therefore allow the writings of Phâ—lo a â—ew since Christes time for the canonicall Scripture of Salomon whose title it salâ—ly beareth But to proceede Luther denyeth the Epistic of S. Iames because it is against his heresie of instfication by faith onely We allowe not Luther neither did he allow him self therein for he retracteth it afterward Yet is not Eusebius counted an heretike which vtterly reiecteth that Epistle Lib. 2. cap. 23. But to goe on Beza doth say that S. Lukes Gospell is falsified because it mainteyneth the reall presence of Christ in the sacramet where he sayth Hic est calix this is the chalice which is shed for you This is an impudent slaunder which I haue aunswered against SauÌ„ders rocke of the church in his ninthe marke of an AntichristiaÌ„ where it is handled at large and thether I referre the Reader To conclude Bristow saith no Scriptures is against the Catholikes but all for them because they must obediently receiue and beleue all Scriptures canonicall But what obedience and beliefe they attribute to the canonicall Scriptures it is plaine by this that they dare not abide the triall by them but flie from them to traditions as Bristow doth euen in the next motiue as though the Scriptures inspired of God were not sufficient both to teache all truth and to confute all errors In the demaund this motiâ—e is handled somewhat otherwise for there we are examined whether in the coÌ„ference of Carthage Augustine and his fellowes did not proue by Scripture that a visible Church should beginne at Hierusalem which shoulde continue visibly to the ende of the world I aunswer they proued sufficiently that the preaching of the gospell beginning at Hierusalem should gather the Church out of all partes of the world and therefore the faction of Donatus which begonne in Africa was not to be found but in a corner of Africa could not be the Church of Christ. But of a visible Church to continue visibly in manner as Bristow demaundeth there was no controuersie in that conference and therefore no proofe thereof brought out of the Scriptures The 9. motiue is the 29 demaund Traditions most certaine The Apostles were of our religion S. Augustine S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Cypriane fasting daies lent masse for the dead prayer for the dead confirmed by the Apostles traditions water mingling mith the wine in the chalice The Masse made by S. Paule S. Paule of our religioÌ„ The true Church sayth Bristow hath alwayes had traditions beside the Scripture and what company soeuer was faine to crye for only Scriptures to deny most certeyne traditions of the Apostles their doctrine was heresie and they heretikes To proue that the church had alwayes traditions beside Scripture he bringeth in the sayings of S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. 2. Thess. 3. before the Scripture was all written when it was necessary for the Church to haue much of the doctrine deliuered onely by preaching yet had they no doctrine of faith but such as was coÌ„firmed by scriptures of the olde testament as is manifest 2. Pet. â— But for the certaintye of popishe traditions what proofe hath he First Basil de sp sancto cap. 27. sayth Dogmata c. Matters of doctrine which are kept and preached in the church we haue partly by doctrine committed to writing partly by tradition of the Apostles which are of like force vnto godlines c. But the same Basil writeth contrary to him selfe and agreeable to the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoeuer is beside the holy Scripture in that it is not of faith is sinne And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he requireth euen newe planted Christians to be instructed in the holy Scriptures both for their full perswasioÌ„ in godlines also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they be not acquainted with mens traditions Furthermore sayth Bristow Augustine Epiphanius the Protestants them selues condemne Heluidius for an heretike for denying the perpetuall virginitie of Marye the mother of Christ contrary to the Churches tradition Nay rather for troubling y e church with contention about that in which he hath no grouÌ„d out of the Scriptures Now let vs see how they are proued to be heretikes that refuse traditions of the Apostles are fayne to cry for onely Scriptures First that Maximinus the Arrian did so ergo whosoeuer doth so is an heretike according to Bristowes logike And yet he belyeth Maximinus for he refused not traditions of the Apostles but such wordes as were beside the Scripture meaning Homousion such like termes which were theÌ„ newly vsed but yet conteyned no newe doctrine but euen that which alwayes was approued according to the Scriptures The same thing did the decree of the heretical Emperour Constantius forbid not traditions of the Apostles of which was no controuersie betwene the true Christians the Arrians But that the Scriptures onely are of sufficient authoritie to confute heresies Augustine declareth euen against the same Maximinus lib. 3. cap. 14. Sed nunâ— nec ego Niccnum c. But now must not I bring forth the councel of Nice nor thou the couÌ„cel of Ariminum to make any preiudice but by the authoritie of Scriptures not being proper to ether but coÌ„mon witnesses to vs both let matter contend with matter cause with cause reason with reason Likewise he and his fellow Bishops sayd vnto the Donatists in the conference of Carthage Si tantummodo id qu. crerctur quâ— vel rbi esset Ecclesia nihil se acturos publicis gestis sed scripturarum diuinarum tantummodo
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
no Protestantes let them aunsweare for them selues If he calles them Puritanes which desire to haue the Church thorowly reformed there is no such dissention betweene them but that they all agree in the Articles of Faith maintayne brotherly concorde one with an other notwithstanding in diuersitie of opinions concerning the matters and manner of reformation But what an impudent attempte is chaunge of Religion hee will shewe vs out of Luther which writing againste the Anabaptistes Anno 1528. affirmeth that much Christianitie and true Christianitie is vnder the Popedome If chaunge of Religion bee so impudent an attempte why were the Papistes finding Religion quietly establyshed by lawe so impudent in Queene Maryes time not only to attempte but also to bring to passe in deede an alteration of Religion But the Popish Religion was true Christianitie by Luthers confession I aunswere Luther did meane nothing lesse by that confession then to defende any parte of Popery to bee Christianitie but writinge against the Anabaptistes which woulde haue all thinges abolyshed which the Papistes vsed he sheweth that such partes and Articles of Christianitie which in generall confession and acknowledging of the authoritie of the Scriptures the Papistes haue common with vs are not therefore to bee reiected because of them they haue bene abused Otherwise it is a poore Moâ—iue vnto Popery that Luther by these or any other woordes did euer minister vnto you The 17. Motiue is the 11. Demaunde The Catholike faith in England mightely planted lightly changed S. Augustine the Apostle of Englishmen of what Religion and authoritie Miracles for our whole Religion Sainte Bede of our Religion His story to be read of Englishmen Images and Crosses confirmed by miracle Prophecyes and visions for our Religion The Catholike Faith was purely planted in this Island by the Apostles euen in the raigne of Tiberius as restineth Gildas sixe hundreth yeeres before Augustine came from Rome bringing in deede with him the principall groundes of Christianitie and with all much Monkish superstition But that the Religion of Papisâ—rie differeth in as many pointes from that which Augustine planted as Augustines doth from oures I haue prooued abundantly in aunsweare to Stapletons Fortresse and breefely in the Table of differences And in such poyntes wherein wee differ from Augustine I haue proued that Augustine differed from the Apostles As for his Miracles affirmed by the Saxons and denied by the Briton writers shall still remaine in controuersie for me As also his prophecie so tearmed by the Saxons which the Britons affiâ—me to be a threatening of crueltie which he himselfe procured to be executed on the poore Students â—â—ergie of Bangor In the demaunde Bristow would knowe of vs whether the Britains by Eleutherius were coÌ„uerted to one faith and the Saxons by Gregory and Augustine vnto an other But I haue shewed before that the Britanes were not coÌ„uerted by Elutherius although perhaps the Church which was more then an hundreth yeares of age in his tyme might by him of charitie be confirmed in truth or admonished to beware of such heretikes as then troubled the Church abroade But I deny that Eleutherius maynteyned all that superstition which Augustine brought in And I affirme that â—â—â—â— Britons church in Augustines tyme differed in more things then in the celebration of Easter from the Romish Churche as I haue shewed in that confutation of Stapleton euen by testimony of Bede him selfe Although I will not deny but there might be some corruption euen amonge the Britayns also as there were that maynteyned the heresie of the Pelagians Wherefore into that Catholike faith which was first mightely planted in this lande by the Apostles of Christ and not of Gregorie through the most weightie argumentes taken of the auctority of the holy Scriptures is this realme by the great mercie of God returned from the schiâ—me and heresie of Antichrist so I hope shall remaine euen vntil the second comming of Christ. The 18. motiue is the 3. demaund Going out S. Optatus motiue The churches practise is alwayes infallible The vnitie and constancie of the Bishops of England Protestants doe decay and shall come to nothing We like Optatus Motiue well for going out of the Church into any other faction But it may not be drawn contrarie to his meaning against those which goe out of Babilon into Ierusalem He saith VVe must see who hath remained in the roote with the whole worlde Verely not the Papists which are departed from the doctrine of the Apostles which is the roote of the Church by them planted in all the worlde VVe must see who is gone foorth which Bristow doth rightly referre to that saying of Saint Paule Discedent quidam à fide Some shall departe from the Fayth But who are those They that teache the doctrine of deuilles forbidding to marrye and commaunding to abstaine from meates Nowe whether Papists or protestants be such let the worlde iudge Optatus will haue it farther considered VVho is set in an other Chayre that was not before Verely none so manifestly as the Pope who sitteth in a Chayre that none of the Apostles nor Apostolike men for many hundreth yeeres after Christe did knowe Againe VVho hath sette an Aultar against the Aultar who but the Papists which haue erected the Sacrifice of the Masse to ouerthrow the Aultar of the crosse of Christ Finally VVho hath made an ordination the other before ordayned beeing whole sounde Quis ordinationem fecerit saluo altero ordinato Which Bristow hath falsely traÌ„slated thus VVho hath placed Bishops there where others were placed before which are yet aliue As though it were a faulte to putte out false Bishoppes and to supply the roomes with true Bishoppes where as Optatus meaneth of Heretikes which are gone from true Byshoppes and sette vppe Heretikes in schisme the true Bishoppes still remayning as the Papistes did in Queene Maryes time vntyll they had burned vppe almoste all As for the vnitie and constancy of the popishe deposed Prelates which hee commendeth is sufficiently knowne to the worlde which although they were all saue one obstinate in the beginning of her Maiesties raygne because they hoped by trayterous practises foolish prophecies deuilish coniuration to see an alteration shortly aswel for religion as also for the whole state of the common wealth and withall had experience of the mercifulnes and compassion of the Kinges of Israell so that they were not in feare of their liues or any great hazard of their goods yet had they all or the most part of them such was their good constancy reuolted from popery and sworne against the Pope in the raygne of Kinge Henrye and King Edward As for the decaye of Protestants and professors of the truthe of Gods word which the cold prophet foreseeth by some trayterous deuise whispered among his pewfellowes at Louayne or Dowaye it shall haue such successe and euent by Gods grace as hitherto the like treasonable practises haue obteyned
whiche alwayes Gods holy name be praysed therefore hath turned to the confusion of Popery and the further spreading of the light of the Gospell In the demaunde he vrgeth vs to shewe when the Romanes went out of the truth fâ—rsaking any company of Christians then liuing This hath bene often shewed that the Romanes though not all at once yet by litle and litle euen as the mysterie of iniquitie got strength which began to worke in the Apostles tyme haue departed from the communion of other Christians The first storye that maketh notable mention is Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 25. of Victor which did cut him selfe from all the Churches of the East about a ceremonye since which tyme the Romane Bishops by litle and litle haue departed vntill they made a generall apostasie and defection from the vniuersall Churche condemning all the Christians in the world except such as held of their particular schismaticall and hereticall Churche of Rome The 19. motiue is the 4. demaund Risinge afterwarde Saynt Ireneus and Tertullians motiue He spendeth muche labour in vayne to proue that the first religion is the onely true religion and that all sectes that arise after are false which we graunt most willingly with Irenaeus Tertullian and the Scripture it selfe But he hath not one worde to proue that our religion is of a later springe then the Apostles and therefore like an asse he flyeth to their common stable saying that Luther liued but yesterdaye as though Luther were the firste author of our religion Which if it be not as auncient as Christ and the Apostles might easiely be confuted by the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles contayned in the holye Scriptures The 20. motiue is the 5. demaunde Beginninge with wondringe and gaynesaying of Christians then in vnitye vvhich is Saynte Irenaeus motiue Our religion of Christ reuealed in the fleshe began with wondring and gaynesaying of Scribes Pharisees as it is manifest by the historye of the Gospell Marke 1. yet was not the doctrine of Christ newe or straunge but newely begonne to be restored which was by them corrupted so is the same now wondred at and gaynesayde by their successors the Papistes but of true Christians it is nether wondred at nor gaynesayde contrariwise the heresie of Papistes in manye poyntes was wondred at and gaynesayde by true Christians whiche Bristowe saythe we can not proue to be in anye one For example I will name one of the chiefest articles which they holde namely the Popes supremacye vpon which all the rest in Eusebius testifyeth that when Victor Bishoppe of Rome which was the first that challeÌ„ged any supremacie tooke vpon him to excommunicate the Churches and Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter His presumption was wondred at and gainesayde not only by those Churches and their Bishops but euen by others neere hand as by Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce which sharpely reproued him therfore more theÌ„ two hundreth yeeres after when Zozimus other Romish Prelates made claime to a kind of supremacy in resisting appeale out of Africa and for that purpose had counterfaited a decree of the Nicâ—ne councel They were wondred at and gainesaid by the whole councell of Carthage The like might I shewe for worshipying of Images the reall presence transubstatiation c. But where hee sayeth that all heresies were wondered at and gainesaide immediatly after they arose it cannot be proued Nor that all was Heresie that was gainesaide by them that were in vnitie For the baptisme of Heretikes was gainesaide by Saincte Cyprian and all the Bishoppes of Africa yet was it none heresie that Infants might be sauedwith out receiuing of the communion was gainesaid by Innocentius Bishop of Rome and by S. Augustine and by all the church that was at vnitie against the Pelagians August contra duas epistolas Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 2. Cap 4. Yet was not that opinion then helde by the Pelagians otherwise horrible Heretikes and heresie but that which the Bishop of Roms the rest of the known visible church did holde was an erâ—or whereby you may see how truely the commaundement of Christe vnto Peter to confirme his Brethren after his conuersion doth giue the Byshop of Rome ' power neuer to be deceiued nor to fall into error And that the Church may be the piller and stay of trueth although the chiefe members thereof and generally all that are knowen to be members thereof may be taken in some particular error The 21. Motiue is the 42. demaunde Vnsent Orders Protestants allowe better of our orders theÌ„ of their owne Wheras Bristowe chargeth vs to be vnsent it is nothing else but a popish slaunder and petition of principle for we are called and sent ordinarily by the Church and elders of the same to preach the word of God and to minister the Sacraments Neither are we ordayned by a lay Prince as he like a lewde Papist doth slaunder both our Christian Prince and vs. And although the Prince by letters Patents hath sent some to preach and visite the Churches of her dominions yet shee hath doone it by authoritie of the worde of God and by example of godly Princes Iosaphat and other 2. Chro. 17. not taking vpon het to execute any ecclesiasticall function but according to her kingly authoritie in causes ecclesiasticall And where Bristowe saith we allowe better of their popish orders then of our owne secking as much as we can possible to be consecrated by one of their orders except it be some such proude hypocrite as Bristowe is that so iudgeth and seeketh it is a moste abhominable lye For withall our heart wee abhorre defie detest and spit at your stinking greasie antichristian orders Neither doth our Church receiue any of your execrable ordering to minister in the Church before they haue solemnly by othe renounced your Antichriste and publikely as well professed to imbrace all true religion as Protested that in their conscienses they defy all papistry and other heresies Although many godly men wishe yet a more seuere discipline in examining and receiuing such as come our of your heresie to serue in the Church of God The 22. motiue is the 43. demaund Suceession S. Optatus motiue The Church is euerlasting visible S. Hieroms S. Augustines motiue the Church euerlasting The communion of the B. of Rome to be kept of all Christians Succession in the see Apostolike Tertullians and Augustines motiues That the Church is euerlasting Bristow neede not haue takeÌ„ such paynes to proue that this continuance is preserued by succession is also to be confessed But y t this succession is visible limited to any one sea of bishops it is false For euen as he him selfe sayth it is necessary that all Adams children to be come of Adam by a continuall pedegree of fathers and grandfathers and other progenitors euen vntill his time and yet no one of Adams childreÌ„ can deduce this pedegree by
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
be seene in England yet they that had spirituall eyes and by Gods grâ—ce drewe neare vnto his Church did in the most obscure tymes as the worlde esteemeth them see the cleare bewtie of her light and the glorye of the Lordes hill lifted vp aboue all the hills in the world Esa. 2. The heathen tyrants thought by their cruell persecution that they had vtterly rooted out the name and nation of Christians from the face of the earth Nero gloried that he had purged the world of the superstition of Christ as appeareth in an olde inscription in a picture of stone Neroni â—l Caes. Aug. Pontif. Max. ob prouin latromb hijs qui nouam generi hum superstitionem inculcar purgatam To Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus the greatest Prelate for that he hath purged the prouince of theeues and them that brought in a newe superstition to mankind Likewise another like piller there is of Diocletian and Maximian in these wordes Diocletian Iouius Maximi Herculeus Caes. Augu. Amplificato per Orientem Occident nup. Rom. nomme Christianorum deleto quiremp euertebant Diocletianus Iouius and Maximianus Herculeus Caesaris Augusti hauing amplified the Empire of Rome both in the East and West and vtterly destroyed the name of Christians which did ouerthrow the common wealth Another like there is of Diocletian alone Diocletian Caes. Aug. Galerio in Oriente adoptat superstitione Christi vbique deleta cultu Deorum propagato Diocletianus Caesar Augustus hauing adopted Galerius in the East and in all places vtterly destroyed the superstition of Christ and set forth the worship of the Gods By these inscriptions and glorious titles you see that the heathenish tyrants perswaded them selues that they had vtterly defaced the religion of Christ destroyed his Church out of the worlde what maruell then if Antichrist and his adherents which to the cruelty of the former tyrants haue added most detestable hypocrisy haue thought that they had so wholy subuerted the true religion of Christ and his true Church that the name ether of Church or religion might not seeme to haue remayned in the world but that of the Romish Antichrist But as Nero the Pontif. Maximus of Rome with Diocletiane and the reste were deceyued in their time so their successors in place office and wickednes the Popes of Rome are likewise disapoynted of their cruell purpose But M. Sander glorieth that in all markes and signes of the true Church the popish Church doth excel ours But first of all that which is the onely true marke and triall of the Church namely the word of God he denyeth to be a sufficient marke of the true Church yet had he before confessed the Church to be the piller and stay of truth 1. Tim. 3. but the rule of truth if we beleue our Sauiour Christ is the word of God Iohn 17. 17. therefore the word of God is the onely true tryall and marke of the Church But let vs consider his reasons by which he woulde perswade vs that y e word of God is not the chiefe marke whereby the true Church of God may be knowen First he sayth the marke whereby an other thing is knowne ought it selfe to be most exactly knowne wheras we are not agreed what Gods word is Note this reason of his by which he taketh away all authoritie and vse from the worde of God not onely thereby to discerne the true Church but also to teache vs any other thinge that is needefull for vs to know But why I pray you are we not agreed what is Gods word Forsooth because some cal onely the written letter and the meaning thereof Gods word other thinke many thinges are Gods word which are not expressely written but deliuered by tradition from the Apostles and by the holy Ghost which hath written his lawes in our hartes of this later sort be the Papists but they are easily confuted For this principle must needes stand vnmoueable that Gods spirite is neuer contrary to him selfe Therefore seeing the spirite of God hath pronounced of the Scriptures that they are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes 2. Tim. 3. 16. it is certayne that God hath reuealed nothing by tradition for our instructioÌ„ which is not conteyned in his worde written much lesse any thing that is contrary to his doctrine deliuered in the holy Scriptures His second reason is that we are not agreed vpon the written word of God because the Protestants doe not admitte so many bookes of the olde testament as the Catholikes doe I aunswer the Protestants doe admit as many as the Catholike Church euer did or doth at this day His third reasoÌ„ is that the meaning of those bookes which we are agreed vpon is altogether in question betwene vs therfore that can be no marke of the church which it self is not knowne I answer although heretikes which are ouerthrowen in their owne conscience will acknowledge no meaning to be true but their owne yet are there many principles in the Scriptures so playne as they are graunted by both partes or els can not without shame be denyed of our aduersaries out of which playne certeyne and immutable principles all matters in controuersie may be proued and the same church also discerned which is the verie cause why the Papistes dare not abide the triall by the Scriptues but flye to traditions euen as their forefathers the auncient Valentinian heretikes of whome Irenaeus writeth lib. 3. cap. 2. Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem conuertuntur ipsaruÌ„ Scripturam quasi non rectè habeant neque fuit ex auctoritate quia variè sunt dictae quia non possit ab his inueniriveritas qui nesciant traditionem non enim per literas traditam sed per viuam vocem When they are conuinced out of the Scriptures then fall they to accusing of the Scriptures them selues as though they were not right nor of sufficient authoritie because they are spoken doubtfully and that the trueth cannot be found of them which knowe not the tradition for that was not deliuered by letters but by word of mouth Thus much Ireneus of the olde Heretikes and what his iudgement was of the meaning of the Scripture which M. Sand. maketh so ambiguous he declareth lib. 2. cap. 35. Vniuersae scripturae Propheticae Euangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitat similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt c. The whole Scriptures both of the Prophets and of the Gospells are open and without ambiguitie may be heard of all meÌ„ alike This speaketh Irenaeus not of euery text of Scripture but of the whole doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles which is so playne and easie to be founde in the Scriptures that no man can misse thereof that seeketh not of purpose to be deceyued as he sayth cap. 67. of the same booke But M. Sander is content for disputation sake to admit Gods word for a marke of the true Church and
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
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
Iannes and Iambres and shalbe wrought by Antichrist not able to abide the triall so say I of all Popish miracles either they are fayned or â—ls they are counterfaited or if any wonderous thing be done it is according to the working of Satan as the Apostle teacheth vs. 2. Thess. 2. So did Marcus the hereticke make straunge appearaunces in the sacrement of Christes blood as witnesseth Iren. cus lib. 1. cap. 9. Tertullian affirmeth the holy Ghost the comforter to be in the Mâ—Ì„tanistes by acknowledging of the promised graces lib de amma cap. de inferis Where also he maketh mention of prayer for the dead confirmed by a miracle among the Montanists Augustine speaketh of Paulus Donatus that wrought miracles to confirme the heresie of the Donatistes de vnitat eccles Sozâ—menus lib. 1. cap. 14 reporteth that Eutychianus a Nouatian heretike was notable in working of miracles Wherfore if the fables written of Frauncis Dominike Becket c. were true yet are not they by such miracles proued true preachers But S. Bernard was of our religion sayth Bristow In deede he maintained many of your opinions yet not all nor the chiefest for he beleued that a man might be saued sâ—la fide by faith only Ep. 77. But he was an enemy to the Henricians which burned images destroyed Churches and were against all such pointes of Poperie as the title mentioneth and these heretikes he ouercame not only by preaching but by miracles sayth Bristow as he testifieth himselfe Ep. 241. The truth saith he was made manifest non sâ—lum in sermone sed etiam in virtute not only by preaching but also by working as doth Bristow translate wheras he should say not only by speech but also by power so that of miracle there is no mentioÌ„ Yet Godfrie the Monke that was his discisciple writteth of miracles wrought by breade sanctified with the signe of the crosse c But Godfries writing we holde for no Gospell Neither know we the contrarie but some Godfâ—ie Gods foe which hued long after Bernarde might fayne those bookes in the name of one of his disciples that liued in his time for the number of miracles rehearsed in them fine passe the number of the miracles recorded by the Euangelists of our Sauiour Christ. And that you may know from what spirite those bookes proceeded you shall vnderstand that the same Godfrie lib. 1. cap. 3. extolleth the wisedom of Barnard aboue all the Scriptures Vicbatur sanè Scripturis tam liberâ—è commodeque vâ— non tam sequi illas quam praecedere crederetur ducere ipse quô vellet auctorem earum ducem spiritum sequens He vsed in deede the Scriptures so freely and fitly that he might be thought not so much to follow them as to go before them to lead them whither he would following the spirite the autor of them as a guide Againe he sayth of him Nam confessus est aliquando sibi meditanti veloraÌ„ti sacram omnem velut subse positam expositanâ— apparuisse Scripturam For he confessed sometimes while he studied or prayed that all the holy Scripture appeared to him as placed vnder him and expounded But Bernard him selfe as appeareth by his wrytings abhorred from that blasphemous confession Againe those epitaphes which were written at his buriall commende Bernard highly for his learning and vertue but of miracles they speake not which they would not haue omitted if they had bene so many as this Godfrie writeth The excommunication of Pius quintus we feare no more then we beleue his miracle howe soeuer that pageant was deuised which coÌ„meth too late to perswade vs that the Pope can worke miracles For it had bene more in season for Leo the 10 or Clemens the seuenth if they or any of these had receaued such power to haue shewed it in generall councell or assembly of the states against Luther and his followers then now that Antichrist is in so great part consumed by the spirite of the Lords mouth to thinke to establish his throne by lying signes and wonders which fewe of the Papistes doe in their consciences thinke to be other then counterfaited and forged The 8. motiue is the 12. demaund Visions a marke of true doctrine and Doctors Christ to be beleued for visions S. Augustine was of our religion and brought thereto by God Beleuing the reall presens of Christ in the sacrament of the altare which is to be worshipped with religion saying masse for the dead Prayer for the dead vsed alwayes S. Gregory was of our religion Masse sayd euery day Prayer for the dead coÌ„firmed by a vision seruing for our religion prophecies for our religion VVhy Protestants deny not all the Scriptures Visions for our religion The communion booke burned in a vision The communion in a vision receaued by a blacke dogge The seruice of Protestantes to be refrained S. Cyprian of our religion Of visions we haue the same rule that of miracles such as are of God sâ—rue to coÌ„firme that doctrine which is deliuered in the holy Scriptures such were the visions shewed vnto the Apostles and holy men But if any vision seemed to bringe in any doctrine that was not conâ—eyned in the Scriptures both the vision was to be knowen for a deuilâ—h illusion and the dreamer of that vision commaunded to be slayne But how will Bristâ—w proue that S. Augustine was of his religion euen by that wise argument that he â—seth so often because he held some one error common with them although he were contrary to them in the whole substance of religion For thus he reasoneth S. Augustine was of the same religion that his mothâ—r Monica was who saw in a vision that he should be conuerted to the Catholike faith when he was a Manichee But Monica was of our religion because â—he beleued the reall prefence and worshipped so that blessed saâ—rament with religion and making of it God him selfe But how proueth he that she so beleued and worshipped She knew sayth he that from the alâ—ar was minisâ—â—ed dispensed victima sancta c. that holy sacrifice wher by was stricken out that hand writing that was againâ— vs. Au. lib. cont 9. â—ap 13. A straunge conclusion She acknowledged the ministration of the sacrament to be a dispensation or communication of the sacrifice of Christs death which euery Protestant doth therefore she beleued the reall presence But how did she worship the sacrament and make God him selfe of it Mary S. Augustine sayth Ad vnâ—m c. To the sacrameÌ„s of whiâ—h our price thy handmay de â—ved her soule with the bonde of faith What word is here of worshipping or making the sacrament God him selfe Yes sayth Bristow for Augustine sayth in other places we must tye our soules to God alone whereof religion is so named wherefore she tying her soule to the sactament maketh the sacrament God him selfe A substantiall reason I promise you by which you may as wel prouâ— that she worshipped baptisme and
testimonijs If this onely were the question which or where the Church were that they woulde pleade nothing at all by publike actes of men but only by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures Yet sayth Bristow the Apostles were of our religion because Chrysostom sayth Ad pop Antioch that it was decreed by the Apostles that in the dreadfull mysteries a remeÌ„brance should be made of the dead This sayth Bristow was masse for the dead How prayers for the dead came in how at leÌ„gth sacrifice of the masse was applied vnto the dead I haue shewed sufficiently against Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles which some of the olde writers doe ascribe to their traditions wee should receiue many thinges that euen the Papistes them selues doe not obserue As that it is a wicked thing to fast on SoÌ„day or to pray kneling that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes c. which with diuerse other superstitions Tertullian fathereth vpon the tradition of the Apostles as wel as oblation for the dead De coron nul hearing therefore such manifest vntruths are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition by most auÌ„cient writers what certainty can we haue of their tradition without their owne writing Againe S. Hierom saith it was a tradition of the Apostles to fast 40 daies in the yeare If this be true then is the popish story false that maketh Telesphorus Bishop of Rome author of that lenten fast Eusebius sheweth the great diuersitie of fasting before Easter li. 5 cap. 26. saying that some fasted but 1 day some 2 daies some more some 40 howres of day night this diuersitie proueth â—â—â—â— Hierom vntruly ascribeth y t tradition to the Apostles which should haue bene kept vniformely if it had any institution of the Apostles Cyprian sayth it was our Lordes tradition that the wine in the communion should be mingled w t water But the Scripture saith not so S. Paule w c deliuered that w c he receiued of Christ saith not so And yet CypriaÌ„ coÌ„teÌ„deth principally for the vse of wine in the cup against the watry heretikes that vsed onely water It is a coÌ„mon thinge with the auncient writers to defend euery ceremony mhich was vsed in their time by tradition of the Apostles But the chiefe matter is the masse which sayth Bristow S. Paule one of our religion made I maruell whether Bristow writeth this for fooles to beleue or for wise men to laughe at When they them selues make Gregory or Scholasticus or I can not tell whom auctor of the canon and when they write howe euery peece was added by what Pope what impudence is it to say that S. Paule made the Masse and to call Augustine to witnesse that which he good man did neuer thinke of and much lesse write Whose wordes Bristow hath mangled and falsified for thus he citeth them Ep. 118. cap 6. Totum illum agendi ordinem quem uniuersum per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse That by him was ordeyned this order of doing which through the whole world the Church doth keepe in doing of Masse The wordes of Augustine speaking of receiuing the communion fasting or before all other meates are these vpon the wordes of S. Paule Caetera cum venero ordinabo Vnde intelligi datur quia multum erat vt in epistola totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret quem universa per orbem seruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morum diuersitate variatur Other thinges will I set in order when I come Whereby it is giuen vs to be vnderstood because it was much that in an epistle he should set forth that whole order of doing which the whole Church throughout the world doth obserue that this thinge was ordeyned by him which is varied by no diuersitie of maners vnderstanding the custome of receyuing the communion fasting which he sayd before was generally obserued in all places But of ordeyning the masse there is no title You see now howe â—â—â—â— Apostles especially S. Paule is of Bristowes religion beside ChrysostoÌ„ Hierom Cypâ—iaÌ„ The 10 and 11 motiues are confusely conteâ—ned in the 34 demaund The Courches iudgement is alwayes infallible VVhen by Iewell the Church of God dyed Donatistes and Luciferians aliue againe in Protestants S. Augustine and S. Hierome were of our religion Protestants in their owne conscience be against the Church which is euerlasting and visible No scripture against the Catholiks but all for them Christ to be loued for the authoritie of his Church for which there be playner prophecyes then for Christ him selfe Although we should graunt the Churches iudgemeÌ„t to be alwaies infallible yet would we neuer graunt the popish churches authoritye which falleth so manifestly from the word of God thereby sheweth her self to be the malignant Church Synagogue of Satan That the Church of Christ hath alwaies ben from y e beginning shal continue vnto the end of the world we all confesse and defende Wherefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristow to saye that by Iewell the Church dyed within six hundreth yeares after Christ. And that the Donatistes and Luciferians are reuiued in Protestants For we nether say that the Church is perished out of all places except Africa as the Donatistes nor that it is become a stewes with the Luciferians But the Papistes are more like to the Donatistes which say the Church is perished out of all partes of the world except Europe and in steede of the Church they defende a stewes and sincke of all dolatrie superstition vngodlines Therefore Augustine and Hierom be not of Bristowes religion for condemning those heretikes to whome Bristow and his Papistes are more like then the Protestants Nether doe Protestants in their conscience thinke the Church of Christ to be against them because Castalio an Anabaptist translateth Ecclesiae the Churche into reipublicae the common wealth or because many vse the name of congregation which is the true signification of this word Ecclesia as no man will deny that is not past all shame That the Churche is euerlasting and visible to them that haue suche eyes as the Churche is that is spirituall we neuer deny But that it is visible to the world alwayes that shall neuer be proued That no Scripture is against the Catholikes we graunt but that many Scriptures are against the Papists it hath bene more then a thousand times proued That the church geueth testimonie to Christ that the prophecies of the churches euerlasting continuance are plaine euident It is no question betwene vs. But that the synagoge of Romish Papists is the church of Christ to whoÌ„ such credit or reuerence is to be geuen that I say if Bristow woulde burst for anger against the Protestantes he shall neuer be able to proue The 11. motiue The practise or custome of the church of God S. Paule and S. Augustine of our
religion Exorcisme exufflation in baptisme Pelagians aliue againe in Protestants Baptisme necessary for saluation of children ChauÌ„ge of religion neuer made by us Altares prayer for the dead used alwayes Reall presence of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t Pilgrimage reliques of Saints S. Hierom of our religioÌ„ Miracles for reliques Churches coÌ„firmed by miracles VVhat an impudeÌ„t atteÌ„pt is chauÌ„ge of religioÌ„ Of the churches practise custome I say euen as of the churches iudgement that how much soeuer it be to be esteemed yet is not the Popish church the Catholike church of Christ but an apostasie schisme from it Neither is it sufficieÌ„t for Bristow to say y e Popish church practiseth many things that the auÌ„cieÌ„t church of Christ practised therfore it is the true church of Christ except he can proue that the Popish churchteacheth practiseth all nothing els but that which the ancieÌ„t church of Christ did teach practise In stede whereof Bristow can allege nothing but certeine spots wrinkles of the elder church which the Popish church doth embrace hauing almost nothing els like vnto it But let vs see how substantially he proueth out of S. Paule S. Augustine that the churches custome and practise is an infallible rule of truth First S. Paule saith he 1. Cor. 11. after many reasons for the vncomelines of womeÌ„s going bareheaded recoyleth to this inuincible forte Si quis c. But if any man seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome for women to pray vncouered nor the church of God See how this impudent asse to stablish his ground of custome is not ashamed to falsifie the wordes of holy Scripture S. Paul saith if any man seme to be desirous of contention we haue no such custome nor the churches of God whereby he meaneth plainly that it is not the custome of the Apostles nor of the church of God to be contentious about such small matters of external behauiour May we herof inferre that whatsoeuer the church at any time hath vsed is allowable to be vsed alwaies S. Aug. Ep. 118. Ian. is cited by Bristow but corruptly Si quid tota per orbeÌ„ frequentat ecclesia hoc quia it a â—acienduÌ„ sit disputare insoleÌ„tissimae insaniae est If y e whole church do vse any thing only to call it in question whether that thing should be so don is a poinct of most prowd or most straÌ„ge madnes But Augustine is not so generall for his words are siquid horuÌ„ if any of these things speaking of ceremonial obseruations as of receiuing the coÌ„munion fasting c. be vniuersally vsed of all the church when it is not coÌ„trary to the word of God it were madnes to striue about it For in the first place Augustine setteth the auctority of Gods word secoÌ„dly the custome of the vniuersal church being not contrary to Gods word last of all the customs of particular churches which are varied according to the diuersities of coÌ„tries natioÌ„s Now for these matters in coÌ„trouersy betwene vs I answer as Augustine doth to the questioÌ„ of Ianuarius immediatly after the words cited by Bristow Sed neque hoc neque illud est in eo quod tu queris But neither is this nor that in the question that thou propoundest that is neither the practise of the vniuersall church nor the auctority of the Scriptures serueth to decide this question but it is the third kind So say I to Bristow nether the auctority of the holy Scriptures nor the practise of the vniuersall church can be shewed for these things which thou defeÌ„dest but they are of a third kind that is contrary to the word of God and the practise of the most auncient Primitiue church But Augustine sayth Bristow proueth that infants are borne in sinne against the Pelagians which are reuiued in ProtestaÌ„ts by the customes practise of the church which was to baptise theÌ„ for remission of sinnes And this practise he called the waight of truth a most plaine bignes of truth The slauÌ„der that PelagiaÌ„s are aliue in ProtestaÌ„ts by denying children to be borne in sinne I wil no more esteme then the barking of a dogge against the moone But where he sayth that Augustine by the only practise of the church coÌ„uinceth the Pelagians calling the practise poÌ„dus veritatis c it is a shameles lye for his words are in the same Epist. 105. Circunstiâ—antur enim diâ—inarum auctoritate lectionuÌ„ antiquitus tradito retcÌ„to firmo Ecclesiae ritu in baptismate paruulorum For they are compassed about both by the auctoritie of the diuine readings also by the stedfast practise of the church deliuered of old reteined in the baptisme of infants But he vrgeth them with exorcisme and exsufflation which were there vsed in the church I confesse but their meaning by exufflatioÌ„ exorcisme he defendeth out of the Scriptures And who can blame Augustine if after he haue mightely confuted the Pelagians out of the Scriptures to shew the nouelty of their heresie he alleaged the perpetuall practise of the church which she alwaies had alwaies shall haue in praying for the conuersion of infidels for the perseueraÌ„ce of the faithful in goodnes This is all one saith Bristow as if we should reason against these heretikes out of priuate mens beades out of the publike prayers which are in the portuse or Breuiary or in the missall and such like bokes The deuill it is except Bristow can proue that such beades and prayers were euer vsed in the church For Augustine sayth de bono perseuer ca. 22 Atque vtinam tardi corde infirmi qui non possunt velnon dum possunt Scriptur as vel earum expositiones intelligere sic audrient vel non audirent in hac quaestione disputationes nostras vt magis intuer entur orationes suas quas semper habuit habebit ecclesia ab exordijs suis donec finiatur hoc seculum And I would they that are dull of hart weake which can not or as yet can not vnderstand the Scriptures or the expositions of them would so heare or not heare our disputations in this question that they would rather consider their owne prayers which the church alwaies hath had shall haue from her beginning vntil this world be ended You see plainly that Augustine ioyneth to the auctority of the holy Scriptures the perpetuall practise of the church which hath continued from the beginning and shall remayne vnto the ende Which seeing it can not be shewed for Poperie the argument of the practise of the church serueth not for Popery Bristowe proceedeth and passeth ouer the example of Christian women which killed them selues rather then they would haue their bodies abused yet notwithstanding by the churches iudgement were honored as martyrs To which I aunswere the church considered their minde which was good not the fact which was euell At last he commeth to affirme that the
This thing sayth D. Humfrey he did not with his wil but yet he did it not without a cause that he might strike you through with the testimonie of your fathers as it were with your owne sworde For it had beene manlie for a Christian man to say Thus sayth the Lorde It had bene sufficient to haue layed agaynst you Your doctrine is contrarie to the Scripture For it is the question of men possessed with deuills to say What haue we to doe with thee Iesus thou sonne of Dauid But it is an interrogation of the Saynctes What haue we to doe with our fathers with fleshe and bloode You heare by these wordes what a daungerous opinion he holdeth of the fathers and of the Saynctes in the calender namelie that the fathers are no farther to be followed then they followed the holie Scriptures and that the Sainctes either liuing or deade whether they be in the calender or no deny their fathers as fleshe and bloode if they be in any respect an hinderance for them to obey the will of their father in heauen These are the perillous opinioÌ„s that Bristow brableth against falsifying his words by ommission depâ—auing his meaning by false surmising But Bristow hath yet an other reason to proue the fathers to be in all poinctes of their side If in all poinctes sayth he they be not with the Protestants then vndoubtedly in all poynctes they be with vs. And what is the reason of this monstruous conclusion There was neuer but one true religion As though none can be of true religion but such as erreth in nothing But who would spend incke and paper to confute such vaine reasonings The 15. motiue conteineth the 15. 16. and 20. demaundes Martyrs S. Stephen of our religion Pilgrimage Churches confirmed by vision Mâ—racles for reliques and for necessitie of childrens baptisâ—ne Confirming of children the custome and practise of Gods church Foxes martyrs Miracâ—es for our martyrs Al martyrs that euer suffred fot the testimony of true religion since Abel were numbred of one true church euen of the same that we are But Bristow would binde vs to the Saincts in the calender termed by L. Humfrey SaÌ„ctâ—li which terme yea a worse might serue a number of theÌ„ Notwithstanding so many of those caleÌ„ddred canonized Sainctes as be Saincts in heauen and not firebrands in hell were of that church which is builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ being the head corner stone And therefore it is a foolish request that we should name any one of theÌ„ which was of our faith But it is a pleasant pastime to heare howe Bristow proueth S. Stephen to be of his religion It is manifest sayth he that he is of the religion of the rest of the martyrs meaning Papistes because it is proued that he as well as they had heard helped theÌ„ which prayed to them which worshipped their reliques went a pilgrimage to their churches he specially reuealing by vision the place where his reliques were hidden with the reliques of S. Gamaliel S. Nicodemus vnto one Lucian a Priest of â—erusalem which wrote in Greeke the history of his inuention To this inuention I answere that it is an inuention of the deuill either by meanes of him that counterfaited the vision or by sending a stronge illusion so â— say generally of all such miracles and visions as are alleaged to proue any doctrine contrarie to the holy Scriptures As for the vanitie of this epistell of Lucian it be wrayeth it selfe in that he maketh Gamaliel the Pharizee so great a Sainct who for any thing that we can read in the holy Scripture was neuer a Christian. S. Paule in the 22. of the Actes appealeth to the knowledge of the Iewes that he was brought vp in Iudaisme vnder Gamaliel which if after he had bene conuerted to Christianity it shoulde haue bene greatly suspected that S. Paule had bene noselled vp by him and not conuerted by a vision from heauen as his intent was to shew From this counterfait stuffe of Lucians epistell he sendeth vs to the new founde sermons of Augustine to whom he would get credit by Augustines owne report De ciuit 22. ca. 8. but in vaine for Augustine speaketh not of any such sermons but only when report of a miracle was brought vnto him that he went vnto the church spake a few things of the matter And touching all such miracles as he reporteth of Stephen his conclusion is this God was glorified by them and the faith for which Stephen died was magnified But of worshipping of reliques pilgrimage c. there is no mention and yet that chapter of miracles as Ludouicus Viues doth confesse is notably corrupted as appeared to him by ancient copies The conclusion was Quid erat in cordibus exultantium nisi fides Christi pro qua Stephani sanguis fusus est What was in the hartes of them that reioysed but the faith of Christ for which the blood of Stephen was shed The miracle which Bristow reporteth out of the 38. Serm. in diuus 96. in noua editione to proue the necessitie of baptisme for infants the practise of the church for confirmation of children praying to S. Stephen is an impudeÌ„t fiction as appeareth manifestly by this that he calleth a sucking babe Catechumenu one that was instructed in Christian religion which could not possibly be before he was of yeares of capacity Secondly the infants ofChristian parents in Augustins time were baptised as sone as they were borne taried not vntil they were Catechumeni that is enstructed Thirdly the woman in this fable praying to S. Stephen perswadeth him to know the purpose of her hart which the word of God affirmeth to be known only to God As impudent as the deuiser of that fable was is Bristow who citeth out of Augustine De â—nitat eccles cap. 16. a few words rent a sunder from the rest coÌ„cerning miracles which the whole discourse sheweth to be plainly against him as you may read in this aunswere in the 8. motiue of visions After this followeth a comparison of Foxes martyrs with the Popish martyrs Videlicet the good Earle of Northumberlande Storie Feltons Nortons VVodhouse Plomtree and so many hundrethes of the Northerne men all rebells and traytors yet saith he approued by miracles vndoubted but what miracles he sheweth not To these he addeth Fisher More the Charterhouse monkes c. whose cause being sufficiently discussed by M. Foxe I referre to the iudgemeÌ„t of indifferent readers But this I can not omit that the traiterous Papist flauÌ„dereth our state not only for publike execution of open rebelles and errant traytors but also with priuie murthering by poysoning whipping and famishing From all suspition of which wicked practises God be praised the states that are professors of the Goâ—pell haue alwayes bene as free as the Papists both by storie liuing testimonie may be proued giltie of theÌ„ And where hee
specially chargeth that learned and reuerend Father M. Elmer now Byshop of London with this deuilishe practise notinge these woordes in the margent Let Elmer remember his Tragedie of the Scottishfriere at Lincolne As I knowe not what coulour he hath for so great and haynous a slauÌ„der so I nothing doubt but that the same is vtterly false and vntrue as a thousand more slaunders and lyes Wherein the Papists as Children of the Father of lyes haue so great delight To conclude seeing not the paine but the cause maketh a martyr whosoeuer haue suffred for treason and rebellion may well be accounted Martirs of the Popisn Church but the church of Christe condemneth such for enemies of Christes kingdome and inheritours of eternal destructiâ— except they repent and obtaine mercie for their horrible wickednes And seeing patient suffring is by Bristows owne confession a gift of God vnto all true Martirs such as were manifestly voide of patience can be no true Martirs as were most of these rebels traitors Story by name Who for all his glorious tale in the time of his most deserued execution by quartering was so impatieÌ„t that he did not only rore and cry like a helhounde but also strake the executioner doing his office and resisted as long as strength did serue him beeing kept downe by three or foure men vntil he was deade O patient martir of the popish church In the 15. 16. demaund he asketh vs whether we haue not read in Chrysostome Augustine others that they vsed this argument to proue the diuinitie of Christ that he hath aduanced his seruants to such honor that they are prayed vnto their graues honored of kings Emperors that miracles are wrought by the reliqus of their Saints I answere we read soÌ„e such thing although not altogither as Bristow reporteth nor to y t end But what if amoÌ„g a great nuÌ„ber of forcible aguments they vsed also some such persuasions shuld their reasoning be a preiudice to the truth of God reueled out of the Scriptures whervnto if those holy man had had as great regarde as they wishe other men to haue in their writing and not suffred them selues to be carried away with common plausible errors they should easely haue espyed that they gayned not so much in resoning so against the Painims as they gaue occasion of superstition among the Christians And to aunswere the xx demaunde we are content to bee tryed by that doctrine for which the auncient Martyrs Irenaeus Cyprian Laurens c. suffred persecution and Martyrdom which was for no pointe of Popery but true christianitie yet wil we not be tryed by all poyntes of doctrine which they did holde for that it is certaine some of them had their errors which the Papists them selues doe not holde as Irenaeus is charged by Eusebius l. b. 3. cap 39 to be a follower of the Chiliastes Cyprian did openly in a councel maintaine rebaptising of them which were baptised by Heretikes Againe wee resuse not the tryall of that docttine for which the Christians were persecuted by the Arrians in Africa notwithstanding the terme of Missa vsed by Victor that writeth that Story by which tearme in that time not the popish Masse which then was not made either in matter or forme but the celebration of the Communion and memory of the sacrifice of Christ commonly called in deede but vnproperly a sacrifice yet will we not be tryed by all that they holde for diuerse errors of prayer for the deade and to the dead were then receiued neithet will the Papistes be tryed by that Religion they helde in all pointes For then were Byshops married Lib. 2. 3. Then the Praiers were in the vulgar tounge and all the people sunge Himnes togither lib. 2. There is no reason therefore that the Papists shoulde call vs to such a tryall as they dare not abide them selues The 16. motiue is the 30. Demaunde Their owne Doctors The disâ—orde of Protestants Luther â—ondemneth our Pretestantes Carolstadians Zwinglians and Caluinists Luther corrupteth the Scripture to helpe his heresie of the breade to be Christes body The head of the church to be a Layman is against the Magdeburgenses and Caluine The prophecie fulfilled in the accorde of the Protestants and Puritants Parliament religion The inconstancy of Protestants VVhat an impudent attempt is chaunge of religion True Christianitie by Luther is vnder the Popedome The discorde of our owne Doctors Bristowe would haue to be a Motiue against vs. As though it were not as great a motiue against them whose Doctors dissent as much as ours To omit all other controuersies when will they bee agreed whether the Pope bee aboue the Councell or the Councell aboue the Pope In which discention they haue not onely Doctor against Doctor but also Councell against Councell and Pope against Pope and Cardinall against Cardinall as Constance and Basill against Ferraria Florence Nicolaus Felix with thâ—ir Cardinals against Eugenius and and his Cardinals But now let vs see what discorde he findeth in our Doctors Luther condemneth the Protestants Carâ—â—stadians Zwâ—nglians Caluinistes in the cause of the Sacrameâ—t The more was his immoderate heate and bitter zeale to be blamed and their Christian modestie to be commended which notwitstanding his ouermuch vehemency in maintayning his error yet accepted hâ—m alwayes as a brother The corruption of the Scripture wherwith he chargeth Luther is a slaunder of his owne for Luther altred no wordes of Scripture but declared his vnderstanding of them when he said Take bread and eate â—his is my body And this is the only discorde that he can proue betweene the professors of the truth For it is a meere sophistry of the ambiguitie of the worde head of the Church that maketh that shewe of contrarietie betweene the Magdeburgenses Caluine and vs who in sence and meaning therof doe perfectly agree as I haue often shewed And Bristowe cannot altogether deny where he derideth the Parliament Religion and inconstancie of Protestants for chaunging the title of head into gouernour and then expounding the gouernment by iniunction Whereas in neither of bothe titles was any other meaning of the godly sorte in the time of King Henry Kinge Edwarde or her Maiestie then is contayned in that exposition In deede Stephen Gardiner as Caluine reporteth at Ratisbone abused the title of supreme head not more wickedly theÌ„ absurdly to defend all Papistrie which theÌ„ was not abolished by king Henry And against that grosse errour of Gardiner writeth Caluine and not against our vnderstanding of that tytle But the Apologie prophecieth that shortely the Lutherans and Zwinglians should bee accorded which is fulfilled in the accorde of the Protestantes and Puritanes who in the demaunde he sayth doe abhorre the tytle of supremacie If I knewe whome he did meane by Puritanes I might aunsweare him the better but seeing hee maketh Protestantes and Puritanes members of a diuision If hee recken the Puritanes for such as bee
The like I say of the storie of the bodie of Babycas the martyr in presence wherof the oracle of Apollo could not speake But Chrysostom to draw mâ—n from all kind of idolatrie sent them from reliques In Gen. Hom. 15 Nay he sent them to the churches and houses of prayer to the graues of the martyrs not to worship them as Papistes doe but by such things to receaue blessing and to kepe them selues from being entaÌ„gled with the snares of the deuill while they be put in mind of the vertue of the martyrs to follow their godly coÌ„uersation And albeit there were some superstitioÌ„ in that regard of martyrs troubles memories as in that age there was yet doth it not follow there was all Popery nor such grosse idolatry as Papistes doe commit with their counterfait rehques Finally the miracles wroght by God at the dead bodies of the Saincts might wel be vsed by Augustin Chrysostom Theodoret against the GeÌ„tills asan argument to ouerthrow their idolatrie euen as the example of the miracles wrought by God at the dead body of Elizeus against the idolatrous Israelits Reg. but it followeth not therof that idols should be made of their lawes by worshipping them as the Papists do For y e bones of Elizeus were not for that miracle takeÌ„ out of his graue shined in gold deuided into many churches worshiped licked and kissed as the Popish guise is The same aunswere I make concerning miracles wrought by God with the signe of the crosse which was the motiue of Lactantius I say they proue not that the signe of the crosse should be worshipped no more then the miracles wrought by God with the brasen serpeÌ„t were any cause why the Israelits should worship the brasen serpent Reg. And as touching the blessed Sacrament which Bristow blasphemously calleth his Lord and God although the reall presence and transsubstantiation were graunted forasmuch as the Papists theÌ„ selues affirme the Sacrament to consist of accidents as the signe but no accideÌ„ts are God or in God If any miracles were wrought by God at the celebration therof as Augustine and Cyprian seeme to auouch yet neither is the reall presence proued by those miracles nor they tryed to be Papists for writing of such miracles of which if any man will see more let him resorte to mine aunswere vnto Heskins lib. 1. cap. 24. lib. 3. cap. 42. Vnto the storie of S. Bernards life we geue no credit as to a counterfait fable and as litle to the reporte of M. Poynts iâ— his booke of the reall presence testifying the casting out of many deuils by vertue of the same sacrament Finally it is alltogeather false that he sayeth the Iewes religion was chaynged by Christ into Popery For the sacrifice of Christes death against which the sacrifice of the Popish masse is blasphemous hath taken away all sacrifices ceremonies of the law Heb. 9. Concerning the Altar which Christians haue whereof they haue no power to caâ—e which serue the Tabernacle Heb. 13. mine aunswere is against Heskins lib. 3. cap. 60. where that text argument is handeled of purpose The 27. motiue is the 35. demaund Vnity of the church a motiue to beleue in Christ. The discord of Protestantes the inconstancy of Protestantes Our Sauiour Christ praieth that his disciples may be one in God him theyr redeemer And this vnitye all Protestantes retaine notwithstanding diuersity of opinion in one article any contention about ceremonies Euen as the Apostles were one in one God and Christ although there was variaunce about Circumcision ceremonies Ciprian Cornelius the Romayne church the church of Carthage were at vnitye in Christ although the one of them erred in the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme So were Hierome Augustine allthough they mayneteyned contrary opinions about Peters dissembling translation of the Scripture From this verily I except such schiâ—inaties as delight in contencion which haue allwayes bene against the true church As for the vnity of the Papistes seeing it is not in the doctrine of Christ it proueth no more that they are those for whom Christ prayed then the vnity of the Mahometistes which for these thousand yeares haue kept greater vnity then the Papists whose church hath bene rent a sunder into so many heades as there haue bene Popes at once and that very often and for many yeares together there haue bene Pope against Pope couÌ„cel against couÌ„cell Doctors against Doctors orders against orders Canonists against Diuines disseÌ„ting in articles of faith as of the Popes supremacy of original sinne of transubstantiation c. Wherefore Christian vnity is as vntruly denyed vnto vs as falsely challenged vnto them whatsoeuer he prateth of Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Protestants and Puritans The 28. and 29. motiues are conteined in the 34. demaund Iudges infallible in cases of controuersie The churches iudgemeÌ„t is alwayes infallible Obedience of Catholiks to their superiors both ecclesiasticall and temperall Trinitaries Bristrow braggeth that their church hath iudges infallible in cases of controuersie and ours hath not But who be their iudges The Pope or the generall councell Whether soeuer of these be nether is irrefragable For both haue bene controlled and found fault withall as I haue shewed before and they them selues are together by the eares whether of these is irrefragable because the councell hath deposed the Pope the Pope hath not obeyed the councell as it is manifest betwene Eugenius the 4. and the councell of Basil. How infallible the churches iudgement is and alwayes hath bene it serueth not the Romish synagogue vntill she proue her doctrine to be agreable to the Scriptures which seeing she neither can doe nor dare abyde the triall of them she sheweth plainly that she is not the church of Christ. As for the auctoritie of synodes such as that of the Apostles was which determined the controuersy by auctority of the holy Scriptures ProtestaÌ„ts do gladly acknowledge how necessary it is for the church to decide controuersies and do willingly submit them selues thereto The subiection of Papists to their indges doth no more proue their religion to be true then the obedience of the Mahometistes to their superiors both in cases of religion and of the common wealth doth iustifie their sect to be the religion of God What Trinitaries other sectaries be in Polonia or elswhere that wil not submit themselues to any auctority as they are no parte of our church so we haue no cause to excuse or defende them In the demaunde Bristow complaineth of an vnlearned Christian which hath bene suffered to write a vaine libell against the auctority of the church of God which is a vaine lye for there is no true Christian learned or vnlearned which will hold against the church of God so loÌ„g as she is directed by the word of God as the true church is in all matters necessarie vnto saluation But perhaps the vnlearned Christian hath challenged the church of
because they are found in some holy men as in S. Athanasius Epiphanius Augustine c. Although these opinions are but fewe in comparison of so many articles of religion in whiche we dissent from the Papistes which if they coulde be founde in heretikes we should soone heare of them yet what Logike is in this conclusion of Bristow you shall see by examples of the like and euen of the same heretikes Aerius as Augustine reporteth out of Philastre did also receiue into his felowship none but suche as wete continent and had so renounced the worlde that they possessed nothing in common likewise they abstayned from fleshe The very same doth Bernarde report of the heretikes called Apostolike that they rereuerenced mariage and abstayned from all flesh and whitemeates In canti ser. 66. This diuelishe seede prophecied before to be the note of Antichristian hypocrites grew in many heretikes before the time of the Papistes and not these only but many other also Worshipping of Images in Carpocratians Ep. 1. lib. 1. T. 2. prefat contr Gnostic 27. 29. The superstitious estimacion of the crosse in the Valentinians Epiph. Ho. 31. Transubstantiation of the wine into blood in Marcus and the Marcosians Ireâ—aeus lib. 1 cap. 9. Prayer for the deade in the Montanistes Tert. de Monon de Anima c. Inuocation of Angells in the Caianites and many other Popishe plantes were first sowne by the deuill in elder heretikes And yet were this no good argument to confute these opinions or errors because they are founde in heretikes except they were found to be contrarie to the word of God All is no heresie whatsoeuer an heretike hath affirmed for there was neuer heretike but affirmed much truth neither is all truth that is affirmed by euery Sainct and holy man for not one of the ancient writers but is acknowledged to haue affirmed some vntruth Only the holy Scripture ought to haue this preheminence as Augustine sayth that it may iudge of all sayings and writings it selfe being iudged of none because it is the word of God which can not erre or be deceaued Cont. Crescon gram lib. 2. cap. â—â— But Bristowe hath Scripture to proue that he which denyeth prayer for the dead being found among the Arrians Anabaptists can not choose but be bouÌ„d in bundells with them and cast into the fire Mat. 13. In deede he that is an Arrian or Anabaptist shal not escape for denying prayer for the deade But the Angells that are the reapers are not so vnskilfull but that they can discerne true Christians denying the abuse of prayers for the dead which the Scripture doth not admit from blasphemous heretikes among a great number of falsehoodes affirming some truth But it is a sore matter that he sayth The verie worst sorte of heretikes of this time as the Anabaptistes Trinitaries yea the verie Epicures and Atheistes were first Protestantes ye such they be and will seeme to be still He had spoken more truly if he had sayd they were first Papistes But what heretikes and Atheistes woulde seeme to be it is no dishonor to our cause seeing all hypocrits would seeme to be true Christians That only Papistes are troubled in our countrie and all other sectes tollerated and mainteyned the publike execution and punishment of Anabaptistes and other blasphemous sectes as the Familie of Loue c. doth playnly proue to be false and Bristow to be a shamelesse slaunderer The 47. motiue is the 50. demaund Sure to continue The church is euerlasting and visible Protestants do decay and shall come to nothing The churches continuaunce S. Augustines motiue England beware destruction Luther was a false Prophet I neede not to shewe how often and how vainly Bristowe repeateth one thing to make a great number of motiues The euerlasting continuaunce of the true church hath bene seuen times at least before alleaged But neither is it proued that the Popish church is that true church nor yet that any sect or companie which shall continewe to the ende of the worlde is the Catholike church of Christ. For although Antichrist is and shall be more and more consumed with the breath of the Lordes mouth which is his holie worde yet shall he not be altogether abolished vntill the ende of the worlde Yea at the ende of the worlde as our Sauiour Christ sayeth fayth shall be verie scant and hard to be founde and iniquitie shall haue the vpper hande Therefore there shall be a great church of malignant hypocrytes euen to the ende of the worlde It is true therefore that Christes church is sure to continewe but not whatsoeuer sect shall continew is thereby proued to be Christes true church How vayne his bragge is that Protestantes doe decaye and shall come to nothing by their dayly increase in all partes of the world God be thanked may be seene to all men Likewise how true it is which he affirmeth that Papistes doe increase and to such numbers euen in Englande that there are more Papistes nowe then when the Gospell was first preached notwithstandinge so many yeares preaching of vs and large silence of them who liuing in Englande can be ignoraunt I confesse there are too many obstinate Papistes in Englande whome none of Bristowes motiues hath either moued vnto Poperie or confirmed therein but onely great tolleration and lenitie which is vsed in these times But if such seueritie were vsed nowe as in times past the Pope shoulde not haue many confessors in Englande to glorie of And to say the truth what one of these Papistes dare professe what he thinketh of the Popes auctoritie because the lawe is somewhat sharpe in that poynt If the like lawe were of hearing masse we should haue as fewe suffer for masse as for the supremacie But to returne to our motiue S. Augustine doth well to send Honoratus the Manichee to followe that way of Catholike doctrine which from Christ him selfe by the Apopostles is descended vnto vs and from hence to posteritie shall descende De vtilit cred cap. 8. But that it is not the way of all Popish doctrine which neuer came from Christ nor his Apostles nor the most auncient church And if the tradition be vncerteyne how shall we know what came from Christ and his Apostles but that which we finde in the Gospell of Christ and the Epistles of his Apostles But the same Augustine sayeth Bristow biddeth the simple Donatistes to Number the Priestes euen from the verie seate of Peter and in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded That same is the rocke which the prowde gates of Hell doe not ouercome P. S. contra Donatistas Augustine speaketh of the Catholike church which was the vine whereof the Church of Rome at that tyme was but a growing braunch For a litle before he sayth Scitis Catholica quid sit quid sit precisum a vite You knowe what the Catholike church is and what is that which is cut of from the vine But if
Bristowe shoulde vrge the seate of Peter to be called of Augustine the rocke Augustine in his retractations confesseth that he oftentimes hath expounded the rocke to be Christ and so will not abide by that former exposition Retract lib. 1. cap. 21. Neither did Augustine euer meane that the see of Peter at Rome was a rocke in such sorte that none that euer should sit there coulde erre for he him selfe with the rest of the fathers of the councell of Carthage withstood y e Bishop of Rome claiming iurisdictioÌ„ in Africa by coullour of a couÌ„terfet decree of the councell of Nice Conc. Carth. 6. cap. 4. Concil â—â—phr Ep. ad Celest. what shoulde I heere repeate Pope Honorius condemned for an heretike not only in the generall councell of Constantinople the 6. but also in the Idolatrous couÌ„cell of Nice the 2. and Iohn the 23. condemned for an Atheist in the councell of Gonstance If the gates of hell preuayled not manifestly against that seate yea and so many other Bishoppes thereof whom they them selues confesse to be damned in hell for their wicked life we neede not greatly be affrayed of the gates of hell Yea sayth Bristow It hath bene impugned ten thousand times more then any other but all in vayne frustra circumlatrantibus haereticis sayth S. Augustine In vayne is the barking of heretikes all about it De vtil cred cap. 17. But the place of Augustine which he citeth is of the Church of Christ and not of Peters seate round about the which the heretikes haue barked in vaine For euen in that seate but yet out of the Church Liberius had barked Arrianisme Marcellus gentilisme and after his time Honorius barked with the Monothelits as his epistle which remayned after his death declared Vigilius also by his epistle was proued to barke Euty chianisme Liberat. cap. 22. Iohn the 23. barked with the Sadduces against the resurrection of the dead cont Constanti sect 11. The see of Rome therefore is no more the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile then the see of Canterbury or London But sayth Bristowe who can saye that there shall be alwayes a Byshoppe of Canterburye or London Verely no more can any man saye that there shall alwayes bee a Byshop of Rome And whosoeuer sayth that there hath beene alwayes since Peter a Byshop of Rome shall lye moste impudently For the See hath often lyâ—n voyde not onely for a shortâ— time while a newe Byshop might be chosen but many yeers togither Againe the See hath beene translated from Rome to Auinion and the Popes Court kepte there for threescore yeeres togither by which it is manifest both that the Citie of Rome haâ—h not beene the perpetuall See of Peters successours and that Peters successors haue erred in remouing their Courte from that Citie which Peter chose to be heade of the worlde and Constantine gaue as they say to be the head of the church which might haue forborne so great a gift like as Peter also might haue spared his trauell in remouing his see from Antioch to Rome if they coulde haue foreseene that the Popes court might haue bene kept as well in Fraunce as in Italie at Auinion as at Rome But Luther is charged to be a false Prophet for that he sayth in his booke against King Henry That he was sure that he had his doctrines from heaueÌ„ That his doctrine should stand and the Pope should fall That God should see whether first be wery and faile the Pope or Luther The note of a false Prophet in Deu. 18 is to geue a signe which doth not follow so hath Luther doone sayth Bristow For Zwinglius hath ouercome Luther Caluine Zwinglius and the Puritans the Protestants in England To this I aunswere that Luther doth not take vpon him to foreshew things to come by any speciall reuelatioÌ„ but only affirmeth that his doctrine in as much as it is agreable to the word of God is from heauen shall continewe whereas the Popes doctrine being the doctrine of the deuill shall come to naught And in this victorie if he please so to tearme it hath not the Pope loste by preuayling of Zwinglius and Caluine And was that opinion of Luther which they haue impugned I meane of the carnall presence Luthers or the Popes But whereas y e slanderous hypocrite would make men think that Caluine hath opposed himselfe against the doctrine of Zwinglius the coÌ„sent of the churches of Heluetia w t them of Sabaudia being publikely set forth to the worlde doth openly testifie the contrarie Also the contention of those whom he calleth Puritanes in Englande is not so great nor about so great matters that any such diuision is to be feared which might cause desolation of the kingdome Adde hereunto that Bristow sayd in the 40. motiue that the Protestantes of England be in a manner all in heart Puritanes whereby he confesseth against him selfe that there can be no deadly contention betwene them that in heart are all one The 48. motiue How to make playne demonstration that the heretikes haue no euidence that we haue all VVho be wresters of the Scriptures The inconstancy of the Protestants The vnderstanding of the Scriptures is in the church This wise demonstration is a playne declaration that he which made it knoweth not what a demonstration meaneth but such as it is let vs see what is in it First he would haue it proponed by a Catholike to his frend that is in heretike to be considered seing al these motiues beginning with holy Scripture approued traditions c. be for them agai st vs what is the cause that we cry so shamelesly deceitfully the Gospel the word of the Lorde the touchstone of Gods booke And least we shoulde say that he beginneth with a false supposed shameful begging of the principle he will proue that all these euidences are for them and so must the heretike that you wil deale withall be made in the beginning to coÌ„fesse Yea Sir but howe will you driue him to this confession Forsooth sayth Bristow they all confesse it many wayes indirectly First in that they vse not the same euidences them selues in their declarations Secondly in that they admit no euidence but only Scripture To the first I answere they vse as much of this euidence as is good agreable to the holy Scripture To the second I say that if only Scripture be on our side it is more then all the rest against the Scripture and againe if only Scripture be on ourside then al the motiues be not on their side for Scripture is one of them the 8. in the motiues the first in the demaundes But the Papist must make his frend say as much directly or els say expressely to euery one of them whether he will be tried by them As a frende to the presones though an enemie to the errours of such Papistes as are curarable I haue sayd expressely and
particularly to euerie one of them sheweing whether it be a true and proper note of the church and if it be that it belongeth to vs and not to them Although Bristow say that this way we know full well that they shall haue the victorie flying therefore euermore to our weake false castle of only Scripture That the scripture onely is our castle we do gladly admitte but that the same is a most strong true impugnable castle none but a blasphemous heretike will deny But you must saith Bristow still labour to get them if you can with their consent out of the castle into the plaine fieldes aforesayde to make them graunt expressely that there in your handes they can not stande Nay Bristow you must beate vs from our castell if you can for we will neuer consent to goe out of it for defense except it be to offer you the aduauntage not in the playne fieldes as you cal it but among your pettie piles and small holdes And so we haue done often So did that reuerende father the Bishoppe of Salisburie in that noble challenge wherein you were shamefullie foyled in your owne grounde and many of your fortes beaten about your eares But you doe not well to teach your schollers to seeke a gentle aduersarie to fight withall which must first of all be willing to laye downe his sworde and shielde and then you are good enough for him with your manlie motiues with which when you haue treandled him about like a tenis ball you sende him backe agayne to his castell of onely Scripture to see whether they will beare him out in his opinions For example is not this Scripture manifest inough on your side and agaynst vs This is my body This is my blood Mat. 26. Verily euen as plaine as this They did all eate the same spirituall meate They all dronke of the rocke that followed theÌ„ y e rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10. They are both one maner of speaking and both of one matter Therefore they haue both one meaning The second exaÌ„ple is By works a man is iustified not by faith only Iac. 2. And this is also Scripture knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Lawe but by faith of Iesus Christ Gâ—lat 2. And agayne by grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast The later being in maner of speaking contrarie to the former text doe playnly shewe that these two Apostles speake not both of one kinde of faith or iustification But that Iames speaketh of a dead faith as his wordes are playne Vers. 17. and of iustification before men Paule of a liuing faith and of iustification in the sight of God The third example is out of Iames 5. Where I must first note that Bristow in translation doth manifestly corrupt falsefie the Scripture The Latine is Infirmatur quis in vobis If any amongest you be daungerously sicke let him send for the Priests of the church and they to pray ouer him anealing him with oyle in the name of our Lord c. First Bristow addeth this word daungerously of his owne heade which is neither in the Greeke nor vulgare Latine text to draw the text of Iames violently to their popish greasing which they vse only when a man is desperatly sicke and past hope of recouerie in theiâ— iudgement Whereas Iames speaketh generally of any kinde of sickenes wherewith any of the faithfull were molested Secondly Bristowe leaueth out the wordes following which are these and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke person and the Lord shall restore him or raise him vp the Latine is alleâ—iabit shall ease him which wordes declare that the Apostle speaketh not of a perpeâ—uall Sacrament of the church but of a ceremonie vsed by them that had a speciall gift of healing the sicke in the primitiue Churche whiche ceremonie must needes cease with the gift except it be among apes that practise outward gesture and actions without effect The other two examples out of the 2. of Machabees the one of praying for the deade the other of Ieremie praying for the people are no partes of the castell of Canonicall Scripture and therefore with other errours in the same bookes I omit them The last exaÌ„ple is out of Genesis 48. The saying of Iacob the Patriarke of Iosephs two childreÌ„ God who hath fed me from my youth euen to this day The Angell who hath deliuered me out of all aduersities blesse these children which is sayth Bristow as if one would say God and our Ladie blesse them Nay rather God by Iesus Christ blesse them for what other Angell but Christ the Angell of the great councell was the deliuerer of Iacob which when he wrestled with him in a vision and mystery Gen. 32. he doubted not to call God Euen the same Angell which led the children of Israel through the wildernes whoÌ„ S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth Christ who was not an Angel by nature but by office in that as the Mediator he was sent to deliuer the people before he came in the flesh But if we should vnderstand the Angell of whom Iacob speaketh for soÌ„e priuate Angel appointed of God to protect him yet is it not as if one would say now God our Lady blesse theÌ„ For that God vseth the ministery of Angels to defend prosper his seruaunts but not the ministery of Saincts in heaueÌ„ for any such purpose that we can learne by the holy Scriptures Iacob might therfore pray y t God would send his Angell to protect those children euen as he had done for him As for that vaine brag that all Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalipse is for theÌ„ against vs is nothing els but a false alarme as though he woulde on all sides assalt our castel of only Scriptures wheras he purposeth nothing lesse But this can not be borne that he sayeth some places of Scripture be so playne against vs that we can not aunswere them but by plucking the pen of the holy Ghost out of his hand that wrote theÌ„ meaning that we deny the auctority of such books as be not Canonicall the Machabees especially But this he sayth can not be For either they are proued muâ—ncibly to be of the holy Ghostes indighting or no Scripture at all is proued to be suche as you may remember the common saying of S. Augustine Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I shoulde not beleue the Gospell it selfe vnlesse the Catholike Churches auctoritie did compell What shall I say to this impudent blasphemer that alloweth none other tryall of holy Scripture but the authoritie of the Church because Augustine supposing that hee were an Heathen Againe sayth he would not beleeue the Gospell except the authoritie of the Church with other thinges did moue him his woorde is Commoueret whiche Bristowe not so ignorauntly as
impudently translateth did compâ—l mec But the Catholike Church saith Bristow hath receiued these bookes of equall authoritie with the rest Indeede the Synagogue of Antichrist in the Tridentine councell hath so decreede But the Catholike Church of Christ did neuer receiue them as I haue shewed out of Hicronime praef in Prouerb and others whereto I may adde the iudgement of Origine out of Eusebhist lib. 6. cap. 18. tran Russ. with the councell o Laodicea Can. 59. Marke the plainenesse of this demonstration when the question coÌ„trouersie is whether they or we be the chuch All scriptur is for them against vs because the church that is they haue thus thus decrede No meruail therfore if Bristow appeale to the iudgmeÌ„t of indifferent meÌ„ that al our prating of y e scriptures is nothing else but as S. Peter saith of S. Paules Epistles our wresting and writhing of them by our owne vnlearnednes vnstablenes from the Catholike Churches vnitie and vniuersalitie to the scisme and peece of Luther from theÌ„ce to Caluine c For the Church is the setled and vnmoueable rock against which ther is no scripture no trueth but all for it This is good a demonstratioÌ„ as if a man should say to a vessel tossed in the brode sea with wind waues that in the hauen there is great rest securitie but not shew what course they should keepe to come thither We by the only true lodestone Pharos and heauenly Cynosura of the holy scriptures we praise his holy name therfore haue founde the moste happy hauen of the holy Catholick Church of Christ by his helpe haue caste out the Anchor of Faith so surely fixed not in the sand but in the Hauen it selfe that all the Cables of popishe motiues or blasts of Diuelish doctrines shal not be able to stirre our ship from thence which course God grauÌ„t them to keepe who labouring in the sea of doubtfulnes ride not wilfully among the rocks of Romish pride nor be obstinately set on the sands of mens traditions but seeke trueth in humilitie to Gods glory their safetie Besids these motiues there are two demands which I cannot aptely reduce to any of the Motiues namely the seconde which he termeth the building of the Church and the laste which hee calleth Apostasie In the former demaund he asketh vs whether we haue not read this argument vsed by Chrisostome againste the Painims and Iewes that Christe is God because his Church hauing but a small beginning many stronge enemyes to withstand the building thereof yet could or can neuer be suppressed but contrariwise of a litle spark hath set all the world on fire c. I answere we haue read this argument and allowe of it Then sayth Bristowe How hath it beene these many hundreth yeeres quite suppressed yea and in Chrisostomes time no Church at all I answere that since it was first set vp it was neuer for one houre quite suppressed although by Antichriste these many hundred yeeres it hath beene greatly oppressed And in Chrysostomes time the Church did openly florishe although infected with some errors yet holding strongly the only tradition Iesus Christ which church was a member of the same vniuersall Church whereof our Church at this day is a parte with which Church in Chrysostoms time the popish church in that it disseÌ„teth from vs hath nothing coÌ„mon except one or two errors hauing the whole substance of doctrine contrary vnto it wherefore that argument staÌ„ding the popish church is nothing vnderpropped thereby which though it had a small beginning as the sect of Mahomet yet grew it by sufferance of God without great withstanding of strong enemies yea God sending the effecacy of error that it might preuaile and yet hath not increased ouer all â—he world but is for the most part contained in one parte of Europa deminishing where it is punished as in Germany Sauoy Denmarke Swetia and Englande growing onely where it is either mayntained by tyranny or tollerated by lenitie And now to the laste demaund of Apostasie wherwith he chargeth vs. Firste for chaunging the Priesthoode wherevpon must insue a chaunge of the law so this I aunswere we haue chaunged no priesthoode instituted by God but retaine that eldership and ministery ordayned by our Sauiour Christe Contrarywise the Pope hath changed Sacerdotium which Bristowe confesseth to be no other thing then presbiteratum which is the ministration of the Gospel yet commonly called both of him and vs Priesthood that Sacrificing priesthood I say w c the Apostle He. 7. affirmâ—th to be euerlasting and proper to the person of our Sauiour Christe hath the Pope translated vnto his shaueli gs and sette them vp to offer that Sacrifice which Christ only could offer and by once offering found eternall redemption yea the Priesthood of Melchisedech which the Lord by an othe confirmed only to our sauiour Christ. Psal. 100. Hee hath made common to all his Massemongers Therfore the Pope hath manifestly made an Apostacy from the lawe of Christ. The second argument by which Bristow would charge vs with Apostasie is for receiuing not one or two but so many olde heresies besides as he is bolde to say a thousand more of their owne inuention This beeing affirmed without all shew of proofe It shall suffice to deny and turne ouer vnto him and his fellowes The third argument is for taking from Christian men so many arguments of Christes diuinitie as the inuincible continuaunce and authoritie of his Church The honor and vertue of crosses and reliques miracles exorcismes vnitie Sacrifice c. I aunswere so many of these as are good and sufficient argumentes wee holde still the vnsufficient arguments doe rather disfornish then arme the Christians faith which we haue so strongly fortified with arguments out of the holy scriptures that all the power of darkenesse cannot preuaile against it The fourth argument is for leauing nothing vndenyed not Fathers not Councels not Traditions not Scriptures nor the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures the Churches institution and departing from the Fathers of all ages since Christes time agreeing with no Christian time nor none with them For denying of canonicall Scriptures it is an impudent slaunder as for Fathers Councelles Traditions Churches authoritie we affirme or deny as they agree or dissagree with the trueth of the holye scriptures the onely certaine witnesse of the will of God reuealed vnto men which we thinke more reasonable then the Papistes doe whiche denie fathers Councels Traditions yea the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and submit all vnto the iâ—dgement of their Church now when then the controuersie is whether they be the Church of God or of the Deuill whereas the Scriptures are of bothe partes confessed to be the worde of God in generall termes although in comparison of the authoritie of their Church Piggius calleth the holy Scripture a nose of Wax and a dumbe iudge Eccius tearmeth the written gospel a black Gospel and an inkish
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
that vnderstande them not And why are those the better tongues he sayth they were sanctified on Christes crosse for all holy vses and especially to serue God in the tyme of sacrifice But howe were they sanctified I pray you For sooth because Pilate wrote the title in Hebrue Greeke and Latine that it might be vnderstoode of all nations for what cryme he was condemned And is Pilate nowe become a sanctifier of tongues for Gods seruice is the malicious scorne of an heathen tyrant a sanctification of these tongues O brasen foreheads of shameles Papistes But heare more yet of this impudent stuffe This sanctification was the cause that the Apostles in the East and West deliuered these tongues alone as holy learned and honorable not regarding the infinite multitude of prophane and barbarous tongues whereof it came that the East Church was called the Greeke Church the West the Latine Church But the Scripture Acts the second doth teach vs that the holy Ghost hath sanctified all tongues of all nations to the praysing of God and that the Apostles deliuered the magnifical prayses of God in all languages Act. 2. 11. And although the Greeke and Latine tongues were most vsed most commonly vnderstoode in the Romane Empire yet the Church of Christ was enlarged farther then euer the Romane Empire extended in Persia Armenia AEthiopia India c. where there was no knowledge ether of the Greke or Latine tongues And euen in the Romain Empire those nations to whome the Latine Greeke tongues were not vulgare vsed their Church seruice in other tongues Hieronym in epitaphio Paulae ad Eustochium telleth that at the solemne funeralls of Paule euery nation that was present did singe their Psalmes in order in their owne language Hebraeo Graeco Latino Syroque sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant In the Hebrue Greeke Latine and Syrian speache the Psalmes were songe in order But seeing Maister Sander alloweth none other sanctification of the tongues but Pilates title on the crosse how is the Hebrue tongue which was one of the three and the most principall as the first tongue of the worlde and for the excellencye therof called the holy tongue how is that I say shut out from Church seruice why was there not an Hebrue seruice established by the Apostles as well as the Greeke and Latine But yet he bringeth another argument to proue that it is lawfull to reade seruice to the people in a tongue w c they vnderstaÌ„d not by the exaÌ„ple of Christ who in time of his sacrifice did recite the beginning of the 21 Psalme My God my God why hast thou forsaken me in y e Hebrue tongue which he knew the people did not vnderstand and did not interprete the same in the vulgar tounge Good Lord into what foollishnes doth satan carry their minds that wilfully striue against the truth For what reason is this Christ in his priuate praier that concerned his owne person spake with a touÌ„g that was not commonly vnderstood therefore the ordinary publike seruice ought to be in a strauÌ„ge toung Christ compassed about with his enemyes none within the hearing of him but the virgine Mary Iohn the Euangelist â—â—â—â— loued him or regarded him spake Hebrue therefore the Prieste in the church must speake Latine or Greeke But when M. Sand. hath played with this argument as long as he can his antecedent is vtterly false for Christe resited not that texte of the Psalme in the Hebrue but in the Syrian toung which was the vulgar tounge vnderstood and spoken of all the people as is manifestly proued by the word Sabacâ—tani reported by both the Euangelists Mat. 27. Mark 15. Which is of the Syrian tounge whereas the Hebrue texte is Hazabtani as I report me to all that can but read two tounges Hebrue and Syrian And whereas the malicious Hel-houÌ„ds said he called for Elias it was not because they vnderstood him not but because they most dispightfully mocked his most vehement praier taking occasion of the like sound of the name of God of Elias as scornefull deriders vse to doe Sixtly lest the Protestants should passe the Papistes in any one iote they haue the vse of the vulgar tongues in Dalmatia Assyria AEthiopia which acknowledge the supremacie of the Byshop of Rome This is a loude lye for neither the church of Dalmatians Moscouites Armenians Assirians AEthiopiaÌ„s nor any other of those East nations that retaine the name of Christe did euer acknowledge the Popes supremacie I knowe they haue fayned Fables of Letters sent from Preto Ioannes and such like which are meere forgeryes vppon the submission of some one poore wanderer that hath come out of those countryes But M. Sand. will shewe the cause why all Nations are not suffered likewise to vse their vulgar tounges in their seruice First he sayeth vulgar tounges cause barbarousnesse for the Preachers of those Countryes vnderstande not the Latine and Greeke tounges by this meanes What an absurde reason this is experience doth shewe For when or where was greater ignorance in the Cleargie then there and at such time as the Latine seruice was vsed How many in all England vnderstoode or coulde read the Greeke toung within these sixtie or eightie yeeres I speake nothing of the Hebrue tounge Contrarywise what age was euer more full of lyberall knowledge in all Sciences and learned tounges then this is euen in England France Germany where seruice is vsed in the vulgar touÌ„ge Theâ—fore the vse of thevulgar touÌ„ge in Church Seruice is not the cause of barbarousnesse The seconde reason is that necessitie inforceth the Apostolike See to tollerate these Nations in their vulgar tounges because they knowe none other but Protestants by schisme are fallen from Latine to Englishe that is from better to worse and therefore not to be tollerated But indeede the necessitie is because they will not receiue your Latine tounge and our schisme is from Antichriste to be ioyned with Christe from whose doctrine the Church of Rome by horrible schisme is departed for what the doctrine of Christe is concerning Publique Prayers in a tounge that is not vnderstoode his Apostle Saincte Paule hath abundauntly taught vs the 1. Corinthes the 14. Chapter Finally we defende that our naturall Engliâ—he tounge is better to ediâ—ie Englishe men then your balde Latine touÌ„ge that you vse in your popish seruice is for any vse of any man learned or vnlearned Seuenthly the Papistes doe not onely consider the written letter but also the plain meaning of euery proposition and as the words doe sound so doe they vnderstand them And heerof he bringeth many exaÌ„ples To this I answere that if they vnderstande all propositions aswel figuratiue as plain proper speaches as the words doe sound they make monstrous interpretations as if they vnderstande this proposition the rock was Christe as the words sound they make a new transubstantiation of the stone into Christ or this This cuppe is the newe Testament
worlde and that he will shewe by six differences which he will consider in order First no man succeedeth in that chayer by right of inheritance The like I may say of the Germane Emperour therefore this is no difference Secondly it is not obtayned by right of battaile inuasion or otherwise but by election So is the Emperour at this daye onely by election And if Maister Sanders be not to impudent he wil not deny but there hath bene bickering and intruding by force into that chayre and that is worse entering by symony murder treason and deuilish sorcery The thirde nether childe nor woman nor Infidell nor Catechumeni can be chosen Bishop of Rome No more can any suche be chosen Emperour by the golden bull and lawe of the election And yet seeing boyes are made Cardinalls which be electours of the Pope and elegible there is none impossibilitie but a boye may be chosen Pope as well as a woman hathe beene Pope Ione I meane Iohn the 23. was condemned in the councell of Constans for an Infidell which denied the immortalitie of the soule The fourth the election of the Bishop of Rome as of all other Bishops pertayneth onely to Ecclesiasticall persons a king may be chosen by the people without the Clergie To this I saye that the Bishop of Rome was wont to be chosen as well by the people as by the Clergie And so is the Emperour chosen by as many Bishops as ciuill Princes except in case of equalitie of voyces Nether is the Clergye euer excluded in any lawfull election of any kinge where he is made by election The fift to omit the Bishop of Romes temporall dominion which he confesseth to be but accessory to his Bishoprike in his Ecclesiasticall gouernment he vseth not that force and power which worldly Princes do He compelleth none no not y e Iewes in Rome to baptisme No more doth the Emperour But what meanes vseth he to depose kinges absolue their subiects from their othe of obedieÌ„ce where he iudgeth them for heretikes how maketh he warres and setteth all the worlde in an vprore to defend his vsurped dignitie false doctrine Doth he not by force compell Christians to his filthy Idolatrye or els cruelly murdereth and tormenteth them The 6. the Bishop of Rome as Bishop neuer punisheth them with the materiall sword which forsake his Church No but as Antichrist and a tyrant he imprisoneth them hangeth them drowneth them burneth them not as a Bishop sayth M. Sander but as a temporall Prince and Lorde as Moses being one of the Priestes of our Lord was also maister of ciuill gouernment Behold this deuisor of differeÌ„ces at length maketh him a ciuill Prince and temporall Lorde from whom he had labored by so many differences to distingush before But now lest you should espye his impudent conclusion he draweth into a new controuersie whether Moses were a Priest And first he will proue that Moses was a Priest by the Scripture Psal. 98. Where it is sayd Moses Aaron in sacerdotibus eius If he will not allowe the Hebrue worde Cohanim to signifie Princes as it doth in diuerse other places yet sayth not the Psalme that Moses and Aaron were both Priestes but that amonge his Priestes they were suche as called vpon his name and were hearde and Samuel who followâ—th in the same verse confessed nowe by Maister Sander to be a Leuit forgetting that before he made him highe Priest But farther to proue that Moses was a Priest he citeth Augustine Ieronym Gregor Naz. Dionys. and Philo but all to small purpose for his cause It must needes be confessed that Moses as all the Patriarkes before him in their families was a Priest before the distinction of the two offices was made when Aaron and his posteritie onely were choosen â—to bee Priestes After which tyme he was no longer a Priest nether did he any thing as a Priest but as a Prophet and as a Prince But admit he were both a Prince and a Priest yet he commaunded Aaron as a Prince and not as a Priest For Aaron was highe Priest and therefore coulde haue no Priest aboue him By which it is inferred that the office of a Prince is to commaunde the highe Priest and so was it alwayes practised by all godly Princes But Maister Sander returning to his last and least difference affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome neuer condemneth any man for herefie or schisme to corporall death in his owne person nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiasticall persons But who vnderstandeth not this mockerie for as well it may be sayde the Kinge neuer hangeth any man in his owne person therefore none are executed by his authoritie as the Pope neuer condemneth any to death in his owne person therefore he perswadeth not his religion with fire and sworde But will the Pope and the Bishoppe that are so mylde and gentle suffer them whome they condemne for heresie to escape their hands before they haue deliuered them to death O cruell and shameles hypocrites Neuertheles Maister Sander sayth they haue power ouer mens soules by that which our Sauiour sayd to Peter To the I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. which wordes are deryued to the Bishop of Rome by meanes of the chayre of S. Peter A straunge kinde of deriuation neuer touched in the Scripture to which words the sayde Bishop referreth all his power where as worldly Princes appeale to the lawe of the Gospell nether in getting nor gouerning nor establishing their dominion and power Marke well this English Anabaptist Is not this the lawe of the Gospell There is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordayned of God Rom. 13. 1. for getting of deminion and power And is not this the lawe of the Gospell for their gouerning that gouernours are sent of God for the punishment of euil doers and for the prayse of them that doe well 1. Pet. 2. vers 14. And for the establyshing of theyr dominion is not this the law of the Gospel giue vnto Caesar the thinges that belong to Caesar. Matthew 22. verse 21. And againe we muste be subiect of necessitie not onely for feare but euen for conscience Rom. 13. verse 5. As for the Popes pietie and lenitie wherewith hee ruleth when all the world seeth how proudely and tyrannicall yhe behaueth him selfe it were folly to spend many wordes about it As for his gentle tearmes of sonnes and brethren wherewith hee saluteth Princes and Byshops and the seruaunt of the seruants of God which he calleth him selfe be simple and shorte clokes to hide his horrible presumption and tyranny wherewith he not only most shaÌ„efully reuileth most Christian Princes as it appeareth in that trayterous Bul which came from him against our moste gracious soueraigne Lady but also taketh vpon him to depose them from their estate royall vsurping to him felfe the name of holynesse of heade of the
Church c. of Christe of God him selfe and calleth Princes his vassalles c. of which blasphemies his Cannon Lawes are stuffed full And therefore it is too farre in the day for M. Sander to make vs thinke there is no difference betweene white and black Pride and Humilitie Gentlenesse and Crueltie Holynesse and hypocrisie fayth and falshode vice and vertue The thirde Chapter OF the diuerse senses whiche are in the holy Scripture and namely about these woordes vppon this Rocke I will builde my Church and which is the moste literall and proper sense of them TO contende about the diuersitie of senses it were to take vppe a newe controuersie I admitte that whiche Maister Sander confesseth the lyter all sense onely to be of force to conuince the aduersary And the literall sense not to bee alwayes according to the grammaticall sounde of the wordes but according to the moste playne meaning of the speaker As when Christe sayeth to Peter â—o thee I will giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen hee meaneth not materiall Keyes of Yron but authoritie in the Kingdome of Heauen as Keyes are deliuered by the Maister to his Stuard but not as keyes of a citie are deliuered which betoken the giuing of possession of that Citie to be gouerned by him which receiueth the Keyes as Maister Sander sayth For that was no part of Christes meaning to resigne the gouernment of his Church to Peter for such giuing of Keyes is of the subiectes to their Superior but to make him one of the Stuardes of his great house to open and shut according to his apoyntment Otherwise onely Christ hath the key of Dauid which openeth and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth Apocalips 3. verse 7. Likewise when he sayth Thou art Peter I confesse and agree with Maister Sander that the lyterall sence is not thou art a naturall stone but thou art that towarde my Churche whiche a stone is towarde the house that is builded vppon that stone But so that Peter is not the onely foundation nor the Corner stone which is onely Christe but one of the twelue stones of the foundation as it may more playnely appeare in the Apocalips the 21. Chapter and the 14. verse Furthermore I confesse that what soeuer by necessary conclusion may be gathered of any true literal sense is of equall authoritie in the word of God with that w c is expressed in playne words As the consubstantialitie of Christ with God the Father the blessed trinitie and such like But whereas M. Sand. ioygneth to these not onely the perpetuall virginitie of the virgine Mary which is not certainly though probably to be gathered but also transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse and Purgatory against which the sense of the scripture is manifest I will not admit them for examples But to come to his purpose he findeth in the auncient Fathers foure diuerse senses of these woordes vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church whereof three hee reiecteth as vnperfect which haue auncient writers as he confesseth for their Authors the last hee hath no auncient writer to defende The firste that Christe is that Rock on whome the Church is builded which Augustine holdeth The second that euery Disciple of Christ is the rock which is Origens opinion The third that Peters faith or confeffion is the rock which is Chrysostoms iudgement The fourth which is his owne and therefore he calleth it the perfecte sense is that Peter concerning his office in Gods Church through the promise of Christ which is past and the faithfull confession of his Godhead which is presently made and the power of feeding his Sheepe which then was to come is this Rocke vpon which the Church is builte Heere I wishe the reader to note that the Papiste reiecteth three senses of three seuerall auncient writers and maketh the fourth him selfe that you may see with what equitie they exclaime againste vs if vppon neuer so good ground we departe from the interpretation of the auncient Fathers But nowe let vs see what reasons hee hath to confute these three Doctors oppinions as vnsufficient interpretations Firste he sayeth If Augustines sense were true all the three other shoulde be voyde In deede his owne sense vnderstanding Peter to be a singular Rocke more then the other Apostles is made voyde thereby as it is false But the other two may stande very well well with Augustines meaning for hee meaneth not Christe barely but Christe whome Peter and euery true Disciple of Fayth confesseth to be the rocke of the Church Neither doth the worde thou hinder this sense Seeing Augustine vnderstandeth Peter to be a denominatiue a Petra of the stone nor the woorde I will builde for notwithstanding he hadde begunn to builde his Church before yet hee woulde builde stil and that more magnificall then before The sence of Origine hee reiecteth as not literall vppon which I will not stande The sense of Chrysostome hee refuseth sayinge the Fayth of Peter is not the onely Rocke wherevpon the Churche shall be builded for then it had beene buylte vppon the Fayth of Iohn Baptiste before this time A pythy argumente as though there is any more then one Fayth Ephesians 4. verse 5. whiche is the same in Peter and in Iohn and in all the other Apostles the same I saye in kinde not in number Neither did Chrysostome meane that the singulare Fayth of Peter were the Rock of the Church but the same one Fayth and confession embraced of euery member thereof That he sayeth I will builde whereas hee had already begunne to builde and did then presently build What inconuenience is it but in a quarrellers minde Hee speaketh of the Future tenses to signifie the great amplyfication of his Church which he woulde make by the preaching of the Apostles But of all senses Maister Saunder lyketh his owne beste asperfect and contayning all the other therein For first sayth he if Peter be the Rocke then Christe that made him is much more as the geeuer and authour of his power But I deny that Christe did giue the same that he is him self that is to be the onely singular foundaâ—ion Rocke and corner stone of his Church Secondly he sayth if Peter in respecte of his confession be a Rock then his confession is a Rocke But then say I they that make the same confession are as much a Rock as he Thirdely he sayth if Peter beeing captaine Disciple of all that euer were be a Rock then all other Disciples that are contayned in him as in y e chiefe may also be this Rock Who had thought Peter had bene such an vniuersal thing to containe al disciples in him Doth not this containe manifest blasphemie to make all Disciples contained in Peter whiche are contayned onely in Christe as the members in their mystirall body whereof hee onely is chiefe heade Soueraigne Captaine or what other name of superioritie can bee deuised But nowe that hee hath
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
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
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
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
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
propitiatory sacrifice of Christes death once offred by which one oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Heb. 10. The auctor of this sacrifice which is the Pope he is in deede Antichrist the sonne of perdition But Maister Sander for proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse alleageth the prophecie of Malachie cap. 1. with 16. fonde comparisons of the defectes of the Iewes and the perfection of the Gentiles which he affirmeth to be the vniforme interpretation of the auncient fathers of whom no one denyeth the body and blood of Christ to be here ment albeit some of them expoundeth this prophecy of prayers and inwarde righteousnes which are alwayes ioyned with the vnbloody sacrifice I aunswer no one of the auncient fathers vnderstandeth this prophecy of the sacrifice of Christes body and blood otherwise then of a sacrifice of prayse and thankes giuing for proofe whereof I must referre the reader to myne aunswer to M. Heskins lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. 35. 36. where he shall finde the places of the Doctors set downe which are by M. Sander in place onely quoted But one other straunge reason of M. Sander to proue the sacrament of the Lords supper to be a sacrifice propitiatory I may not omit because I remember not that I haue reade it before Euery publike and externall facte which is made by Gods authoritie to put vs in minde of that greaâ— sacrifice once fulfilled on the crosse mâ—sâ—e also be partaker of the nature of that Sacrifice whereof it is a remembraunce As if the killing of a Calfe which signifyed the death of Christe was an externall sacrifice how infinitely more shall the body and blood of Christ beeing made of bread and wine to signifie his owne death be a publike and external sacrifice This reason M. Sander maketh no small account of But how beastly an absurditie his principle is you shall easily perceiue if you consider that Baptisme is a publike and externall fact made by Gods authoritie to put vs in minde of the death and bloodshedding of Christ yet no man was euer so mad to say baptisme is a sacrifice Againe the Calfe that was killed was by Gods appointment a sacrifice of the only singular sacrifice of Christes death not by vertue of the signification for the Iewes had other ceremonies then sacrifices which did signifie the death of Christ But the Lords supper is not by Gods appointment a sacrifice therefore the signification cannot make it so The 8. mark of the false prophets of Antichrist is to spoyle Christ of his inheritance which God gaue him in all nations as the Protestants doe VVhich for 8. or 9. huÌ„dreth yeres can not shew any nation town or village church or chappel in the wide worlde where they had publike prayer I answere seeing the spirit speaketh expressely of a generall Apostacy and of the flying of the Church into the desert it is no more derogation to the inheritaunce of Christ that his Church among many nations was in persecution vnder Antichrist for 7. or 8. huÌ„dreth yeeres then that the same was in persecutioÌ„ vnder the heathen Emperors for 300. yeeres and more For the nations were then the inheritance of Christ in as glorious wise as when the Church flourished in outward peace vnder the ChristiaÌ„ Emperours Yet was there townes countryes not only in Fraunce Italie and Germany but also in the east parte of the worlde great nations among w c Christ had a visible Church which were neuer subiecte to the church of Rome If M. S. reply that they held some errors which we deny as prayer for the dead c. I answere holding the onely foundation Iesus Christe they might be true Christians although they were infected with some such errors as these The 9. Mark of Antichrist is intollerable pride to make him selfe iudge of the sence of Gods word and of the text also I allowe this marke it agreeth to none that euer was so aptly as to the Pope whom the Papistes affirme that he caÌ„ not erre in the sence of the Scripture who affirme that he hath auctoritie to receaue reiect what bookes of Scripture he wil. But M. SaÌ„der saith this note agreeth to vs and that we make our selues iudges of the sense of Gods word and of the text But we vtterly deny that for we make the spirit of God in his worde iudge of the interpretation No sayth M. Sander bringeth an exaÌ„ple of these word's of S. Paul He that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doth well and he that ioyneth her not doth better Here vpon saith he we grounde this doctrine Virginitie is a better state and more acceptable to God then the state of mariage This we graunt in some respect as the Apostle speaketh but not simpyl The question is of these words he doth better what is ment thereby M. Sander chargeth vs to say that S. Paule meaneth he doth better in the sight of the worlde which is an impudentlye and therefore al his foolish dialogisme is a fighting with his owne shadow Beza expouÌ„deth he doth better that is more commodiously not in respect of the worlde but in respect of godlines for the reasons before alleaged by S. Paul S. Paul him selfe is auctor of this interpretatioÌ„ verse 35. of that 7. chap. 1. Cor. This I say for your commodity when he exhorteth to virginity And that his purpose was not absolutely and simply to preferr virginity aboue mariage as a thing of it selfe more acceptable to God it is plaine by these words First he saith of virgines I haue no commaundement of the Lorde But he hath a commaundement to preferre those things that are most acceptable to the Lord. Secondly he sayth I suppose this to be good for the present necessity by which words he doth emply that it is not alwaies absolutly better but at somtimes in some respectes for them that haue the gift of continence and for none other So we holde virginity to be better then mariage according to the meaning of the best auncient writers whereof some were too great extollers of virginitie yet not like the Papistes But M. Sander sayeth the Protestantes make them selues Iudges not only of the meaning of Gods worde but also of the bookes them selues For they reiect not only the book of wisdom Tobie the Machabees with other such bookes but also the Epistle of S. Iames. Nay rather the Pope is Antichrist for receauing these books of Wisedom Tobie Machabees w c were neuer receaued of the church of the Israelits nor of the vniuersalchurch of Christ for Canonicall Scripture as I haue often shewed And as touching y e Epistle of S. Iames it is a shamelesse slaunder of him to say that the Protestantes reiect it but we must heare his reason First Luther calleth it a strawen Epistle So Luther called the Pope supreame heade of the church and the Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie if Protestantes be charged to holde
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
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
diuinitie Hosius sayth that this commaundement of Christe Drinke ye all of this beeing vnderstoode doth appertaine vnto laye men contrary to their Churches determination is the expresse worde of the Deuill And for departing from the faith of the Fathers c. I aunswere it is false there is but one true Faith of all true Christians in al times from which wee will neuer departe although wee haue departed from some erroneous opinions of some fathers which because they are contrary to the woorde of God by hearing whereof Faith commeth they deserue not the name of Faith Finally whereas hee sayth the authoritie of the Church is the onely witnesse of all canonicall Scriptures it is vntrue For although he should meane not the popish Sinagogue butthe true catholike church of Christ yet is it not the onely witnesse of the Scriptures For euen the Iewish Synagogue is witnesse of the olde testament and many sectes of heresies of all the scripture beside that the spirit of God is the chiefe and principall witnes of all which speaketh so euidently in allthe canonical scripture that if all mē on earth should refuse to giue credite vnto them yet his maiestie alone is sufficient to get credite vnto them especially with all those whome he teacheth inwardly in heart as he speaketh sensibly to their eares The last argument is That in place of all Religion and goodnes which they haue remoued deuising a new Gospel of their foresaid onely vaine fayth which teacheth all sinnes all heresies to presume of saluation What can bee more impudent or false then this slaunder seeing God and the worlde knoweth that wee teach none other Faith but the fayth of the Gospell which worketh by loue and promiseth remission of sinnes and saluation to none but such as earnestly repent and are willing to remoue all heresie and to imbrace all true Christian Religion and goodnesse God be praysed A DISCOVERY OF THE DAVNGEROVS ROCKE OF THE POPISH CHVRCH lately commended by Nicholas Sanders D. in diuinitie at which the Catholike Church of Christ hath bene in perill of shipwracke these many hundreth yeares By W. Fulke D. in diuinitie THE eternal rocke of the vniuersal Church Christ was the rocke an other foundation no man is able to put 1. Cor. 3. 10. The temporall rocke of the Militant Church Thou art Peter vpon this rocke I will build my Church Mat. 16. SPaule speaketh manifestly 1. Cor. 3. of building of the Church Militant and Christ Mat. 16. speaketh of an eternall rocke against the which the gates of hell shall not preuayle Therefore your distinction of eternall and temporall vniuersall and militant which is the foundation of all your rotten rocke is an impudent and blasphemous falshood Of the continuance of your temporall rocke it is in vaine to contende when your rocke is nothing els but an heape of sande and dunge whereon your popishe Church is builded To the right worshipfull M. Doctor Parker bearing the Saunder name of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to all other Protestants in the Realme of England Nicolas Sander wisheth perfect faith and charitie in our Lorde declaring in this preface that the Catholikes whome they call Papistes doe passe the Protestants in all maner of signes or markes of Christes true Church Concerning the omission of titles accustomed to be giuen to the Archbishop of Canterbury for which you excuse your selfe I thinke M. D. Parker while he liued did not much esteeme them giuen to him by any man and least of all looked to receyue them at suche mens handes as you are but touching the religion church whereof he was a minister I will aunswer you in his behalfe and of all other ministers and members thereof that no excuse will serue you vpon so slender reasons as you bringe to condemne the same of schisme and heresie nor to defend that Synagogue of Satan wherof you professe your selfe to be a Champion to be the vndefiled Church and spouse of Christ. For thinke you M. Sanders that we wil more mislike the Church of Christ persecuted by the hypocriticall crueltie of Antichrist for the space of 5. or 6. hundreth yeares before our age then we do the same persecuted by the furious rage of Heathenish tyrantes for 300. yeares after the first planting of the same amonge the Gentills And thinke you if we are now to learne that all that glory and bright shining of Christes Church promised by the Prophets is spirituall and not carnall heauenly and not earthly eternal not transitory Or that we know not your synagogue to be the very contrary kingdome and sea of Antichrist euen by that outward glory and glistering pompe of open shewe that you boast of according to the prophecy of Christ in the reuelation Apoc. 13. 17. And as for the citie built vpon an hill whereof you haue neuer doone babling by the playne context of the Gospel is not the whole Church but euery true pastor and minister thereof who are also the light of the worlde the salt of the earth and a candle set on a candlesticke to giue light not hiden vnder a bushell to be vnprofitable Mat. 5. And Christ hath alwayes bene with his Church although the Church of Rome be departed from him and he both liueth raigneth for euer ouer the house of Iacob though he be persecuted in his mēbers by the whore of Babylon and his name is great amonge the Gentilles from the Sunne rising to the going downe thereof notwithstanding that all nations haue dronke of the cuppe of her fornications The prophecyes of Gods spirit doe not one of them ouerthrow the other but the one sheweth how the other is to be vnderstanded And whereas you say our Church hath bene vnder a bushell before these fiftie yeares because no historie maketh mention of any congregation professing our faith in any townes or places of diuers cōtryes at once I aunswer this is as true as all your doctrine beside For all auncient histories that write of the state of the primitiue Church make mention of the same faith which we professe And although towarde the reuelation of Antichrist the puritie of the faith beganne to be polluted yet the substance thereof continued vntill by Antichrist that great defection apostasie was made wherof the Apostle prophecyeth 2. Thess. 2. 3. And yet euen in the tyme of that a postasie many histories make mention of the continuance of our faith and Church in diuers contryes in Europe namely England Fraunce Italy or although vnder cruell persecution and tyranny beside great nations of the East which neuer submitted them selues to the Church of Rome and yet retayned the substance of Christian faith and profession though not without particular errors and superstition Wherefore although they that were blind or farre of from the Church of Christ could not see her glory although she had bene set vpon neuer so high an hill no more then a citie built vpon the Alpes can